Date   

Fiberglass Condition?

 

Took some closeup pictures of the Quickie I am looking at rescuing ...



What's your take?

Next step ... Tapping all around looking for delaminations. Any volunteers 😉

Thanks for everyone's interest and feedback, fellas like a great community to grow into and get to know.
--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

One Sky Dog
 

Apples and oranges. 2000 hr TBO refers to the bottom end. Cylinders are routinely replaced many times before an “overhaul”

Lots of engine failures are the result of maintenance induced failures (MIF) both certified and auto conversions. Most auto conversion failures are the systems supporting the engine; fuel, ecu, reduction drives etc.

Duty cycle has a lot to do with it to the VW heads were designed to dissipate 28 hp with a safety factor of 2 so 56 hp of heat dissipation is the ultimate limit. VW converters were selling 60+hp conversions with the 5 minute WOT climb limit. No wonder they only lasted 500 hrs.

My shared Cessna has over 2400 hours on it since overhaul but has had countless cylinders changed that do not count. Log book entry everything is fine.

My Lycoming failed because several A&P IA’s overlooked changing oil lines for 30 years MIF. But it had several cylinder changes over the years also.

My Corvair had 75 hrs on it before vapor locking the Ellison TBI during a 5000 ft climb. Not the engines fault but mine for the FWF design. I made a design mistake.

Everything I have ever flown has tried to kill me, and most people get killed behind certified engines. 



On Sunday, April 17, 2022, 2:47 PM, Ryszard Zadow <ryszardzadow@...> wrote:

Show me any auto engine conversion that made it to 2000 hours. 

Auto engines don’t fly. Everyone i’ve known or heard of that’s tried went down one of three paths:  

1) Eventually went back to a Continental or Lycoming and flew happily ever after, 

2) It became a hangar queen. 

3) It killed them. 

Ryszard 

On Apr 17, 2022, at 16:40, britmcman99 via groups.io <britmcman@...> wrote:


No. No. No. Revmaster is a very well engineered adaptation from few Volkswagen components with aviation born crankcase, forged crankshaft design. Sharing cylinder and pistons, con rods, Revmaster is very well thought out adaptation. Weaknesses in early magnesium crank cases have been mitigated with an alloy crank case with a 7 pound penalty. Notwithstanding, the current state of the art is likely the best offering of all other aero engines based upon Volkswagen components. 


On Apr 17, 2022, at 1:05 PM, ryan goodman via groups.io <elboy0712@...> wrote:

We are putting an aeromomentum am15 ok our TriQ. 


On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 13:53, Robert Cringely
<bob@...> wrote:
Revmaster is a car conversion, no?

On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 3:41 PM Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:

[Edited Message Follows]

Curious what modern engines people have put on their Q2s for upgrades? What else beside an O-200?
How about a Rotax 912ULS?
How about a UL260?
Which car conversion engines have been popular with the Quickie community?

Yes I know this is a controversial topic with the hard core aviator but please humor me and share what people have used, not your thoughts on how good or bad a car conversion is ;-)

Thanks Robert
--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Re: Q2 Rescue Project

Jim Patillo
 

Hey Robert, I look forward to meeting you in the next month or so to look over those airplane bones you are thinking about.  
The reason you got the reaction you did, is some of us have been in Quickie World for a very long time. We’ve seen it all. It seems every couple of years we get newbies pop up on this list and want to start reinventing the Quickie. That’s fine but it may be a hard sell here. We have 3 types of people in this group. 

  1.  Pilots that have extensive mechanical knowledge, just want to follow the plans  and build the nicest plane they can. These people finish and fly regularly. 
  2. Pilots that think cheap, are attracted to Quickies and are perpetually looking for cheap and only want to buy cheap.  They are usually not builders or pilots. 
  3. Pilots that like the Quickie look but would really rather reinvent the guts of the plane. They are usually builders and not flyers. They spend years on their projects, and more years on their projects until they get to old and quit. 
We’ve found the 0200 engine to be very reliable and hard to kill. They work, period. My 0200 has never let me down. Paul Spackman tested and proved the 6-cylinder Jabiru engine (we ran together in Laughlin) The Jab-6 wasn't as fast as  my pumped 0200. Jon Finley tested and proved the Suburu  but spent many years doing so. These designs and engines take a long time and as Jay said, require a higher skill set. 

If your objective is to fly a Q sooner than later, stick with proven, reliable engines. 

Regards,
Jim

N46JP - Q200
1,856 hours 


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Robert Schmid <robert@...>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 12:22:36 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q2 Rescue Project
 
Thanks Jay, I'll reach out to Martin.
--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

ryan goodman
 

I'm going to chime in here. The absolutist answers are not helpful to conversation or evolution of technology. And to be frank, the representation of aircraft engines as being so damn reliable, is not very genuine. Even more so when you push the idea of TBOs. The main differentiator here is the fact that the traditional aircraft engines have mostly consistent installs and 70 years or more to work out their kinks. UL is a perfect example of a new aircraft engine, and they have experienced more than their fair share of failures to try and get to a safer more consistently reliable product. Ryzard, you are making general statements about failures while negating specific statements about successes. Im not sure how that holds up as an argument. Though I agree with you that there are far more failures in conversation than successes, we are almost exclusively talking about individuals putting together some unique set of components to create their own unique install. This is not the same as taking a core engine product and going through the engineering process to adapt it with proper planning, testing and execution. That said, there have been those who have also pretended to do these things and sold products that left their unknowing purchasers to act as test pilots, often to terrible results. The willingness of those in this community to get wide eyed and believe hype in the interest of saving a few dollars or feeling like you are some sort of innovator is very real and gets preyed upon far too often. At the end of the day, I personally believe that the best way to handle these conversation is to not stifle the questions or the pursuit, but to provide real world examples of successes and failures and to encourage proper sourcing of platforms, components and support systems based on real world requirements, and then to provide good advice on how the community can support effective engineering and testing to ensure that solutions are actually functional and well tested. The idea that we would only ever put faith in the technology of our great grandparents because it has a long track record is not helpful for the evolution of the industry. But at the same time, failure to encourage and mentor good engineering and testing practices will full on lead to both dangerous and discouraging results more often than is good. That too will hurt the industry. We have to support good practices in development, not just known good quantities. But ultimately, I think the idea that stifling conversation and discourse on things that still demand work and improvement is not helpful to anyone. Even outside the core of the unique conversation it only serves to tell people they cant ask question and explore their curiosities. I will say out loud that as an engineering manager for a major defense firm, if I had any employee that tried to silence ideas(no matter how off beat), they would be in my office before the meeting was over. We value discourse and evolution of thought through collaboration, not the continued pushing of old ideas, at the expense of creativity and good hard engineering. Sometimes you end up right back at the old tried and true solution, but more often than not better things present themselves. Remember, all the craziest stuff we have done as a species, often started with a massive amount of very large, very public failures. Perhaps we should have just abandoned those ideas at the first signs of trouble. 

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022, 10:02:18 AM MDT, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:


Ryszard. Did you even read my note?

Cheers,
Jay

-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ryszard Zadow
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:48 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Modern Engines on Q2?

You guys keep pointing out one success here, one success there. Once again, exceptions don’t change the rule. I agree It IS a personal preference just like smoking cigarettes is personal preference. Some people have smoked all their life and lived to be a 100, thise are the exceptions BUT, the facts prove smoking kills people. If that’s your preference fine but it’s disingenuous to proclaim auto engines are  a good choice when the facts prove otherwise.

RZ

> On Apr 19, 2022, at 10:28, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Not to weigh in on the automotive vs. aircraft engine issue, but the main concern you should have will be the installation of any engine you choose.
>
> If a particular engine has been installed before on the Q2, and hopefully numerous times, there should be some detailed firewall forward plans. If you cannot lay your hands on plans, you are basically on your own.
>
> I have a Jabiru in my Tri-Q2, but I was jump started on my installation by using the same engine mount made by the same guy that made Paul Spackman's (from Paul's original design), so at least I had that to get me going. I had to manually engineer everything else, including water cooled installation, wiring, controls, cowl mods, etc. This takes time and to a certain extent some additional skills.
>
> The original QAC plans exist and  are easy to follow for the Revmaster, and the O-200. These are very detailed, right down to the baffling templates. Many people have installed them and are accessible and willing to help advise you. I would not go too far away from those engines, if you are wanting to get the project back in the air relatively soon.
>
> Cheers,
> Jay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Walterson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:09 AM
> To: main@Q-List.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [Q-List] Modern Engines on Q2?
>
>  Robert---------  John Finley had a 2.2 Subaru in his Q2. I have a 2.5 Subaru Direct drive turbocharged in my Q200. A few fellows have the 912.
>
> I have a Dragonfly with the 1.8 Subaru turbocharged.  600 hrs on the engine. Cost about $3000 to build twenty years ago.
>
>  I have about $6,000 into the Q200 engine..  I'm not cheap, but frugal.  They are all personal preferences.
>
>  Keeping  the "mental" in experimental--------------  Chris
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>














Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

Jay Scheevel
 

Ryszard. Did you even read my note?

Cheers,
Jay

-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ryszard Zadow
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:48 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Modern Engines on Q2?

You guys keep pointing out one success here, one success there. Once again, exceptions don’t change the rule. I agree It IS a personal preference just like smoking cigarettes is personal preference. Some people have smoked all their life and lived to be a 100, thise are the exceptions BUT, the facts prove smoking kills people. If that’s your preference fine but it’s disingenuous to proclaim auto engines are a good choice when the facts prove otherwise.

RZ

On Apr 19, 2022, at 10:28, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Richard,

Not to weigh in on the automotive vs. aircraft engine issue, but the main concern you should have will be the installation of any engine you choose.

If a particular engine has been installed before on the Q2, and hopefully numerous times, there should be some detailed firewall forward plans. If you cannot lay your hands on plans, you are basically on your own.

I have a Jabiru in my Tri-Q2, but I was jump started on my installation by using the same engine mount made by the same guy that made Paul Spackman's (from Paul's original design), so at least I had that to get me going. I had to manually engineer everything else, including water cooled installation, wiring, controls, cowl mods, etc. This takes time and to a certain extent some additional skills.

The original QAC plans exist and are easy to follow for the Revmaster, and the O-200. These are very detailed, right down to the baffling templates. Many people have installed them and are accessible and willing to help advise you. I would not go too far away from those engines, if you are wanting to get the project back in the air relatively soon.

Cheers,
Jay

-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Walterson
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:09 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Modern Engines on Q2?

Robert--------- John Finley had a 2.2 Subaru in his Q2. I have a 2.5 Subaru Direct drive turbocharged in my Q200. A few fellows have the 912.

I have a Dragonfly with the 1.8 Subaru turbocharged. 600 hrs on the engine. Cost about $3000 to build twenty years ago.

I have about $6,000 into the Q200 engine.. I'm not cheap, but frugal. They are all personal preferences.

Keeping the "mental" in experimental-------------- Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus













Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

Bruce Crain
 

I am with Ryzard and Rick on this topic. Experience and observations of others speaks volumes. You want to fly make it as simple and as tested by professionals as you can.
Bruce

On Apr 19, 2022, at 10:28 AM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Richard,

Not to weigh in on the automotive vs. aircraft engine issue, but the main concern you should have will be the installation of any engine you choose.

If a particular engine has been installed before on the Q2, and hopefully numerous times, there should be some detailed firewall forward plans. If you cannot lay your hands on plans, you are basically on your own.

I have a Jabiru in my Tri-Q2, but I was jump started on my installation by using the same engine mount made by the same guy that made Paul Spackman's (from Paul's original design), so at least I had that to get me going. I had to manually engineer everything else, including water cooled installation, wiring, controls, cowl mods, etc. This takes time and to a certain extent some additional skills.

The original QAC plans exist and are easy to follow for the Revmaster, and the O-200. These are very detailed, right down to the baffling templates. Many people have installed them and are accessible and willing to help advise you. I would not go too far away from those engines, if you are wanting to get the project back in the air relatively soon.

Cheers,
Jay

-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Walterson
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:09 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Modern Engines on Q2?

Robert--------- John Finley had a 2.2 Subaru in his Q2. I have a 2.5 Subaru Direct drive turbocharged in my Q200. A few fellows have the 912.

I have a Dragonfly with the 1.8 Subaru turbocharged. 600 hrs on the engine. Cost about $3000 to build twenty years ago.

I have about $6,000 into the Q200 engine.. I'm not cheap, but frugal. They are all personal preferences.

Keeping the "mental" in experimental-------------- Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus














Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

Ryszard Zadow
 

You guys keep pointing out one success here, one success there. Once again, exceptions don’t change the rule. I agree It IS a personal preference just like smoking cigarettes is personal preference. Some people have smoked all their life and lived to be a 100, thise are the exceptions BUT, the facts prove smoking kills people. If that’s your preference fine but it’s disingenuous to proclaim auto engines are a good choice when the facts prove otherwise.

RZ

On Apr 19, 2022, at 10:28, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Richard,

Not to weigh in on the automotive vs. aircraft engine issue, but the main concern you should have will be the installation of any engine you choose.

If a particular engine has been installed before on the Q2, and hopefully numerous times, there should be some detailed firewall forward plans. If you cannot lay your hands on plans, you are basically on your own.

I have a Jabiru in my Tri-Q2, but I was jump started on my installation by using the same engine mount made by the same guy that made Paul Spackman's (from Paul's original design), so at least I had that to get me going. I had to manually engineer everything else, including water cooled installation, wiring, controls, cowl mods, etc. This takes time and to a certain extent some additional skills.

The original QAC plans exist and are easy to follow for the Revmaster, and the O-200. These are very detailed, right down to the baffling templates. Many people have installed them and are accessible and willing to help advise you. I would not go too far away from those engines, if you are wanting to get the project back in the air relatively soon.

Cheers,
Jay

-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Walterson
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:09 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Modern Engines on Q2?

Robert--------- John Finley had a 2.2 Subaru in his Q2. I have a 2.5 Subaru Direct drive turbocharged in my Q200. A few fellows have the 912.

I have a Dragonfly with the 1.8 Subaru turbocharged. 600 hrs on the engine. Cost about $3000 to build twenty years ago.

I have about $6,000 into the Q200 engine.. I'm not cheap, but frugal. They are all personal preferences.

Keeping the "mental" in experimental-------------- Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus













Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

Jay Scheevel
 

Hi Richard,

Not to weigh in on the automotive vs. aircraft engine issue, but the main concern you should have will be the installation of any engine you choose.

If a particular engine has been installed before on the Q2, and hopefully numerous times, there should be some detailed firewall forward plans. If you cannot lay your hands on plans, you are basically on your own.

I have a Jabiru in my Tri-Q2, but I was jump started on my installation by using the same engine mount made by the same guy that made Paul Spackman's (from Paul's original design), so at least I had that to get me going. I had to manually engineer everything else, including water cooled installation, wiring, controls, cowl mods, etc. This takes time and to a certain extent some additional skills.

The original QAC plans exist and are easy to follow for the Revmaster, and the O-200. These are very detailed, right down to the baffling templates. Many people have installed them and are accessible and willing to help advise you. I would not go too far away from those engines, if you are wanting to get the project back in the air relatively soon.

Cheers,
Jay

-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Walterson
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:09 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Modern Engines on Q2?

Robert--------- John Finley had a 2.2 Subaru in his Q2. I have a 2.5 Subaru Direct drive turbocharged in my Q200. A few fellows have the 912.

I have a Dragonfly with the 1.8 Subaru turbocharged. 600 hrs on the engine. Cost about $3000 to build twenty years ago.

I have about $6,000 into the Q200 engine.. I'm not cheap, but frugal. They are all personal preferences.

Keeping the "mental" in experimental-------------- Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

Bill Allen
 

It seems to me that you got the info you asked for? 😊

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 17:18, Chris Walterson <dkeats@...> wrote:
  I don't want to get into an argument, but  bashing auto engines is not
helpfull. I have four airplanes. One with an airplane engine and three
with auto convertions. I feel very comfortable flying behind an auto
conversion.

Go to youtube and check out Russel Sherwood Glasair. Thousand hrs so
far, 250 MPH on 202 Cubic inches. He beets most airplane engines twice
his size.

  SDS ignition has a really good web site  that has lots of info on auto
engines, and refutes the mith that auto engines will not stand up.

  It's all personal preference.------------- Love my
Subaru's------------------  Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus






--


Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

Chris Walterson
 

I don't want to get into an argument, but  bashing auto engines is not helpfull. I have four airplanes. One with an airplane engine and three with auto convertions. I feel very comfortable flying behind an auto conversion.

Go to youtube and check out Russel Sherwood Glasair. Thousand hrs so far, 250 MPH on 202 Cubic inches. He beets most airplane engines twice his size.

 SDS ignition has a really good web site  that has lots of info on auto engines, and refutes the mith that auto engines will not stand up.

 It's all personal preference.------------- Love my Subaru's------------------  Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

Chris Walterson
 

Robert---------  John Finley had a 2.2 Subaru in his Q2. I have a 2.5 Subaru Direct drive turbocharged in my Q200. A few fellows have the 912.

I have a Dragonfly with the 1.8 Subaru turbocharged.  600 hrs on the engine. Cost about $3000 to build twenty years ago.

 I have about $6,000 into the Q200 engine..  I'm not cheap, but frugal.   They are all personal preferences.

 Keeping  the "mental" in experimental--------------  Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

Ryszard Zadow
 

No one’s bashing auto engine. We’re just discussing reality. 

RZ 

On Apr 19, 2022, at 02:20, Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:

Why does this question always have to become religious!?!? I made it clear in my initial ask NOT to bash car conversion engines and yet some here can't help themselves.
If this would be a FB group I'd delete these posts that don't answer my original question. But instead I'll ask you to please keep your engine bashings in other posts!

For all the ones that listed engines used, THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT!!!
--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Re: Q2 Rescue Project

 

Thanks Jay, I'll reach out to Martin.
--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

 

Why does this question always have to become religious!?!? I made it clear in my initial ask NOT to bash car conversion engines and yet some here can't help themselves.
If this would be a FB group I'd delete these posts that don't answer my original question. But instead I'll ask you to please keep your engine bashings in other posts!

For all the ones that listed engines used, THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT!!!
--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

Fredd Baber
 

When we say “auto engines” are including things like Great Plaines VW conversions as well?  Engines that are already air cooled?  
Thanks!

Fredd Baber


On Apr 19, 2022, at 12:55 AM, Rick Hole via groups.io <r.hole@...> wrote:



In my years at Velocity I worked with many builders and observed many more.  Those who chose auto engines took at least three extra years in the installation and debugging.  When they were ¨plowing new ground there was nobody they could call for help.  Certainly not the manufacturer.  They will claim liability issues and give no help.  The more computer dependent the engine was the more difficult to get it running.  Cooling was always a huge problem.  In an auto a big radiator and several gallons of coolant is no big deal.  On an airplane it is an issue.

One builder prided himself on his own design ignition system.  I worked so well on the ground.  On first flight it killed him.

One friend has been twenty years on his diesel project just on the engine.

If a builder has a passion for engine work, the time to pursue it, and is willing to his himself and family, the choice is his.  I would not go that route myself.

I will say I have seen a few installations with several hundred hours on them.  And more that have been converted back to conventional aircraft engines.

 

Rick Hole


Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

Rick Hole
 

In my years at Velocity I worked with many builders and observed many more.  Those who chose auto engines took at least three extra years in the installation and debugging.  When they were ¨plowing new ground there was nobody they could call for help.  Certainly not the manufacturer.  They will claim liability issues and give no help.  The more computer dependent the engine was the more difficult to get it running.  Cooling was always a huge problem.  In an auto a big radiator and several gallons of coolant is no big deal.  On an airplane it is an issue.

One builder prided himself on his own design ignition system.  I worked so well on the ground.  On first flight it killed him.

One friend has been twenty years on his diesel project just on the engine.

If a builder has a passion for engine work, the time to pursue it, and is willing to his himself and family, the choice is his.  I would not go that route myself.

I will say I have seen a few installations with several hundred hours on them.  And more that have been converted back to conventional aircraft engines.

 

Rick Hole


Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

Ryszard Zadow
 

Exceptions don’t change the rule. Auto engnes don’t fly… I’ll go one step further…auto engines are dream killers. There’s no telling how many have wasted significant amounts of time wishing they were flying while struggling to make an auto conversion work. We have a Defiant that will never fly again because the builder was trying to use Mazda engines. He struggled so much that eventually he gave up. A lifetime of effort wasted when he could’ve been flying and enjoying his dream had he not been led down a path that somehow those Mazda engines would be superior .  When we learned of this particular Defiant we barely got there in time. The builder was so frustrated he was going to burn it. He already burned the cowlings by the time we got there. 

If your dream is to fly dont  go down that path. Auto engines are dream killers

RZ 



On Apr 18, 2022, at 18:24, Frankenbird Vern <smeshno1@...> wrote:


 William Wynne can verify there are several Corvair conversions well over 1200 hours in several designs. An entire overhauled engine costs less than the 
rocker arms for a C-85/O-200.

 The engines have been flying since 1960.  Granted..low and slow back then but not so now..  Complete running valid cores average about $400. 

 Don't need to take my word for it..take a trip for yourself to Green Springs Florida and check it out.      


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Anthony P <solarant@...>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 5:07 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Modern Engines on Q2?
 
The 2000 hr. TBO thing seems like a red hearing (non sequitur) to me.

How many experimentals get to 2000 hrs?

The key seems to be knowing when to rebuild/replace and how much cost to rebuild.
A 500 hr. TBO engine that costs $2-3k to rebuild seems like it would cover 90% of the market.
Obviously it needs to actually get to 500 hrs, 95% of the time.

--
Q2 N86KL


Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

Frankenbird Vern
 

 William Wynne can verify there are several Corvair conversions well over 1200 hours in several designs. An entire overhauled engine costs less than the 
rocker arms for a C-85/O-200.

 The engines have been flying since 1960.  Granted..low and slow back then but not so now..  Complete running valid cores average about $400. 

 Don't need to take my word for it..take a trip for yourself to Green Springs Florida and check it out.      


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Anthony P <solarant@...>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 5:07 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Modern Engines on Q2?
 
The 2000 hr. TBO thing seems like a red hearing (non sequitur) to me.

How many experimentals get to 2000 hrs?

The key seems to be knowing when to rebuild/replace and how much cost to rebuild.
A 500 hr. TBO engine that costs $2-3k to rebuild seems like it would cover 90% of the market.
Obviously it needs to actually get to 500 hrs, 95% of the time.

--
Q2 N86KL


Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

Anthony P
 
Edited

The 2000 hr. TBO thing seems like a red herring (non sequitur) to me.

How many experimentals get to 2000 hrs?

The key seems to be knowing when to rebuild/replace and how much cost to rebuild.
A 500 hr. TBO engine that costs $2-3k to rebuild seems like it would cover 90% of the market.
Obviously it needs to actually get to 500 hrs, 95% of the time.

--
Q2 N86KL


Re: Modern Engines on Q2?

Bill Allen
 

What Ryszard said.

Also depends on your ambition and appetites for either flying or long term R&D….

Bill Allen



On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 at 23:47, Ryszard Zadow <ryszardzadow@...> wrote:
Show me any auto engine conversion that made it to 2000 hours. 

Auto engines don’t fly. Everyone i’ve known or heard of that’s tried went down one of three paths:  

1) Eventually went back to a Continental or Lycoming and flew happily ever after, 

2) It became a hangar queen. 

3) It killed them. 

Ryszard 

On Apr 17, 2022, at 16:40, britmcman99 via groups.io <britmcman=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

No. No. No. Revmaster is a very well engineered adaptation from few Volkswagen components with aviation born crankcase, forged crankshaft design. Sharing cylinder and pistons, con rods, Revmaster is very well thought out adaptation. Weaknesses in early magnesium crank cases have been mitigated with an alloy crank case with a 7 pound penalty. Notwithstanding, the current state of the art is likely the best offering of all other aero engines based upon Volkswagen components. 


On Apr 17, 2022, at 1:05 PM, ryan goodman via groups.io <elboy0712=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

We are putting an aeromomentum am15 ok our TriQ. 


On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 13:53, Robert Cringely
<bob@...> wrote:
Revmaster is a car conversion, no?

On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 3:41 PM Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:

[Edited Message Follows]

Curious what modern engines people have put on their Q2s for upgrades? What else beside an O-200?
How about a Rotax 912ULS?
How about a UL260?
Which car conversion engines have been popular with the Quickie community?

Yes I know this is a controversial topic with the hard core aviator but please humor me and share what people have used, not your thoughts on how good or bad a car conversion is ;-)

Thanks Robert
--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.

--

1461 - 1480 of 55798