FFS. I need a new hobby.

bentmettle said:
I don't rebuild aircraft engines. Curious that a roundness spec isn't part of the measurements required to be overhauled.

Did you sweep the bore in and measure TIR or how did you determine this? Because I don't understand how this isn't part of their process, other than since they don't have the ability to correct it, they don't have a lot of motivation to check for it.
Click to expand...
Agreed, although it's not actually in the overhaul manual, SB/SIs (that I could find), nor is there a spec for it in the SSP-1776, which gives the min/max dimensions. The only dimension given is the ID with the bearings installed. All I did was measure perpendicular and parallel to the rod with a bore gauge and micrometer. Sweeping it with an indicator would've been interesting. I initially only measured perpendicular, so I missed it the first time. Likely they did the same thing.
 
moparrob66 said:
....unless you dont want it to. Its an experimental, and an alloy V-8 would be an excellent option. If you want an aircooled engine, youre free to choose whatever make, model or variant you like, as well as whatever parts you deem appropriate!
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I'm not an engineer, and I'm not willing to roll my own FWF. Possible Bearcat would be willing to give engineering support. Now a Murphy Moose, with that round Russian motor, that gets my juices flowing. It's going to be even worse than a Lyco for support though, I suspect. I wish I had turbine money.

I think my solution will just be the old "two is one, one is none" rule.
 
This is exactly why the Corsair V8 folks (corvette engined 172) need to adjust their focus. The feds will never approve an automotive engine STC for certified aircraft. The revenuers dont care about unleaded alternatives, efficiency, safety blah blah blah. You could prove that it cures cancer and it would still not be approved. They had a seemingly fantastic setup in their 172 and if they marketed it towards experimentals as a FWF package they would dominate the 200+ hp market.
 
Jim K said:
Fair enough, but I'm not an engineer, and I'm not willing to roll my own FWF. Possible Bearcat would be willing to give engineering support. Now a Murphy Moose, with that round Russian motor, that gets my juices flowing. It's going to be even worse than a Lyco for support though, I suspect. I wish I had turbine money.
Click to expand...
If you have Lycoming/Continental money, you have Russian turbine money at least. :D

I have an acquaintance that had an L-29, and he is not rich by any stretch of the imagination. He said that, except for fuel, it cost less than a 172 to operate. He had a spare engine he'd bought for $2K, and said that they're so common over there that they use them in snow removal equipment.

Your comment got me wondering how many of those RC turbines one would need to power a small plane. I know that there are Cri Cris with them.
 
moparrob66 said:
This is exactly why the Corsair V8 folks (corvette engined 172) need to adjust their focus. The feds will never approve an automotive engine STC for certified aircraft. The revenuers dont care about unleaded alternatives, efficiency, safety blah blah blah. You could prove that it cures cancer and it would still not be approved. They had a seemingly fantastic setup in their 172 and if they marketed it towards experimentals as a FWF package they would dominate the 200+ hp market.
Click to expand...
@AlphaPilotFlyer

Care to chime in here?
 
Out of curiosity on how big-end con-'rod bearings are manufactured, since you haven’t assembled the last one yet, could you measure the thickness of the bearings at the parting line and parallel to the rod? I seem to remember (1980s) on small block Chevys that the parting end on the top shell is thinner so that it has less propensity to “grab” the rod journal when it gets “banged” at the top by detonation.
 
Overhead a young O-3 on the flightline bus talk about building his own Kitfox and excited about receiving his rotax last night, shipped from Gunskirchen all the way to our chihuahuan desert penal colony. Gave him a high five, warmed my heart to hear.

Even the Gen Z kids are recognizing the necrosis within the hobby and voting with their wallets. Time to shed the dead tissue.
 
moparrob66 said:
This is exactly why the Corsair V8 folks (corvette engined 172) need to adjust their focus. The feds will never approve an automotive engine STC for certified aircraft. The revenuers dont care about unleaded alternatives, efficiency, safety blah blah blah. You could prove that it cures cancer and it would still not be approved. They had a seemingly fantastic setup in their 172 and if they marketed it towards experimentals as a FWF package they would dominate the 200+ hp market.
Click to expand...
The challenge with the V8 C-172 folks is/was they were never very forthcoming. Every bit of information had to be tortured out of them. I've got no patience for that.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Out of curiosity on how big-end con-'rod bearings are manufactured, since you haven’t assembled the last one yet, could you measure the thickness of the bearings at the parting line and parallel to the rod? I seem to remember (1980s) on small block Chevys that the parting end on the top shell is thinner so that it has less propensity to “grab” the rod journal when it gets “banged” at the top by detonation.
Click to expand...
I will try to remember to do that. I will tell you that the top and bottom shell are the same part number.
 
kyleb said:
The challenge with the V8 C-172 folks is/was they were never very forthcoming. Every bit of information had to be tortured out of them. I've got no patience for that.
Click to expand...
Kyleb- you know not what you speak, and I likewise have no patience for such pontificating or ignorance at our expense or casting dispersions. There are multiple independent articles on our c172 V8, as well as detailed Q&A and information on our website, and even YouTube videos. If you are still challenged, I don’t know what to tell you other than google links…..we also link to other independent articles such as from AOPA where they flew the thing. The website is a bit outdated but has most info most people asks.

We never offered it for sale after FAA leadership continued their commitment to kill GA by killing any innovation that would reduce cost and reverse GA’s demise over the last 30 years. We had soft orders for over $4m in sales the first 6 months worldwide just for the c172 and c182 kits, but as I detailed in NOV AIR FACTS article, FAA policy directors used unscrupulous methods to shut even an exp kit down. So, no, we never published any sales or marketing material as there was no reason to, but most info is out there albeit maybe not in one spot. It remains an experimental one-off, unfortunately, like so many other attempts over the decades in GA.

A couple of young local time building CFIs may fly it out to SUN &Fun and OSHKOSH ….if you care to visit and ask them the specific info you cannot seem to find otherwise they will be happy to disclose….. they may even let you take it around the pattern, as we have at past events.

We should maybe offer a few GA YOUTUBERS to fly it and do a video and let them tell more bout it from their perspective…If anyone has some suggestions in this regards, let me know whom to reach out to, or ask them to drop us a line. We fly the plane on a regular basis and happy to have them jump in.

So, if you feel we were ever not forthcoming with info on the project, this was not out intent, nor did we feel we needed to. we had a lot invested in development and freely shared our development challenges when ever asked……. However, we won’t likely freely disclose some proprietary elements as software or internal engine mods engineering stuff, but most pilots rarely ask and most don’t care.
 
moparrob66 said:
This is exactly why the Corsair V8 folks (corvette engined 172) need to adjust their focus. The feds will never approve an automotive engine STC for certified aircraft. The revenuers dont care about unleaded alternatives, efficiency, safety blah blah blah. You could prove that it cures cancer and it would still not be approved. They had a seemingly fantastic setup in their 172 and if they marketed it towards experimentals as a FWF package they would dominate the 200+ hp market.
Click to expand...
Not exactly…. In a nutshell, we had a lot of support from FAA ACO and MIDO early on, and earlier project at QA we received a g1 issue paper which set what FAA required for our certification.. all do-able. The problem was after some pilots trained and got their check-rides in our c172 for a fraction of the cost for their private and comm licenses a lot of people started asking why they can’t do the same. It was then the FAA leadership seemed to take notice and essentially shut down even the development of the exp kit as mentioned in air facts article. So, even though we had a certifiable solution for a myriad of legacy aircraft types, we didn’t have the $ to buy our way through the policy and upper leadership, even those who’s sole job was to bring innovation to GA. We were told other things through the grapevine such as Cessna (which essentially owns Lycoming) expressed their feelings to FAA about us and others that would surely follow, and they didn’t want their old aircraft continuing to fly longer or compete with new orders,,,again, just rumors.

I appreciate your dominate comments, but even if we adjust our focus, make exp kits, we would still have the same issues….. we re still waiting for over 4 years for a response from FAA that shut even our exp development down for factual BS reasons with no method to challenge it other than wait years for a response at their will that will never come and even the administrator has no problem

Why is GA stuck in the past regardless of all the innovation and safety enhancements in all other industry segments, this is why.


But thanks for the suggestion.
 
What a mess! I dont understand how they can stop you from selling anything to the experimental segment. Does Viking need any permission from the FAA to sell used Honda engines? Did you get stuck in some regulatory trap by seeking certification? Im confused as much as disgusted.
 
Retired MechEngr here -

Assuming the rod and the rod cap were honed to size together, the big end bore was once round in an unstressed condition. Sometimes a .005 inch discrepancy sounds but isn't significant. A test would be to squeeze the assembled end cap/bearing shell across the flats and see just how much force does it take to make that big end round again. If it is only a tiny fraction of the combustion load, it may not be significant. It may even furnish a bearing function. The rod end hoop design configuration in Lycoming's is very thin for what ever reason. It may change with the assembled torque or ???.

The squeeze test could be simply done with hand forces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top