Converting V6 STOL to lycoming?

[nichzimmerman]

Merry Christmas folks.
my new years resolution is to procure a 4-place high-wing experimental for under $20k. (anyone have a lead on one?) I am looking at a javelin v6 STOL that is part of an estate sale. It has not been flown in about 10 years, and the original enngine and many accessories are included in the sale, but they have been sitting around a hangar for about 20 years. So my question is, how hard is it to convert a v6 back to lycoming power? The original engine was an o-290 but I would rather run an o-320 on it. Is the engine mount and cowling different? What else would I want to know before jumping into this? As a point of reference, I have owned a PA-22/20 before and loved it I also have a small amount of experience in home building. Thanks.

Happy new year,
Nic

[jlatham]

I wonder how many of us are looking at that sale! You've got a great question, because I know the conversion to a V6 Javelin requires the Ford engine (according to pilotfriend.com/experimental/acft7/30.htm). I'd like to see what anyone knows about going back to a certified engine.

[stevesaircraft(Bri)]

Figure on replacing everything firewall forward, mount cowling and all...... I know a guy who had a V6 on the front of a Experimental super cub that he replaced with a 540..... The V6 just never ran right for him and was not enough power... Unfortunately he recently lost his battle with cancer so that airplane will probably be coming up for sale soon...

Brian

[Steve Pierce]

I have a friend in Oklahoma who bought a 2+2 with a Ford V-6. he took it off and installed an O-520. Lotta work but he is happy with the results. Note that the 2+2 is not really a 4 place. It is copied after the Piper PA14 which is a lot narrower than the Pacer or Tri=Pacer. I know of another 2+2 that was made into a tandem with an O-360 and a constant speed prop.

[Stephen]

Is there a Javilen VSTOL design that is based on the Pacer? I was thinking it was a slightly stretched Pacer wing, with large flaps. With a good engine it would be a great plane. A 2 + 2, PA 14, like Steve says is a bit cozy.

[nichzimmerman]

This particular project includes the stock firewall forward package, including an o-290. I having been stored for a couple of decades, this engine would obviously not be usable right away. But if the stock engine mount is included, can an o-320 be mounted on it? How similar is the cowling for the o-320? If this project can be done in a hundred hours or so I might make an offer.

[Steve Pierce]

Same mount and cowling, baffles are a little different.

[pistoncan]

I have most of the original literature for the javlin ford. It used a tri pacer fuselage extended 24 inches with 18 inch extended wings, and a jungmeister type landing gear attached at the original tricycle points.

The v6 was pretty heavy, but you will be removing the radiator and related plumbing which will help. don't see why you couldn't use the 290 mount with a 320 or even a 360.

[Southern Aero]

Nic

.....Happy New Year guys! ........... we made it thru another one.......

Like Steve says engine mount and cowling same. Just rework the mechanicals, plumbing and electrical. Might need to avoid light weight starters and alternators just because of the weight loss for CG purposes after having stretched the tail. ....... or you can extend the mount slightly to get CG back in range... but then you have to deal with making up a new cowl. The Javelin wasn't the "cleanest" conversion but did work. The gear is a little wimpy at that angle, would suggest you change to the extended Super Cub type gear. The advantage you have is that you are already experimental and can make changes you see fit. Its getting more difficult to get a "stretched Pacer" thru certification these days with the many different interpretations of the FAAs 51% rule........ mostly on the east coast. There was a nice looking Javelin that recently sold on Barnstormers for under 20K flying...... was in NV I think. I considered looking at it to upgrade it to an O-360 but too far away and I already have 2 underway................ too many projects!

Good luck with it.

[nichzimmerman]

Update: I bought the airplane in question and am waiting for it to arrive in the mail. Meanwhile, I'm engine shopping. It looks like the V6 modifications allowed for a gross weight increase to 2200 lbs. An O-320 FWF package might be a little small for that weight, assuming I want marginally good STOL. Plus, it will be a LOT lighter than the V6 which could give rise to W&B issues. I'm looking at used O-360s with C/S props. If I went this route, would there be any use at all for the stock cowling and engine mount or should I just accept the fact that I will have to fabricate everything FWF? We are moving out of town in August and I would like to have this project flying by then.

On landing gear, I understand the Trimmer mod requires substantial modification/fabrication and is probably best done in conjunction with a restoration, or at least new fuselage fabric. How quick is the univair mod? Thanks.

[Gilbert Pierce]

If I remember correctly some C172's had a GWT. of 2305 lbs. and 160hp.

[pistoncan]

Nich,
Congratulations on your purchase. Ive followed Blanton since he first came up with it, and I would suspect the 2200 lbs gross would be mostly due to the iron engine and water cooling system. It would be more than I would want, but thats just me.

Sans the raven engine (good riddance) you are looking at a aircraft alot like a producer.

Blanton moved the radiator to the rear expressly due to the heavy engine. (IMO)

If it were me doing it, I think I would try a stock O290/O320 mount with the constant speed (which isn;t light) Weigh it, and see how the numbers come out, having removed the radiator and all the related plumbing. Without seeing what has been done, I can;t imagine not having to recover at least part of the fuselage.

I doubt any of the cowling would be useable, except maybe the nose bowl? unless it can be cut down.

Again, If it were me, Id concern myself with the engine mod and leave the landing gear (assuming its done in a workman like manner) till you get moved. The wheels and tires are in the same place no matter which landing gear you use. I doubt it would change the CG very much.

Id love to see pictures of what you have if you can send some to topsaddle@att.net