KR> Kr2s Engine?
Recently I noted a video on youtube where a guy has an o200 in his aircraft and he does a take off and short flight and lands. Located here->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP5Uu7pSmqc I asked him about the speeds and he has indicated that they are as follows-> Propeller warp drive 70 inch with very step -2100 RPM ground - 2,750 max in flight Economic cruise cruise 200 kmh -2200 RPM 17 liters now. Maximum speed of this propeller configuration with 270 kmh Therefore I am wonder if the Corvair isnt the better choice based on Mark Landfords spec which are; # Fuel capacity: 16 gallons # Top speed: 191 mph TAS (true airspeed) with 3100cc Corvair engine and Sensenich 54x54 prop (turning almost 4000 rpm), 184 mph TAS with Sensenich 54x58 (but turning only 3400 rpm, and burning less fuel). # Fuel consumption: I get 42 mpg while flying at 160 mph TAS at 10,000' running "lean of peak", which is how I always fly at altitude. # Stall speed: 57 mph with split flaps deployed, 62 mph "clean" Based on the above wouldn't the Corvair seem to be the better choice? What is the advantage of the o200 vs the Corvair or the Corvair over the o200? What is the time between overhaul on a Corvair? Thanks Stan
KR> Experienced with Solid Works at the Gathering
I'll talked to Charlie Becker from EAA today. He is doing a forum Saturday afternoon at the gathering on how to register you home built. He asked me if I could check if anyone knows how to use Solid Works. His presentation that he's going to do at the Gathering is on that program. That software program is relatively new to him and he's not comfortable with using it yet. He was hoping someone would be there to rescue him if it crashed. Paul Visk Belleville Il. 618 406 4705
KR> Kr2s Engine?
"Stan" wrote: > Based on the above wouldn't the Corvair seem to be the better > choice? What is the advantage of the o200 vs the Corvair or the > Corvair over the o200? What is the time between overhaul on a > Corvair? The difference between the two boils down to the O-200 is a real airplane engine, designed for the job, with compromises to make it last. This includes lower compression for reduced stressed, and a more primitive carb for simplicity. The biggest thing with the O-200 is that it's purpose made for the job, with giant bearing near the prop to handle prop loads. The Corvair was not designed to run wide open all the time, but if you put a $2000 crankshaft in it and add a $1000 front bearing, the crank becomes pretty reliable and there are few weak links left, one of which is the semi-rare cam gear failure (and we know what to watch for on that now). Rebuilds on a Corvair are pretty cheap, compared to the O-200, and heads and cylinders survive rather well. Corvair parts are rather plentiful, and simple stuff like gears are still made and cheap, rather than rare and expensive. Having said that, if reliability is your number one goal, the O-200 is the way to go. If efficiency and performance is your goal, the Corvair may be the way to go. Cost is probably about the same either way, as far as initial installation, depending on luck and scrounging ability. It's too early to tell what the TBO is on the Corvair...there just aren't enough hours on them yet. I'd bet serious money that it's longer on the Continental than the Corvair though! I don't think anybody would disagree with that. I have a lot invested in Corvairs, and will stick with them. They are far better than VWs, both in reliability and safety. And I have two of them ready to run already. No, I'm not trying to sell either of them. If I were starting over and an O-200 presented itself for a reasonable price, I'd seriously considering buying it. With a new 4340 crank in my Corvair though, I'm good with that option too, especially since they are both paid for. Mark Langford ML at N56ML.com http://www.n56ml.com
KR> Facet pumps in series
Paul, That particular configuration has a bit of a safety issue. You always want at least one of your pumps before the gascolator. Check out any low wing carburated Piper. The fuel flow goes from Fuel Tank -> Electric Fuel Pump -> Gascolator -> Mechanical Fuel Pump -> Carb. The reason why you want one fuel pump before the gascolator is that even the smallest leak in the gascolator will draw air under suction from the pumps and starve the engine for fuel. If you have a pump before the gascolator, you can turn on that pump to restore fuel flow. You may only have a small seep or drip at the gascolator under pressure, but that's enough of an air leak under suction to starve the engine. This was a really common problem with the GlassAir series of aircraft. They were designed with the gascolator under suction for the mechanical pump and had chronic problems with fuel starvation thanks to an O-ring seal that didn't seat well in their gascolator. Ideally, the first pump should not have to suck fuel up hill, which eliminates the same problem should there be an air seep at a fuel line junction between the tank and the pump. But the gascolator can be a real problem because it is disassembled and reassembled regularly, so it's easy to have an air seep on occasion. -Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM ? Here is a picture of my first layout of my duel facet fuel pump design. ?I got it from flycorvair.com. ?I ended up with something diferant with the same pumps. https://flic.kr/p/AoAMfe Paul Visk?Belleville IL ?618 406 4705 Sent on the new Sprint Network from my Samsung Galaxy S?4 ?
KR> 28 Days & Counting to the Gathering...
Welcome to Charlie for his registration to the list of Gathering attendees. Just 28 days to go until the biggest national KR event! If you want to order any Gathering caps or shirts, you just have 3 more days as Larry needs a cut-off on the 20th. If you DID order something, please double-check your registration info and order to be sure I've captured it correctly. If you find an error, just reply to me and I'll get it straightened out. Thanks! John Bouyea N5391M/ KR2 OR81/ Hillsboro, OR 2015 KR at MMV Gathering CoHost
