A Lancair Builder/Owner's Experience
Geoff Peck
Lancair.
-----
Thanks for the offer to post anonymously. It should be done. Anybody who
has built one of these things remains dependent on the factory so I am
very reluctant to post anything to the net.
To start with. If you can read this message you probably can't build
one. I am very sorry that I bought a kit. The rip-off comes in the
amount of time they quote to build the kit, the additional expenses
required, and the ultimate utility of the finished airplane. It is my
experience that Lancair is unusually loose with the truth in many areas.
Once you have bought the kit, that is just the beginning, now they have
got you as a captive for untold additional expenses. Some specifics:
I spent 2 1/2 years working on the airframe. This was working every
weekend and most week nights. At the end of this time I had sunk $30,000
and the air frame was about 2/3 finished. Understand that is just the
airframe, there is a lot more to go. My wife said that either the
airplane went or she would file for divorce. So I brought in two more
partners who were retired and wealthy. They both worked on the plane full
time for another year. With the help of a fiberglass hired shop for 9
months to finish the airframe. This was followed by a couple more months
in a regular engine shop. Followed by months of electronics, upholstery,
and finally paint. Total tab over $100,000 plus 5 man years of unpaid
labor. So what do we have? Is it a super plane? Nope. Just a run of
the mill Lancair.
Do the three of us have fun flying it? Nope. One partner, a TWA 747
pilot with over 40,000 hours can't get checked out in the thing. I can
not land it either. The other guy has taken months of lessons (at
considerable expense). The plane mostly just sits in a hangar. It is
complicated, dangerous, and expensive.
How does the Lancair compare to the Glasair? Actually they are almost
identical airplanes in their basic handling characteristics. I just think
Lancair is a little sleazier to deal with. The basic problem with both
of these designs is the landing qualities. The Lancair is designed for
only one thing: A top speed figure. In the pattern it is a complete
squirrel. I have lost exact count, but I belive to date that there have
been 5 fatal accidents, some including factory pilots. All or most of
these accidents were low speed stalls in the pattern. Here is the
problem. The slightest slip of attention on the airspeed will send it
into stall within one second. Air speed control is extremely difficult
during approach. Mix this with some wind, a strange airport, hills, a
little traffic, and you can get killed fast.
The way Lancair sells these things is to take the customer up for a ride.
The demo pilot will take off and land the plane, but let the "John" fly it
once it is at speed. I will say that above pattern speeds, it is a
perfectly normal plane. "Yup, feels just like that 152," the buyer
thinks. Then the demo pilot will pull some acceleration, very impressive,
lots of fun. And the demo pilot lands the plane -- not you.
So my advice to anybody out there, is that if you are retired, under 60,
have 100 grand to burn, over 1000 hours, an IFR ticket, and like to fly
twich airplanes a lot, then this could be the number for you. But before
you buy it, why not take enough instruction to learn how to land the plane
yourself? Just ask good ole Lance for a quote on a complete-to-checkout
training program BEFORE you buy the kit. By the time you learn how to
land the plane, I guarantee you won't buy it.
Secondly, There is nothing wrong with the used plane market. If you
really do like the plane, I would recommend you check out both Lancairs
and Glasairs for a good one. There are a lot of good deals out there
where you can pick them up for the value of the engine and radios.
-- anonymous
Paul Joseph Picton
michael.a.pilla
>I received the following from a fellow netter who owns a now-complete
>Lancair.
>How does the Lancair compare to the Glasair? Actually they are almost
>identical airplanes in their basic handling characteristics. I just think
>Lancair is a little sleazier to deal with.
Thanks for posting the article. When I was trying to decide
between the Lancair, Glassair, and Van's RV-4, I quickly backed
away from the Neico (Lancair) folks. Something about the way
they knocked Stoddard-Hamilton (Glassair), and all competitors,
as well as the problem about demo flights mentioned in the post
made me suspicious. I found the Glassair folks much nicer to
deal with as well as Van's people. Perhaps because of my flying
experience, I was allowed to fly the complete flight; yes the
Glassair is "sensitive", but no more than other light/fast
homebuilts. There are three Glassairs being built in my local
EAA chapter and everyone has the highest praise for the factory
support; this includes an original -I as wellas a -II and a -IIS
so the consistent praise indicates that the Glassair folks seem
to care about their customers. Interestingly, none of our chapter
folks would touch the Lancair precisely because of the perceived
"sleaze" factor mentioned by the anonymous poster.
The remarks about costs, are unfortunately, too close to the
truth. The old adage about build because you like to build, not
because you like to fly is very apropos and the divorce threat
is often quite real. I've met numerous homebuilders who became
divorced. Interestingly, the ones who remarried appear to have
chosen their new mate on their homebuilding skills. 1/2 :-)
For the record, I am very pleased with the factory support I get
from Van's aircraft. In comparing plans/instructions with the
Glassair builders, it is clear that you get more with the
Glassair kit, but then, you pay almost double, too. It is
possible to build a RV-4 or -6, for under $20K provided you don't
go crazy with a full IFR panel, ... I expect that I'll have
anywhere from $35K to $50K invested in mine by the time it is
finished (don't ask!)
Mike Pilla
RV-4 "Brass Handle"
G A Venkatesh
...his experiences that is more common than the successful ones :-(
> It is my
>experience that Lancair is unusually loose with the truth in many areas.
I was not very pleased with their "aggressive advertising" tricks either.
Earlier builders were supposedly extremely unhappy but Aviation Consumer and
US Aviator had reported an improvement in factory support. I guess it still
ain't enough.
Unfortunately Glasair has been dragged into it too. If you read Glasair
and Lancair brochures, both of them spend a lot of pages pulling down the
other design and defending themselves against the other's accusations. Lancair
tries to cast doubts on the wet layup method and the flammability of Glasair.
Glasair folks try to cast doubts on the pre-preg method and the potential
for water collecting in the honeycomb design (is that really an issue?) of
the Lancairs.
However, Glasair's reputation is far better.
>Once you have bought the kit, that is just the beginning, now they have
>got you as a captive for untold additional expenses. Some specifics:
I wish we could get some specifics on what those are.
>
>I spent 2 1/2 years working on the airframe. This was working every
>weekend and most week nights. At the end of this time I had sunk $30,000
>and the air frame was about 2/3 finished.
That is about $10K over the airframe price. What did it consist of? Supplies?
Builder mistakes? Hangar space? Does anyone have first-hand information about
overhead costs for homebuilding a composite plane?
>time for another year. With the help of a fiberglass hired shop for 9
>months to finish the airframe.
That would definitely drive the price up.
>But before
>you buy it, why not take enough instruction to learn how to land the plane
>yourself? Just ask good ole Lance for a quote on a complete-to-checkout
>training program BEFORE you buy the kit. By the time you learn how to
>land the plane, I guarantee you won't buy it.
This is damn good advice. I'll keep that in mind before I plunk down money
for a kit.
venky
Mike Paton
>I received the following from a fellow netter who owns a now-complete
>Lancair.
>
>-----
>
>Thanks for the offer to post anonymously. It should be done. Anybody who
>has built one of these things remains dependent on the factory so I am
>very reluctant to post anything to the net.
>
to think the need to remain anonymous was being overly dramatic, but I'm
prepared to be open minded about it. I don't feel the need to be anonymous
and my only qualification to comment is that I'm building a Glasair. In my
local area there are 4 Glasairs and 1 Lancair flying. 2 of the Glasairs were
started nearly 10 years ago, and provide a good sample of how the kits have
been improved over the years. I would hope Lancair does the same.
Stoddard-Hamilton (or Glasair) publishes a quarterly newsletter with many
builder contributions. These are quite helpful. Does Lancair do anything
similar?
>To start with. If you can read this message you probably can't build
>one. I am very sorry that I bought a kit. The rip-off comes in the
>amount of time they quote to build the kit, the additional expenses
>required, and the ultimate utility of the finished airplane. It is my
>experience that Lancair is unusually loose with the truth in many areas.
>Once you have bought the kit, that is just the beginning, now they have
>got you as a captive for untold additional expenses.
I know that these aircraft are labelled as kits. However, I have always
regarded them as being collections of parts. If anyone thinks that these
planes just snap together, then they're in for a big disappointment.
> Some specifics:
>I spent 2 1/2 years working on the airframe. This was working every
>weekend and most week nights. At the end of this time I had sunk $30,000
I'm not clear if this $30K is in addition to the kit price or not.
>and the air frame was about 2/3 finished. Understand that is just the
>airframe, there is a lot more to go. My wife said that either the
>airplane went or she would file for divorce. So I brought in two more
>partners who were retired and wealthy. They both worked on the plane full
>time for another year. With the help of a fiberglass hired shop for 9
>months to finish the airframe. This was followed by a couple more months
>in a regular engine shop. Followed by months of electronics, upholstery,
>and finally paint. Total tab over $100,000 plus 5 man years of unpaid
>labor. So what do we have? Is it a super plane? Nope. Just a run of
>the mill Lancair.
I've put in about 4 hours per weeknight and about 8 hours per weekend for
about 15 months straight before (temporary) burnout and I'm very nearly
half finished. I suspect both your time estimates and mine are approximately
normal. If you ever build another kit, you'll be quite a bit faster.
Also if you really built this plane for your education instead of in order
to get a super plane, you'd have done the electronics, upholstery and paint
yourself and saved money. Furthermore you now have a plane which to buy
from a manufacturer with a type certificate would cost IMHO between $150K
and $220K. So I think you do (by most standards) have a super plane which
cost you a bit over the odds because you chose to have some professional
help.
>
>Do the three of us have fun flying it? Nope. One partner, a TWA 747
>pilot with over 40,000 hours can't get checked out in the thing. I can
>not land it either. The other guy has taken months of lessons (at
>considerable expense). The plane mostly just sits in a hangar. It is
>complicated, dangerous, and expensive.
I just can't take this paragraph as it is. Need more details please, as to
why you can't land it. That being said, the Lancair pilot I know of has
expressed similar sounding concerns. Also he built his plane all by himself,
working full time in 8 (yer eight!!) calendar months. It was a Lancair
Quick Build kit, and yes those kits have quite a lot done for you. Obviously
yours wasn't one of those.
>
>How does the Lancair compare to the Glasair? Actually they are almost
>identical airplanes in their basic handling characteristics. I just think
>Lancair is a little sleazier to deal with. The basic problem with both
>of these designs is the landing qualities.
I think I also take issue with these comments. It sounds like your comments
on sleaziness deal with business practices, which in my view are not a
reflection on flying qualities. As you say you've built a Lancair, I'll take
your word on it's handling qualities, especially as I've heard similar
comments elsewhere. However I'd need to know your expertise with the Glasair
to accept your opinion on it. My factual experience with flying Glasairs is
as yet fairly limited; I've landed a III once and taken it off 4 times, and
I've flown a III and a I RG for a total of about 5 hours in the air. I've
been a passenger in the Glasairs for a total of about 30 hours. I've never
flown in the Lancair, just talked to the pilot. I've seen it fly from close
formation. You may think that's not much to go on; fair enough it's not a
whole lot.
Opinion.
The Glasair does not have a problem with landing qualities. It does not
have a laminar flow wing, and does not in my experience fall out of the
air on landing. All Glasair landings I've been in have been power off
landings. If your experience is different, then I'd certainly be interested
to know, with some more detail. I don't think your posting is accurate here.
> The Lancair is designed for only one thing: A top speed figure.
In my experience it is significantly faster than a Glasair.
> In the pattern it is a complete
>squirrel. I have lost exact count, but I belive to date that there have
>been 5 fatal accidents, some including factory pilots. All or most of
>these accidents were low speed stalls in the pattern. Here is the
>problem. The slightest slip of attention on the airspeed will send it
>into stall within one second. Air speed control is extremely difficult
>during approach. Mix this with some wind, a strange airport, hills, a
>little traffic, and you can get killed fast.
Hearsay.
My friend the Lancair fast builder and pilot is also very upset with the
landing qualities of his plane. He finds that (probably due to the slick
laminar flow wing IMHO) that he is completely unable to predict when it
will stall and touch down. he says it varies greatly with wind, temperature
and fuel load. As a result he approaches with a big cushion of extra airspeed
right into the flare, at which point, the very low set wing is deep into
ground effect. Then the plane floats a long long way. He claims to be unhappy
at not having 3000 feet available for landing. He says the takeoff is similar;
the plane is rotated, and is then completely unpredictable as to when it will
suddenly make lift and jump off the runway. I believe his experience is
mostly big twins from Senecas up to King Airs. He plans to build a Glasair
now.
More hearsay.
Heard at the Glasair builders dinner at Oshkosh this year, and so may be
out of date by now.
It seems that in Australia, all homebuilt designs must be tested by the
government, ie an RAAF test pilot before receiving any type of certificate.
As of July, all Lancairs in Australia were grounded pending redesign after
the RAAF pilot deemed the stall, pitch stability and pitch forces unsuitable.
>
>The way Lancair sells these things is to take the customer up for a ride.
>The demo pilot will take off and land the plane, but let the "John" fly it
>once it is at speed. I will say that above pattern speeds, it is a
>perfectly normal plane. "Yup, feels just like that 152," the buyer
>thinks. Then the demo pilot will pull some acceleration, very impressive,
>lots of fun. And the demo pilot lands the plane -- not you.
My friend the Glasair III pilot and builder is going to help build a
Lancair IV and got the demo flight. he didn't get to land or takeoff either.
>
>So my advice to anybody out there, is that if you are retired, under 60,
>have 100 grand to burn, over 1000 hours, an IFR ticket, and like to fly
>twich airplanes a lot, then this could be the number for you. But before
>you buy it, why not take enough instruction to learn how to land the plane
>yourself? Just ask good ole Lance for a quote on a complete-to-checkout
>training program BEFORE you buy the kit. By the time you learn how to
>land the plane, I guarantee you won't buy it.
I would be quite interested to know your own personal flying experience
prior to the Lancair. I may be quite wrong here; is the reference to a 152
relevant?
>
>Secondly, There is nothing wrong with the used plane market. If you
>really do like the plane, I would recommend you check out both Lancairs
>and Glasairs for a good one. There are a lot of good deals out there
>where you can pick them up for the value of the engine and radios.
If you manage to pick one up for the value of the engine and radios, then
my first suspicion would be that everybody else had noticed the very poor
quality of construction through the professionally applied gleaming paint
and instrument panel and that you hadn't. Yes, I disagree again, but I hope
only in the spirit of friendly discussion.
I need to add that I am of course not ecstatic with Stoddard-Hamilton, but
I am satisfied. The kit is pretty much what I expected (except they couldn't
draw a template to save their lives :-().
Michael Paton
mpa...@tempest.sps.mot.com
michael.a.pilla
>That is about $10K over the airframe price. What did it consist of? Supplies?
>Builder mistakes? Hangar space? Does anyone have first-hand information about
>overhead costs for homebuilding a composite plane?
Two of three Glassair builders I mentioned in a previous post
spent two to three years building components in their basements.
In one case, the builder had a bunch of us help him move the
major pieces to his hangar about three months ago because he
could not have the horizontal stab permanently mounted and still
get the fuse out of the basement (at least he figured this out,
first :-) With proper ventilation, the basement operations
isn't bad. Another builder is using his garage. In my case, I
am using my garage (about 20'x22'), but I will be unable to
assemble the entire ship inside the garage; metal/composite - no
difference.
>>But before
>>you buy it, why not take enough instruction to learn how to land the plane
>>yourself? Just ask good ole Lance for a quote on a complete-to-checkout
>>training program BEFORE you buy the kit. By the time you learn how to
>>land the plane, I guarantee you won't buy it.
>
>This is damn good advice. I'll keep that in mind before I plunk down money
>for a kit.
Again, let me stress the difference I found between the Lancair
folks and the Glassair folks. I paid $75 for a "demo" flight in
the Glassair. Technically, this was not a commercial operation.
It was a partial "downpayment" on the kit. I.e., had I
purchased a Glassair, I would have been credited with $75 ...
Bill Sprague, is an excellent test/check pilot, in my opinion.
He quickly cetermined my flying abilities and had me doing the
landing. Usually, he says, he has someone doing the takeoff and
landing by the second flight. Furthermore, I have found many
owners of Glassairs willing to give you some "dual". A PERSONAL
opinon: if you are comfortable landing a Mooney (speed
control), then landing a Glassair will be similar. Yes, the
controls are more sensitive, but I would not call them
"twitchy".
With regard to costs mentioned in the original post: as I
mentioned in a previous post, one of the Glassair builders
will have more in his panel than I will have in my entire plane.
Different missions, different costs.
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with Glassair. They came in
second in my choice of homebuilt planes to Van's RV-4. It was a
difficult decision, but I want to add my $0.02 since I 1) liked
the Glassair folks, 2) strongly disliked the Lancair folks, and
3) know three Glassair builders who are very satisfied with the
factory folk.
Mike Pilla
Neil Tracht
response to the commments from the Lancair builder..
-------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I wonder which model he purchased. The more complicated you get
with the airframe and engine combination, the more expensive it is to
build, especially if you purchase new equipment. Before I bought my kit
I was asked by the people at Stoddard-Hamilton what my primary
motivation was for building my own plane. I told them it was a 25%
desire to fly a plane that goes faster than 120knots, 25% because of
the reduced cost of owner-maintenance, and 50% for the interest and
fascination of building my own aircraft (to be an AVIATOR). They
informed me that you REALLY have to want to build an airplane to
undertake a project of this magnatude; especially an aircraft of the
performance of a Glasair. I have a feeling that the anonymous person
was building the airplane for the USE of the airplane and not for the
interest of building it. I was fully aware that I would have to give up
flying until the kit was near completion. If the guy really wanted to
build and fly his own plane, he should of started by building an easier
to build and cheaper to buy kit such as the Kitfox or the like.
It seems the person got a raw deal from the Lancair sales people and it
is unfortunate because the homebuilt market is just about the last
bastion for new single engine aircraft. The product liability problem
has virtually destroyed the production of new models of low cost single
engine aircraft.
But I digress, there is no reason given for the 40,000 hour TWA pilot
who cannot get a check-out; by the way, a 747 is a MUCH different
aircraft than a Lancair or a Glasair or even a 152 for that matter. The
reason "anonymous" cannot land the airplane may just be that it is out
of his capabilities with the amount of training he has received, I'm
sure a P-51 is pretty hard to land until you've done it several times.
As far as the accidents he reports, homebuilt aircraft still have a
lower rate (% of homebuilt aircraft flying) of fatal accidents than the
production general aviation fleet. It would seem that there may be some
handling problems associated with the tricky laminar flow wingform that
the Lancair uses and it certainly would be cause for alarm for anyone
who is thinking about purchasing a kit.
This letter makes me wonder what Orvil and Wilbur Wright might of said
about the first flight in their homebuilt; "Gee, the controls feel a
little 'twitchy'.......". If Mr. Anonymous wanted the feel of a
production aircraft, there is no better place to get it than in a
production aircraft.
As for anyone thinking about building their own plane, my suggestion is
to talk with as many people as you can who are or have finished
building one, including the guy who wrote the anonymous letter; and to
seriously ask yourself "Why do I want to build an airplane?".
If you want, you can put this back on the net for other people to read
as a "response to Anonymous plane builder".
Kevin
David Doshay
I also was not impressed with the attitude of Lance or the folks that work with
him when I met them at the airshows. They looked me up and down like a piece of
meat, did not continue talking with me, but instead latched onto somebody else
who had a perfect haircut ... I guess it looked like he had more money. Whatever
they are doing it seems to be making them lots of $$$.
I do not blame the problem of difficult to fly airplanes on people like Lance. He
has made no attempt to hide the fact that he is a graphics artist by training. Do
you really expect more from him than a plane that looks great?
The problem is that too many pilots buy homebuilts on the basis of advertised
top speed and nothing else. Sure it causes a great deal of personal grief to an
individual when they sink a huge number of $$ into something that they are too
afraid of to fly, but what ever made them think that they were buying a plane
that would handle anything like a certificated aircraft? The Govt tries to
protect us from ourselves by making those plane put that big "EXPERIMENTAL"
decal on the plane. The number of kits sold does not indicate that the handling
has improved.
Perhaps we will collectivly learn that an aircraft is really a huge set of
compromises, and if one plane goes twice as fast as another on the same engine
that somwhere else in the performance envelope things will probably be very
different too. That somewhere else is often the stability or ability to fly
at slow speeds. Somehow I doubt that we will learn this lesson. A trip to
Oshkosh plants you right in the middle of a bunch of Chuck Yeager wannabe/
thinkIams. If pilots would rationally look at themselves and the kind of flight
experiance they have, and then pick an airplane that fits that experiance, then
the we would read fewer stories like that of the anonymous poster. I feel sorry
for that person, and I hope that his marriage did survive, but mostly I hope that
everybody else who wants to build an airplane learns from that story that top
speed is often the least important reason to buy a particular plane.
Somebody on the net has a sig file that says "fly because you love it."
It could also be said ... Build because you love to build. Try to build
what you will be able to fly.
David dos...@soma.arc.nasa.gov
The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Charles K. Scott
tra...@atc57.sps.mot.com (Neil Tracht) writes:
> I have a feeling that the anonymous person
> was building the airplane for the USE of the airplane and not for the
> interest of building it
I'm not interested in promoting a flame war here but to me reason the
anonymous builder built the aircraft isn't the point. After all, he
did get it built which is more than can be said about some 70 to 80
percent of the homebuilders in general. The builders complaint was 1.
the cost and 2. the treacherous low speed flying characteristics of the
aircraft which have been confirmed in this group.
Corky Scott
Andrew Spencer
This is fantastic!!! I have been waiting for threads like this! Although
I had my doubts, this split has drastically improved the homebuilt content
(IMHO).
andrew.
P.S. I would also like to know why the 40,000 hour pilot can't land the
thing.
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- _!_ -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Andrew Spencer +-+-+-+ ______(_)______ +-+-+-+ Xerox Corporation
spencer...@xerox.com -+-+-+- ! ! ! -+-+-+- Webster, New York
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
ed Hutton ext. 6488
to cover a few times. I'm almost ready to start fixing up the
garage. I still imagine that I might finish it in three years. Any
builders/owners who can share experiences on the Long EZ, Cozy, or
Cozy MK IV?
Ed
--
edward...@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ed Hutton)
Anonymous Poster
to the net ... -- Geoff
-----
Having hundreds of hours in both production planes and kitplanes, Lancairs
in particular (as well as some time in Glasairs), I'd like to comment on
such an alternative for those who love to fly. The high-performance
kitplanes will not necessarily be less cost to build, but what you'll have
is a brand new plane that seriously outperforms the twenty, thirty or
forty-year-old design alternatives.
While a Lancair 320 can in theory be completed on a barebones basis for
$40,000, the typical ones I have seen tend to be much more deluxe with all
new items including engine and prop. Consequently, they have $60,000 to
$70,000 invested. And that really is an investment, since a nice Lancair
320 will fetch $85,000 to $110,000 on the market.
So if you're at all adept with your hands, you'll be paid for your
assembly time, and that could be $20/hour or more. Not bad, and it more
than qualifies as a part time job, since few people make more than
$20/hour for their primary job.
If, on the other hand, a guy puts $100,000 and five years into his plane,
well, then perhaps he should have stuck with a Cessna 172. And he's
probably the same guy who takes three hours to change a light bulb and
drives over his toes with a lawnmower every Saturday.
But with his Cessna, he should be sure to watch for all the upcoming
corrosion on that old airframe. He should be firmly seated when he calls
a boneyard for a new part for that tiring old airframe. A beat up, used
Cessna 150 battery box costs $300. He should be prepared to fly slow, not
just around the pattern, but all the time. About half the speed of the
Lancair on the same fuel burn. And he shouldn't bother with any notions
of aerobatics, since that Cessna wouldn't do them very well if it were
stressed for it, which it is not.
Is a 172 easier to fly around the patch? Sure, partly because, with that
Cessna, around the patch speeds aren't much different than the cruise
speeds he's used to. However, these high-performance kit planes are not
particularly difficult to fly. At least, according to the thousands of
flyers all over this planet that are now flying them.
Are there some pilots who simply can't handle them? You bet. But I don't
think I'd want to be sitting in the back seat of their Cessna if that same
guy is up front at the controls by himself.
Kenneth Kalan
>Another anonymous poster asked me to post the following message
>to the net ... -- Geoff
>
>-----
>
>While a Lancair 320 can in theory be completed on a barebones basis for
>$40,000, the typical ones I have seen tend to be much more deluxe with all
>new items including engine and prop. Consequently, they have $60,000 to
>$70,000 invested. And that really is an investment, since a nice Lancair
>320 will fetch $85,000 to $110,000 on the market.
>
I've been reading Trade-A-Plane for about a year now and IMO the resale
on home builts and kit planes are not really great. I've seen several
expensive kits (Glasair III's) going for 150K and later seeing
the prices reduced. Glasair I TD and FT's going for 30 - 60K and the
same for Lancair's. These are completed planes with moderate equiptment,
expept the III appeared to be loaded.
I agree that a kit could be fun to build and fly, but I don't think it's
a money maker. You have to build it for the thrill of building and flying.
Perhaps the other reasion the ones I've seen listed as reasionable is partly
to to the economy or the quaility of the build. I've never attempeted
a kit plane project, so I can't say first hand, but how easy is it to
tell of the quality after the wings are boxed in and the plane is
completed?
These are just my observations and opinions.
Ken Kalan
PP ASEL
nwu.edu
Michael J Paton
I think the argument about the reason for building the plane has considerable
relevance to the question of the disappointment expressed now that it is
completed. It seems to me that Anonymous poster number 1 (seeing we now have
2 of them) expected a much better aircraft than he believes he got. This along
with the grumbling about how long it took to build seems to indicate that
he broke the rule often expressed here that you should build because you
want to build, not solely because you want the aircraft that's going to pop
out after the project.
Your point 2, the treacherous low speed flying characteristics of the
aircraft which have been confirmed in this group is one I find curious. I don't
know if I've missed some posts or not, but I know of only anonymous number one
and my posting on hearsay on Lancair flying qualities. Surely there must be
more to make you say "treacherous low speed flying characteristics have been
confirmed"? I do not regard anything I've seen on the net as confirming this,
and I think your accusation is quite unwarranted. Please feel free to post
or email any facts you feel I've missed. I don't really have a problem with
anonymous number 1 being anonymous, but I did find the level of detail about
treacherous handling which was supplied, to be insufficient to support his
comclusions. He may be correct, but for now it just looks like a simple
dissatisfaction with the end product because it didn't turn out as expected.
So expectations are INHO important.
So, please original poster sir, some more details?
Michael Paton
mpa...@tempest.sps.mot.com
John Bunda
>completed. It seems to me that Anonymous poster number 1 (seeing we now have
>2 of them) expected a much better aircraft than he believes he got. This along
>with the grumbling about how long it took to build seems to indicate that
>he broke the rule often expressed here that you should build because you
>want to build, not solely because you want the aircraft that's going to pop
>out after the project.
I have to disagree here. Sure, the building is part of the
experience, but to suggest that you should be happy with whatever you
get is absurd. IMHO, regardless of how much mileage he got out of
building the plane, he clearly bought, or was sold, something
different than what he got. If I put several years of hard work and
buckets of cash into a Lancair, I might well be upset if I didn't
discover until afterwards that learning to fly the thing was much
harder than the top-gun factory demo pilot let on.
I've been following the homebuilt scene for several years, and after
much initial enthusiasm opted for a spam-can because I wanted to fly
now, though I am still tempted now and again by the idea. Considering
the tone of the rhetoric and the unbridled enthusiasm most of the
trade rags heaped on the Lancair (and others) about the time
Anon1 must have started on his project, I think he has a legitimate beef.
Moreover, there is plenty of evidence supporting the allegation that
this plane is not an easy to fly, despite the glowing reviews and
claims of the brochures. I don't know -- it may or may not be any more
dangerous than say, a Yankee, which has a similar rep for low-speed
flying qualities, at least to someone used to a more docile bird (yes
I've flown them, yes they great planes, etc, but you know what I
mean). And perhaps Anon1 had unreasonable expectations. But I do think
that Lancair (and others) have tended to underplay the day-to-day flying
qualities of these planes.
Speculation about the stick-and-rudder competence of Anon1 and
his partners as some have done is a little disingenuous. Clearly,
they all *believed* they would be capable of flying the aircraft
with more confidence. Considering the fact that someone can get
that far along in the project (completion!) and be so disappointed
is food for thought.
--
John Bunda * bu...@cs.utexas.edu * {uunet,harvard}!cs.utexas.edu!bunda
Geoff Peck
two cents worth on this subject...
Last summer, I had a small amount of stick time in the Lancair IV, and
found it not at all difficult to fly. The other potential customer/
pilot who flew it during the flight did find it to be a lot more, um,
responsive than he was easily capable of handling, but I felt that with
a reasonable number of hours of training (probably < 10), he'd be fine
in the aircraft. And, yes, the factory-supplied pilot (Dave Morss in
this case) did land the aircraft.
Over the years, I've gone hot and cold on the idea of building a
homebuilt. I almost talked myself into the IV; then another netter
pointed out that I could build a 320/360-FastBuild in so little time
compared with the time investment for the IV that I should consider
building one of those as a "practice kit". (!) I came within inches of
buying a 320/360-FastBuild this summer at Oshkosh, but in the end, I
didn't. Why?
(1) My time. I have very little free time, and I don't as it stands
even get to fly as much as I might like. The utilization on my Arrow
has gone from ~250 hours/year to something closer to 150 hours/year.
Also, the economic arguments don't work for me -- I don't earn
anything like $20/hour (that's only $40K/year). I had considered
employing a professional "builder's assistant", which for a Lancair
320/360 would cost about $35K, but, to me, that seems like cheating.
If I'm going to build a plane, I should _learn_ from the experience
and do it myself. 700 hours over two years might be possible for me,
but it would be difficult. If that estimate (for the FastBuild) is
off by a factor of 50% or a factor of 2, that would bring the build
time out to three or four years. I don't know if I'd have the
patience.
(2) Concerns about liability if and when the airplane is resold. With
a Spam Can, I know that I can sell it for about what I paid for it
(or, in the case of my Arrow, about *twice* what I paid for it 5
years ago!), and that my liability on sale is essentially zero,
since the airplane has been professionally maintained to a high
level. With a homebuilt, I would worry about reselling it
_at_all_, since my liability should the airplane crash at some
point in the future is essentially unlimited. So the "lifetime
cost" of a Lancair vs., say, a Mooney TLS would tend to indicate
that the TLS (a _very_ expensive airplane) is actually cheaper.
(3) Uses to which an Experimentally certificated airplane can be put.
In my Arrow, I can instruct in the airplane if I so choose. Not so
in an Experimental. So, if I were to buy an Experimental aircraft,
I'd probably end up _retaining_ my existing "ordinary" aircraft.
I'd end up being a "two airplane family" -- no savings here! In
fact, a quick calculation (including the real value of my time)
showed that it would be cheaper for me to trade in my Arrow on a
Mooney TLS than it would be to own both a Lancair 320/360 and the
Arrow!
Despite the above, I did come _very_ close to buying a Lancair this
summer. But I didn't.
Geoff
Jay Maynard
>(2) Concerns about liability if and when the airplane is resold. With
> a Spam Can, I know that I can sell it for about what I paid for it
> (or, in the case of my Arrow, about *twice* what I paid for it 5
> years ago!), and that my liability on sale is essentially zero,
> since the airplane has been professionally maintained to a high
> level. With a homebuilt, I would worry about reselling it
> _at_all_, since my liability should the airplane crash at some
> point in the future is essentially unlimited. So the "lifetime
> cost" of a Lancair vs., say, a Mooney TLS would tend to indicate
> that the TLS (a _very_ expensive airplane) is actually cheaper.
This is a good question...I'm surprised that there are folks out there who'd
sell, and who'd buy, a homebuilt aircraft. One friend cut his Sonerai up into
little pieces when he needed to dispose of it, simply because he couldn't risk
having someone come back to him 10 years later, after they'd crashed the thing
because of their own stupidity, and sue him for everything he has because of
an alleged construction error. (Shakespeare got it right: "First thing we do,
let's kill all the lawyers.")
Then there's the uncertainty factor: It's often impossible to verify someone's
workmanship without destroying what it is you're looking at. In the ham radio
world, prudent buyers of Heathkit products never close a sale until they've
opened up the radio and looked over the construction carefully. That's kinda
hard to do with a homebuilt, especially those slick fiberglass wonders which
are the most sought after. I'd LOVE to own a Lancair 360 or a Glasair II, but
I'm not going to trust my life to someone else's fiberglass work that I can't
check.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmay...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
Dr. Daniel R. Masys
>Another anonymous poster asked me to post the following message
>to the net ... -- Geoff
>
>
>$40,000, the typical ones I have seen tend to be much more deluxe with all
>new items including engine and prop. Consequently, they have $60,000 to
>$70,000 invested. And that really is an investment, since a nice Lancair
>320 will fetch $85,000 to $110,000 on the market.
>
other assertions in Anonymous Post #2 sound like stuff in the Lancair
promo packet and video. Could this be one of the net.celebrity.lurkers
that Bret refers to in his distribution of Air UseNet patches??
But there is a real issue here for those of us who have families but would
like to build a high performance kitplane. The notion of a kitplane "that
is really an investment" seems quite out of synch with the ads in the
back of _Sport Aviation_ and _Trade A Plane_ which suggest that builders
generally only recover the cost of their materials, avionics, etc., and
seldom anything for labor. Bud Davisson's OSH forums affirm that you'd
better build because you love building; there's no financial windfall in
your future if you sell it (and in fact Bud is among those who grant that
you may wish to de-register, disassemble, and just sell the parts).
So we've got two problems: since airplanes are second only to houses in
the magnitude of their "investment" cost for many, one may be significantly
reducing the value of one's estate (remember we're talking family stuff
here) as opposed to putting the same bucks into a quickly saleable
certificated spamcan; secondly, there is the unlikely but uncomfortable
prospect of my family's estate getting sued by the estate of the jerk
who bought the high perf homebuild and dug a hole with it. (Hey, thanks
a lot, Dad, for building that plane and selling it...)
Another reason for the popularity of Kitfoxes and RV's--at not much more
than the price of a Camry (and less than a Lexus) you can afford to
throw them away when playtime is over.
Still a few years from starting the project...
Dan Masys
ma...@nlm.nih.gov
Michael J Paton
>In article <1992Nov2.2...@oakhill.sps.mot.com> mpa...@tempest.UUCP (Michael J Paton) writes:
>>completed. It seems to me that Anonymous poster number 1 (seeing we now have
>>2 of them) expected a much better aircraft than he believes he got. This along
>>with the grumbling about how long it took to build seems to indicate that
>>he broke the rule often expressed here that you should build because you
>>want to build, not solely because you want the aircraft that's going to pop
>>out after the project.
>
>I have to disagree here. Sure, the building is part of the
>experience, but to suggest that you should be happy with whatever you
>get is absurd. IMHO, regardless of how much mileage he got out of
>building the plane, he clearly bought, or was sold, something
>different than what he got.
Clearly this is what he thinks. What I'm suggesting is that he didn't know
what he was buying at all. If he flew the factory demonstrator, was happy with
it in all relevant respects, and was led to believe that by following
instructions and having some understanding of what he was doing, he could
replicate that performance, only to find he'd got something different, THEN
I'll agree with you he's been cheated.
> If I put several years of hard work and
>buckets of cash into a Lancair, I might well be upset if I didn't
>discover until afterwards that learning to fly the thing was much
>harder than the top-gun factory demo pilot let on.
The sensible kitplane constructor will verify the characteristics of his
intended purchase beforehand. If he doesn't he's speculating and he may be
lucky or not. He MAY have been cheated, but I've seen no evidence that he has.
>
>I've been following the homebuilt scene for several years, and after
>much initial enthusiasm opted for a spam-can because I wanted to fly
>now, though I am still tempted now and again by the idea. Considering
>the tone of the rhetoric and the unbridled enthusiasm most of the
>trade rags heaped on the Lancair (and others) about the time
>Anon1 must have started on his project, I think he has a legitimate beef.
>
Ok, well I think that IF he relied on what the trade rags had to say, he
was foolish and I have little sympathy for him. However he hasn't told us
exactly what he DID rely on and therefore we're both speculating here.
I wish he would post some more information so we could form a more
informed opinion.
>Moreover, there is plenty of evidence supporting the allegation that
>this plane is not an easy to fly, despite the glowing reviews and
>claims of the brochures.
I personally have hearsay evidence ( and you can attach whatever credibility
you like to that) which seems to support this view. We also have Anon1's
opinion. I really don't like to see statements like yours above without more
facts. I for one have not seen anything like plenty of evidence.
If you have, post it or pointers to it. Otherwise you are misleading people.
> I don't know -- it may or may not be any more
>dangerous than say, a Yankee, which has a similar rep for low-speed
>flying qualities, at least to someone used to a more docile bird (yes
>I've flown them, yes they great planes, etc, but you know what I
>mean). And perhaps Anon1 had unreasonable expectations. But I do think
>that Lancair (and others) have tended to underplay the day-to-day flying
>qualities of these planes.
I'm certain of it. However I as a prudent (I hope :-)) homebuilder am aware of
the fact that very few kits are sold on the basis of their docile habits.
Speed is what seems to sell. All of these high performance designs involve
tradeoffs; they are really not radically new technology or aerodynamics.
I regret that people buy these things in the belief that a homebuilt high
performance kit can be driven like a 172 at low speeds yet go twice as fast
on the same power because it's made of fibreglass and has a laminar flow
wing. These people will all be disappointed. I hope they won't start to bring
their lawyers into it, but probably they will. I think it just comes down
to CAVEAT EMPTOR.
>
>Speculation about the stick-and-rudder competence of Anon1 and
>his partners as some have done is a little disingenuous. Clearly,
>they all *believed* they would be capable of flying the aircraft
>with more confidence. Considering the fact that someone can get
>that far along in the project (completion!) and be so disappointed
>is food for thought.
I don't WANT to speculate about it. I want enough data to make an informed
judgement. Just to say someone has 40,000 hours just doesn't cut it.
To excerpt from Geoff Peck's article on this subject
>Last summer, I had a small amount of stick time in the Lancair IV, and
>found it not at all difficult to fly. The other potential customer/
>pilot who flew it during the flight did find it to be a lot more, um,
>responsive than he was easily capable of handling, but I felt that with
>a reasonable number of hours of training (probably < 10), he'd be fine
>in the aircraft.
Michael Paton
mpa...@tempest.sps.mot.com
Shaun Simpkins
Not all performance advantages of homebuilts come at the cost of stability and
handling qualities. The Wheeler Express was designed for relatively high stability
and good load carrying. I flew the original demonstrator when I had about 150hrs
on 150s and 172s with no problems - slow flight and on edge, no landing, of course,
but I flew it on right to the threshold in a full slip. I didn't sense any
undesirable departure tendencies.
My point here is that the primary improvement of this plane over factory iron was
in reduced parasite drag - about 3 sq. ft. frontal area vs. over 7 for a 172/182 and
about 5 for a Mooney. It could have obtained a few more KTS top speed, but only in
the way the Lancair did it - reduced wing area and marginal tail surface area.
On the other hand, the total freight for a completed Wheeler is now pushing 80K
minimum, less time - so the question asked in this thread is very relevant - is the
improved efficiency worth sacrificing the "safety" of certification? With used
Bonanzas in the 100K range, do homebuilts make any sense?
Frankly, I'd like Cessna to do an aerodynamic cleanup on the Cardinal. It's a
basically clean airframe... look what was done on the 114 with minor fairing and
cowling changes!
ss
--
Shaun Simpkins
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!vice!shauns
CSnet: shauns@tek
ARPAnet:shauns.tek@rand-relay
Graydon Cecil Chenault
Auto Engine. We even went and test drove an RX-7. Nice smooth
accelleration. Anyway, has anyone out there looked into this engine?
Can you tell me what you know. I'd appreciate any info.
Thanks,
Gray C.
--
Gray Chenault
Texas A&M University
Internet: cgc...@cs.tamu.edu
F_O_T_S
Charles K. Scott
cgc...@cs.tamu.edu (Graydon Cecil Chenault) writes:
> Anyway, has anyone out there looked into this engine?
> Can you tell me what you know. I'd appreciate any info.
I picked up a 1986 Mazda 13B engine last weekend for my Christavia IV.
I'm an ex auto mechanic and understand engines fairly well but never
took one of these things apart before. The latest Kitplanes has an
article about the Mazda engine and even mentions the company I'm in
contact with for the PSRU, Ross Aero. They don't mind talking on the
phone and even stay late at the business to answer technical questions
from builders. The toughest thing about it will be the induction
system. In order to lubricate the rotor tip seals, there is a little
oil pump that meters oil to the induction runners and it has to be able
to vary the rate of drip depending on throttle movement. The oil is
sent to the induction runners via external plastic tubing. The easiest
thing to do is to use the original fuel injection set up but that's
also the tough part. The thing is a mass of tubes, vacume lines and
solenoids and requires the cars computer to work properly. Ross
recommended I use their fabricated intake manifold and an aviation
carburator they modify to work with it. Sounded good to me, I like the
idea of simplicity. But while talking with Chris Ross last week, he
told me he was having an electronics wizz from Maryland work out the
electronics to operate the fuel injection and ignition for their
purposes. He wants me to hang on to the factory injection manifold
because it's a little more efficient than their fabricated
manifold/carburator set up.
I like that idea because the Mazda manifold and injection set up is
already optimised for use with the rotory engine and all the
peripherals. So that would be my first choice. I haven't spoken with
him since then but I intend to give him a call in the evening soon so
we can discuss this more.
The engine itself has one supreme advantage over conventional piston
engines of any type: it has literally only three moving parts and no
connecting rods. There's nothing that can bust off and stick through
the crankcase. Plus, the rotors spin at 1/3 eccentric shaft speed
(they spin on gears) so at a speed of 6,000 rpm at the eccentric shaft,
the rotors are only going 2,000 rpm. The engine runs so smoothly that
one builder bragged he could balance a quarter edgewise on his engine
block and rev the engine through various rpm ranges without having it
fall over. If so, that's pretty impressive. He might not have had a
prop attached. Now for the downside. Rotory's aren't quite as
efficient as a piston engine can be so fuel burn is not as good. It
isn't horrible, but horse power for horse power, it will burn a little
bit more gas. Secondly, the exaust is obnoxiously raucous and
extremely loud and runs significantly hotter than conventional engines.
A muffler is STRONGLY recommended and it had better be stainless
steel. You should have a look at the muffler on the RX-7's, it's
monsterous, it practically goes the entire length of the car.
Have a look at the article in Kitplanes, it shows the engine installed
in a homebuilt and also gives a head on look so you get an idea of how
narrow the profile is which is yet another advantage.
Corky Scott
Steve Pennypacker
> bit more gas. Secondly, the exaust is obnoxiously raucous and
> extremely loud and runs significantly hotter than conventional engines.
> A muffler is STRONGLY recommended and it had better be stainless
> steel. You should have a look at the muffler on the RX-7's, it's
> monsterous, it practically goes the entire length of the car.
Is loud exhaust a property of all rotaries, or is this a "feature" of the
Mazda? I found the Powersport rotary to have a pretty reasonable sound
level even at full power.
--
Steve Pennypacker PP-ASEL
dsn...@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
> cgc...@cs.tamu.edu (Graydon Cecil Chenault) writes:
>
>> Anyway, has anyone out there looked into this engine?
>> Can you tell me what you know. I'd appreciate any info.
>
> I picked up a 1986 Mazda 13B engine last weekend for my Christavia IV.
> I'm an ex auto mechanic and understand engines fairly well but never
> monsterous, it practically goes the entire length of the car.
>
is all of the catalytic converters. Three of them. The dual mufflers
are only 2 feet long. Talk about expensive, the converters cost $1800
replacement from the dealer. I had the exhast go out on mine the the noise
wasn't unpleasant at all. I think it would be great for a homebuilt
aircraft. Smooth power and reasonable gas consumption. David--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David B. Snyder Logicon Technical Services Inc.
dsn...@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
513-255-7557 Dayton, Ohio USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is said that GOD doesn't subtract from ones' time on earth, those
hours spent flying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1946 Cessna 140 N76234 "The lady in waiting" Owner/Operator
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are my own and not those of Logicon or the USAF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles K. Scott
spe...@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker) writes:
> Is loud exhaust a property of all rotaries, or is this a "feature" of the
> Mazda? I found the Powersport rotary to have a pretty reasonable sound
> level even at full power.
The one I was listening to was at a race track and it drowned out the
big V-8's sitting next to it. And this was with an exaust pipe that
ran the length of the car and exited out the back end. The V-8's were
using much shorter exaust stacks which tends to magnify the noise. An
interesting aside is that because of the rich fuel mixture used for
racing and the tendency of the rotory to use more gas, on trailing
throttle (during shifts for instance or on downshifts for the approach
to corners) the exaust emitted a huge two or three foot flame out the
exaust pipe, the end of which had to be at least eight feet from the
engine.
My experience with the Mazda stopped in 1983 when I stopped doing auto
mechanics for a living. At that time they did not have any catalytic
converters, they had a thermal stove which was very much like a
catalytic converter but really wasn't. The muffler was fully twice as
big as anything I'd seen on other cars and weighed two or three times
more. I can verify from personal experience how hot the exaust gets
:-) and technical reports put the exaust temperature several hundred
degrees hotter than conventional exausts.
The reason for this is very simple. A conventional 4 stroke cycle
engine goes through two complete revolutions to complete one cycle so
the exaust port opens every other revolution. But the rotory engine
has a triangular rotor and everytime the tip passes the exaust port it
is hot with burned gas; the port never gets a chance to cool down nor
does the exaust manifold.
As to the noise of the Mazda vs other rotories, I can only guess.
Rotories can be either peripherally ported or side ported or both
depending on how the engineers want to configure the torgue curve and
emmissions. I would imagine that different port configurations would
make for different exaust sounds. Also, not all rotories are twin
rotors. I don't know about the Powersport rotory, it's probably twin
rotored but the porting might be different.
Corky Scott
Soren LaForce
>In article <78...@transfer.stratus.com>
>spe...@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker) writes:
>
>
>My experience with the Mazda stopped in 1983 when I stopped doing auto
>mechanics for a living. At that time they did not have any catalytic
>converters, they had a thermal stove which was very much like a
>catalytic converter but really wasn't. The muffler was fully twice as
>big as anything I'd seen on other cars and weighed two or three times
>more. I can verify from personal experience how hot the exaust gets
>:-) and technical reports put the exaust temperature several hundred
>degrees hotter than conventional exausts.
>
>The reason for this is very simple. A conventional 4 stroke cycle
>engine goes through two complete revolutions to complete one cycle so
>the exaust port opens every other revolution. But the rotory engine
>has a triangular rotor and everytime the tip passes the exaust port it
>is hot with burned gas; the port never gets a chance to cool down nor
>does the exaust manifold.
I think there is something else going (in addition to the high
thermal cycling). The conventional wisdom is that rotaries use
more fuel, consequently, I would expect the exhaust gas has been
expanded less (in the engine) and contains a good deal more heat,
since less thermal energy has been converted to kinetic within
the engine. This would account for the higher exhaust
temperatures.
I suspect that you will need a "beefy" exhaust system to withstand
the heat the engine is going to produce. Or just replace it often.
--Soren laf...@xenon.arc.nasa.gov
Ron Natalie
> to get a lawsuit going: A citizen who thinks he was wronged, and a lawyer
> who thinks he can win enough money to make the case worth his while. Most
> of us don't have enough assets to make us juicy targets.
I have no love for lawyers, it's not the lawyer who desires juicy targets,
it's his client. A person who feels he has been wronged can always get
a lawyer, albeit probably not one who will work for contingent fees. If you
think not being a multidollar corporation is going to make you judgement-proof, you are wrong.
> Plus, SH is employee-owned...
This just means that the SH employees and the US taxpayers are going to be
the big losers if they ever get a judgement that exceeds their insurance.
Most "employee-ownership" is purely based on the fact that the employees
pension plan bought out the company.
-Ron
Charles K. Scott
laf...@xenon.arc.nasa.gov (Soren LaForce) writes:
> I would expect the exhaust gas has been
> expanded less (in the engine) and contains a good deal more heat,
> since less thermal energy has been converted to kinetic within
> the engine. This would account for the higher exhaust
> temperatures.
You may be correct and I may be oversimpifying things but I seem to
remember somewhere that the Rotory just pumps more exaust cycles into
the exaust system than conventional engines but someone smarter than me
will have to do the math. The way the rotors work produces more
combustion surface area than conventional piston engines so the
possibility exists for a less efficient combustion and more left over
unburned gas. This may well account for the hotter exaust.
Corky Scott
dmu...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
>> I'm an ex auto mechanic and understand engines fairly well but never
>> steel. You should have a look at the muffler on the RX-7's, it's
>> monsterous, it practically goes the entire length of the car.
One of the pictures in the December Kitplanes article looks as if thr Mazda
had udal ignition. Does the Mazda have dual ig. has it been added, are both
ig. systems magneto driven?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Munday | Bitnet : dmunday@miavx1 Phone: 321-5145
Munday Computing, Inc.| INTERNET : dmu...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Miami University, Ohio| or : mun...@cinnet.com
| USmail : P.O. Box 695, Oxford, OH 45056-0695
"Renting airplanes is like renting sex: It's difficult to arrange on short
notice on Saturday, the fun things always cost more, and someone's always
looking at their watch." - Ron Wanttaja
Et2 Ellingson
>In article <1992Nov3.2...@tamsun.tamu.edu>
>cgc...@cs.tamu.edu (Graydon Cecil Chenault) writes:
>
>> Anyway, has anyone out there looked into this engine?
>> Can you tell me what you know. I'd appreciate any info.
>
>I'm an ex auto mechanic and understand engines fairly well but never
>extremely loud and runs significantly hotter than conventional engines.
> A muffler is STRONGLY recommended and it had better be stainless
>monsterous, it practically goes the entire length of the car.
>
>in a homebuilt and also gives a head on look so you get an idea of how
>narrow the profile is which is yet another advantage.
>
>Corky Scott
I had a 1979 RX7 and it had a carb and manifold set up. The manifold may
be reworked to accomadate a airplane carb. One major advantage you will find
with rotary engines is weight to h.p., and another is that above 2500 rpms
the engine has a constant i.e. smooooooooth power band. The down side is
it has low power output at rpms under say 2500. It is all aluminium except
for the main shaft and the fins very very low weight. One man can lift the
completed block. Well that's my $.02 p.s. I love rotary engines!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Arthur M.Ellingson 4790C E. Elua Way, Ewa Beach, Hi. 96706 1-(808)499-2781 |
| UUCP: humu!nctams1!pnet16!n36f |
| ARPA: humu!nctams1!pnet16!n3...@nosc.mil |
| INET: n3...@pnet16.cts.com |
| RULE #1 IF IT WORKS DON'T FIX IT!!!, IF IT DOESN'T BUY AN AMIGA..(hehe) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles K. Scott
dmu...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
> One of the pictures in the December Kitplanes article looks as if thr Mazda
> had udal ignition. Does the Mazda have dual ig. has it been added, are both
> ig. systems magneto driven?
The early ones that I worked on when I was an auto mechanic had a big
distributer and two sets, sometimes three sets of points in it. They
were standard battery fired coil systems. The engine could be set up
to run with the distributer cap off so that the point dwell could be
set with the engine running. I remember setting all three of them that
way. The two main sets each had it's own coil to fire. The engine had
four spark plugs, the leading and trailing sets. Both of them fired
after top dead center, one of them significantly later. The reason is
simple, we aren't talking about a piston here, but a triangular rotor
that sweeps by the spark plug. In order for the combustion to occur
properly, the rotor tip must be *by* the plug before it fires. If
ignition occurs before top dead center, there's no fuel mixture to
ignite.
Sorry, I know nothing about the more modern ignition systems but the
principle should be the same.
Corky Scott
Lee Devlin
>interesting aside is that because of the rich fuel mixture used for
>racing and the tendency of the rotory to use more gas, on trailing
>throttle (during shifts for instance or on downshifts for the approach
>to corners) the exaust emitted a huge two or three foot flame out the
>exaust pipe, the end of which had to be at least eight feet from the
>engine.
I don't think this is the problem of only rotary engines. I was at the
GT races recently in Monza, Italy and found that flames leaping out of
the bottom of piston-engine race cars is pretty standard during
downshifting for the corners. It's especially noticeable as it begins
to get dark out or if it's overcast. I guess all that unburned fuel has
to go somewhere. The minute they cars got into the curve and began to
accelerate, the flames extinguished themselves.
Lee Devlin | HP Little Falls Site | phone: (302) 663-8697
Piper Colt N4986Z | 2850 Centerville Rd. | email:
Spirit of rec.aviation | Wilmington, DE 19808 | dev...@lf.hp.com
Charles K. Scott
le...@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Lee Devlin) writes:
> I don't think this is the problem of only rotary engines.
You may be right Lee it's just that this was the only car doing it and
the flame was so dramatic everyone in my spectating area noticed it
right away and it was high noon on a cloudless day. Maybe it was just
the way this particular person set his car up.
Corky Scott
dsn...@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
One other data point I might include that might save someone some trouble.
I am told that the Mazda RX-7 uses a tuned exhaust system. This means
that the mufflers cannot be replaced with a cheaper muffler because the
back pressure is not correct and the engine doesn't run well without the
correct back pressure. I don't profess to know about this back pressure but
the Mazda mechanic told me this. He said he has seen numerous engines that
didn't run well because the owner opted for the cheaper exhaust system and
as soon as the correct exhaust was installed the engine ran fine. Just thought
I would throw in another point to consider. I wish I could fit one of these
in my Cessna 140. David--