Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Alternative engines
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

ronburnett(at)charter.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:28 am Post subject: Alternative engines

I changed the post subject as it seems to have drifted away form Subaru.  I am completing and expecting to fly my Eggenfellner H-4 Subaru on my RV-6A this year.  I took delivery of it in 2004 and my observations have been any problems with these engines are generally self inflicted because of a serious deviation from the installation manual.



Check out his website and I believe you'll be impressed with the package he sells and the crafted workmanship and design he offers. 



The advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow me to fly more hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future.  I believe the future in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with viable alternative engines like Jan offers.



Do Not Archieve. 



Ron Burnett

St. Charles, MO

---- Tracy Crook <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com> wrote: 



=============

Good points Jim.  I plan to be buried with my rotary powered RVs so it

wasn't a factor <GGG>



Tracy



On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:51 PM, <JFLEISC(at)aol.com> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		    I have no issue with the highly subjective concept of "risk" when it

 comes to using automotive engines in experimental aircraft. My experience

 with an automotive powered aircraft, however, was not what I expected. I

 owned a Sonerai, (VW powered) and admittedly it was the least expensive

 dollar per hour plane I ever flew. I was not the original builder so I could

 not get a repairman's certificate. Issue 1; I had a difficult time trying to

 find an A&P who would sign it off each year only because they weren't

 "familiar" with anything not Cont or Lyc. The ones that would sign seemed

 more like rapists. Issue 2; Some insurance people I talked to back then

 didn't want to hear about airplanes without "airplane" engines. Issue 3;

 When I eventually went to sell it I found I had a limited customer base

 because of Issues 1 and 2. Issue 4; A builder can save a chunk of money by

 using alternative power plants however "building" can be addictive and

 eventually you have to face the fact that some day you may want something

 "newer", "faster", etc and will be looking at selling. Odds are that what

 you saved in the beginning will be lost at sale due to Issues 1, 2, and 3.



             Considering the investment I now have in my Lyc RV-4 I prefer

 to have something I can liquidate quickly and equitably now that I am at an

 age where each class III (God forbid) may be my last.

 Jim

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am Post subject: Alternative engines

Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does

not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into aircraft for

flight.  Do you have some reference that refutes the ASTM standard for

fuel in aircraft?



That means not even 1% Ethanol.  Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up

to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero.  Set me straight.



John Cox



--

gyoung

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 211
Location: Republic of Texas

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:24 am Post subject: Alternative engines

The FAA only cares about ethanol for certified aircraft with a mogas STC.

You can run your experimental on chicken fat or cow pies if you want.

Whether you can or should is up to you.



Regards,

Greg Young

 



[quote] --

ronburnett(at)charter.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:28 am Post subject: Alternative engines

John,

Do not claim to be an expert in this subject but I cannot burn ethanol fuel in our Luscombe as the FAA approved STC prohibits it.  I do know most of the Subaru drivers burn autogas which contains ethanol.  Our seals are nitron instead of rubber.  As to ethanols effect on alum. tanks, fittings, there seems to be no adverse effects so far.

Ron Burnett



Do not archieve



---- "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> wrote: 



=============




Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does

not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into aircraft for

flight.  Do you have some reference that refutes the ASTM standard for

fuel in aircraft?



That means not even 1% Ethanol.  Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up

to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero.  Set me straight.



John Cox

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: Alternative engines

> Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does

 	  Quote: 	
		   not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into aircraft for

 flight.  Do you have some reference that refutes the ASTM standard for

 fuel in aircraft?

 

 That means not even 1% Ethanol.  Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up

 to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero.  Set me straight.


	




I heard a radio report that some folks (corn growers?) may lobby for up to

20% ethanol in auro fuel.



Ron Lee

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: Alternative engines

IMHO you NEED to do some long term testing of your PRC covered with your 

favorite varieties of mogas, with and without ethanol.

I don't know with the current PRC, but what was used back 30 years is 

turned to goooo by mogas.



Greg Young wrote:

[quote] 



 The FAA only cares about ethanol for certified aircraft with a mogas STC.

 You can run your experimental on chicken fat or cow pies if you want.

 Whether you can or should is up to you.



 Regards,

 Greg Young

  



   

> --

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

Jerry Cochran

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Wilsonville, OR

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:09 pm Post subject: Alternative engines

Ron,

  

 I've done lot's of cross countries and yet to see a mogas pump at an  airport. Locally, I was using mogas until Oregon mandated 10% ethanol. So when  you go X-Country, where do you get mogas? 

  

 Jerry

  

 In a message dated 3/8/2008 12:03:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  rv-list(at)matronics.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  The    advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow me to fly    more

hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future.  I believe    the future

in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with    viable alternative

engines like Jan offers.



Do Not Archieve.    



Ron Burnett

St. Charles, MO 	


 

  



It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

  [quote][b]

Jerry Cochran

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Wilsonville, OR

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:17 pm Post subject: Alternative engines

In a message dated 3/8/2008 12:03:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  rv-list(at)matronics.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Time:    08:56:09 AM PST US

Subject: RE: Alternative engines

From: "John    W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>

Ron, my experience from the    fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does

not allow any amount of ethanol    in Mogas placed into aircraft for

flight.  Do you have some reference    that refutes the ASTM standard for

fuel in aircraft?

That means not    even 1% Ethanol.  Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up

to 6%, Oregon    is going 10% and the Fed says Zero.  Set me straight.

John    Cox 	

 John,

 I also live in "People's Republic of OR", so I feel your pain. However, I  do believe you can burn whatever in your Experimental. To burn mogas in  certified, you have to have an STC, and not sure whether that includes gas  with ethanol. I will try the 10% ethanol in my -6a in one tank some day in  the future. Just at cruise up high, mind you. 100LL in the other tank. Main  concern with ethanol is it seems to melt rubber on hoses, gaskets, etc. They  say... Neoprene allegedly OK. Maybe I'll buy a bottle of "White Lighting" and  submerge some hoses/gaskets, etc.  in a couple oz. of  it. What to do  with the rest of the bottle?

 Ideas? 

 Jerry

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

  [quote][b]

ronburnett(at)charter.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: Alternative engines

Jerry,

I use AirNav.com for flight planning  and it will choose routes with fuel type and price inputs.  Try it-you'll like it.

Ron Burnett

---- Jerry2DT(at)aol.com wrote: 

============= 

Ron,

 

I've done lot's of cross countries and yet to see a mogas pump at an  

airport. Locally, I was using mogas until Oregon mandated 10% ethanol. So when  you 

go X-Country, where do you get mogas? 

 

Jerry

 

In a message dated 3/8/2008 12:03:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  

rv-list(at)matronics.com writes:



The  advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow me to fly 

 more

hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future.  I believe  the future

in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with  viable 

alternative

engines like Jan offers.



Do Not Archieve.  



Ron Burnett

St. Charles, MO

c.ennis(at)insightbb.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: Alternative engines

Here is a quote from what some might consider an  authority.

  

 FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg  31.

  

 Among other comments, the article says  this..

  

 "Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not  allowed to be used in aircraft for the following reasons:

  

 * The addition of alcohol to  automobile

    gasoline adversly affects  the

    volatility of the fuel, which  could

    cause vapor lock.

  

 * Alcohol present in automobile

    gasoline is corrosive and  not

    compatible with the rubber seals  and

    other materials used in aircraft,  which

    could lead to fuel system  deterioration

    and malfunction.

  

 * Alcohol present in automobile

    gasoline is subject to phase  separation,

    which happens when fuel is  cooled

    as a result of the aircraft's climbing  to

    higher altitude. When the  alcohol

    separates from the gasoline, it  may

    carry water that has been held  in

    solution and that cannot be handled  by

    the sediment bowl.

  

 * Alcohol present in automobile

    gasoline reduces the energy content  of

    the fuel. Methanol has  approximately

    55 percent of the energy content of  

    gasoline, and ethanol has

    approximately 73 percent of the  

    energy of automobile  gasoline.

    The greater amount of alcohol in  

    the automobile gasoline, the  greater

    the reduction in the airdraft's  range."

  

  The article goes on with several  reccomendations.

   The most explicite says.

 "ii.  Automobile gasolines

       containing  alcohol

       (methanol or  ethanol) are

       not acceptable,  unless

       specifically  approved by the

       TC or  STC.

  

    For Further Information  Contact

  

 Peter L. Rouse, Aviation Safety  Engineer,

 Small Airplane Directorate; phone:

 (816) 329-4135; email:  peter.rouse(at)faa.gov (peter.rouse(at)faa.gov) 

  

    Charlie Ennis

   RV-6A

  

  [quote][b]

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: Alternative engines

Most of my flying is either local or within 2-way range of full tanks. 

My -7 will have extended range tanks & will push the percentage of 

round-trips without refueling to about 90%.



Charlie



Jerry2DT(at)aol.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Ron,

  

 I've done lot's of cross countries and yet to see a mogas pump at an 

 airport. Locally, I was using mogas until Oregon mandated 10% ethanol. 

 So when you go X-Country, where do you get mogas?

  

 Jerry

  

 In a message dated 3/8/2008 12:03:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, 

 rv-list(at)matronics.com writes:



     The advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow

     me to fly more

     hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future.  I believe

     the future

     in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with

     viable alternative

     engines like Jan offers.



     Do Not Archieve.



     Ron Burnett

     St. Charles, MO

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: Alternative engines

c.ennis wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Here is a quote from what some might consider an authority.

  

 FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg 31.

  

 Among other comments, the article says this..

  

 "Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not allowed to be used in 

 aircraft for the following reasons:

  

 * The addition of alcohol to automobile

    gasoline adversly affects the

    volatility of the fuel, which could

    cause vapor lock.

  

 * Alcohol present in automobile

    gasoline is corrosive and not

    compatible with the rubber seals and

    other materials used in aircraft, which

    could lead to fuel system deterioration

    and malfunction.

  

 * Alcohol present in automobile

    gasoline is subject to phase separation,

    which happens when fuel is cooled

    as a result of the aircraft's climbing to

    higher altitude. When the alcohol

    separates from the gasoline, it may

    carry water that has been held in

    solution and that cannot be handled by

    the sediment bowl.

  

 * Alcohol present in automobile

    gasoline reduces the energy content of

    the fuel. Methanol has approximately

    55 percent of the energy content of

    gasoline, and ethanol has

    approximately 73 percent of the

    energy of automobile gasoline.

    The greater amount of alcohol in

    the automobile gasoline, the greater

    the reduction in the airdraft's range."

  

  The article goes on with several reccomendations.

   The most explicite says.

 "ii.  Automobile gasolines

       containing alcohol

       (methanol or ethanol) are

       not acceptable, unless

       specifically approved by the

       TC or STC.

  

    For Further Information Contact

  

 Peter L. Rouse, Aviation Safety Engineer,

 Small Airplane Directorate; phone:

 (816) 329-4135; email:  peter.rouse(at)faa.gov <mailto:peter.rouse(at)faa.gov>

  

    Charlie Ennis

   RV-6A

Isn't the document talking about type-certified a/c?
	




All the points are typical 'conventional wisdom' arguments against 

alcohol blend fuels, very similar to the type of 'conventional wisdom' 

arguments used against auto fuels in general.  (You can make analogous 

arguments against  jet fuel, & planes seem to fly ok on that.)



Even with all those arguments in play, did you notice the last paragraph?



Charlie

ronburnett(at)charter.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject: Alternative engines

These issues have been addressed by our group and the Eggenfellner firewall forward  product.

1. The volatility issue is addressed by testing the fuel for the altitude that vapor lock could occur, usually above 12,000 feet, even in summer.

2. Rubber seals are not used.

3. Any water present would be absorbed in the fuel/ethanol mixture,  and run right thru the fuel injection system.

4. I am willing to accept any reduced range, especially for local flying to save extensively on fuel costs and cross country I can buy 100LL or MOGAS as available anyway.

5. Should vapor lock occur, we have a fuel bypass valve that would immediately restart the engine and most likely, you would never miss a beat or be aware that vapor lock had even occured.

An STC is unnecessary in an automotive engine and I am comfortable with these solutions.  



I do not burn auto fuel in my STC approved Luscombe as I agree with the premises stated for certified aircraft.  Life is often a dichotomy!



---- "c.ennis" <c.ennis(at)insightbb.com> wrote: 



=============

Here is a quote from what some might consider an authority.



FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg 31.



Among other comments, the article says this..



"Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not allowed to be used in aircraft for the following reasons:



* The addition of alcohol to automobile

   gasoline adversly affects the

   volatility of the fuel, which could

   cause vapor lock.



* Alcohol present in automobile

   gasoline is corrosive and not

   compatible with the rubber seals and

   other materials used in aircraft, which

   could lead to fuel system deterioration

   and malfunction.



* Alcohol present in automobile

   gasoline is subject to phase separation,

   which happens when fuel is cooled

   as a result of the aircraft's climbing to

   higher altitude. When the alcohol

   separates from the gasoline, it may

   carry water that has been held in

   solution and that cannot be handled by

   the sediment bowl.



* Alcohol present in automobile

   gasoline reduces the energy content of

   the fuel. Methanol has approximately

   55 percent of the energy content of 

   gasoline, and ethanol has

   approximately 73 percent of the 

   energy of automobile gasoline.

   The greater amount of alcohol in 

   the automobile gasoline, the greater

   the reduction in the airdraft's range."



 The article goes on with several reccomendations.

  The most explicite says.

"ii.  Automobile gasolines

      containing alcohol

      (methanol or ethanol) are

      not acceptable, unless

      specifically approved by the

      TC or STC.

  RV-6A

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:07 pm Post subject: Alternative engines

Charlie, Thank You.  There is an ASTM standard which I understood was

required of all aircraft flying.  This was a condition not restricted to

just certificated production aircraft but experimental built as well.

It has something to do not just with octane but the diverse difference

of the Reid Pressure Value when Ethanol in any amount is added.



Clearly there are some who feel experimental built can fly on corn

squeezing.  My understanding was that No ethanol was allowed.  And yet

there was a feature story in one of my aviation pubs of a three ship

RV-4 group which flies with E-85. I remain confused and curious.



John Cox 



--

retasker(at)optonline.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: Alternative engines

ronburnett(at)charter.net wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 4. I am willing to accept any reduced range, especially for local flying to save extensively on fuel costs and cross country I can buy 100LL or MOGAS as available anyway.

   

Just to put this in perspective.  Auto fuel with 10% ethanol (which is 
	


the ratio that is widely sold) will give you 97.3% the range as straight 

mogas or 100LL.  For a theoretical range of 1000 miles with 100LL, you 

could go 973 miles with a mix.  I don'[t know about you, but I am going 

to be on the ground refueling long before the 27 miles difference is 

relevant.



Do not archive

 	  Quote: 	
		   ---- "c.ennis" <c.ennis(at)insightbb.com> wrote: 



 =============

 Here is a quote from what some might consider an authority.



 FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg 31.



 Among other comments, the article says this..



 "Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not allowed to be used in aircraft for the following reasons:



 * The addition of alcohol to automobile

    gasoline adversly affects the

    volatility of the fuel, which could

    cause vapor lock.



 * Alcohol present in automobile

    gasoline is corrosive and not

    compatible with the rubber seals and

    other materials used in aircraft, which

    could lead to fuel system deterioration

    and malfunction.



 * Alcohol present in automobile

    gasoline is subject to phase separation,

    which happens when fuel is cooled

    as a result of the aircraft's climbing to

    higher altitude. When the alcohol

    separates from the gasoline, it may

    carry water that has been held in

    solution and that cannot be handled by

    the sediment bowl.



 * Alcohol present in automobile

    gasoline reduces the energy content of

    the fuel. Methanol has approximately

    55 percent of the energy content of 

    gasoline, and ethanol has

    approximately 73 percent of the 

    energy of automobile gasoline.

    The greater amount of alcohol in 

    the automobile gasoline, the greater

    the reduction in the airdraft's range."



  The article goes on with several reccomendations.

   The most explicite says.

 "ii.  Automobile gasolines

       containing alcohol

       (methanol or ethanol) are

       not acceptable, unless

       specifically approved by the

       TC or STC.

   RV-6A



   


	


-- 

Please Note: 

No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message.  We do concede, however,

that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.

--

c.ennis(at)insightbb.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:26 am Post subject: Alternative engines

John C

  6nbsp;As just another RV builder/flyer I really don 7t have any insight into what 7s right or what 7s wrong about flying with auto fuel C I only know what I read E Having said that C I fly with a certified Lycoming in my experimental aircraft E In order to maintain that certification it has to continue to meet all of the original factory specs E Changing parts C wether fuel system seals or the whole carburation system to some other special improved system C voids the certification and I must remove the factory data plate from my engine E I realize that some would see no problem with this C though it does reduce the perceived value of your aircraft in some buyers minds E As I recall Lyc E does not sanction the use of auto fuel in any of its engines C STC 7s from the EAA and Peterson are not recomended by them E

  6nbsp;As for the RV-4 ethanol group C I understand they are financed and backed by the corn lobby C and their aircraft are set up and altered to run on alcohol E I would suppose the engines are all de-certified(notice C I didn 7t say  2assume 2)  E

  6nbsp;In the past C pre ethanol C it was assumed to be safe to run autogas IF you could find your specific engine listed in the STC 7s from the EAA or Peterson E I feel the addition of alcohol has negated that presumption of safety E The EAA even sells an alcohol detection kit for use by it 7s STC holders and others because too high a precentage of alcohol voids the STC E

  6nbsp;If I were willing and determined enough to run an auto engine conversion in my aircraft C I would certainly try 6nbsp;auto 6nbsp;fuel with alcohol C Just as I ran auto fuel in my Lyc E before alcohol became the government mandated additive of the moment E 

  6nbsp;Finally C cheaper fuel is a poor reason to risk your investment of time and money C not to mention your hide C on a questionable fuel E But that 7s just my opinion C others with opinions may differ E

  6nbsp;Charlie

  6nbsp;

  6nbsp; 6nbsp; 6nbsp; 6nbsp; 6nbsp; 6nbsp; 6nbsp; 6nbsp; 6nbsp; 6nbsp; 6nbsp; 6nbsp; --

sbuc(at)hiwaay.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:30 am Post subject: Alternative engines

c.ennis(at)insightbb.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   John, As just another RV builder/flyer I really don't have any

 insight into what's right or what's wrong about flying with auto

 fuel, I only know what I read. Having said that, I fly with a

 certified Lycoming in my experimental aircraft. In order to maintain

 that certification it has to continue to meet all of the original

 factory specs. Changing parts, wether fuel system seals or the whole

 carburation system to some other special improved system, voids the

 certification and I must remove the factory data plate from my

 engine. I realize that some would see no problem with this, though it

 does reduce the perceived value of your aircraft in some buyers

 minds. <snip>


	




You can't have a "certified" engine in an experimental aircraft. You no 

doubt maintain your engine the same way it would be in an aircraft with 

a standard airworthiness certificate, and that may indeed enhance the 

resale value, but the engine in your RV ain't "certified" to anything.  



Sam Buchanan

michael.phil(at)ca.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject: Alternative engines

I disagree. The Lycoming engine leaves the factory with an airworthiness certificate and as long as it is properly maintained and all AD's are complied with, the airworhiness certificate remains valid. 



---- Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> wrote: 

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 c.ennis(at)insightbb.com wrote:

 > John, As just another RV builder/flyer I really don't have any

 > insight into what's right or what's wrong about flying with auto

 > fuel, I only know what I read. Having said that, I fly with a

 > certified Lycoming in my experimental aircraft. In order to maintain

 > that certification it has to continue to meet all of the original

 > factory specs. Changing parts, wether fuel system seals or the whole

 > carburation system to some other special improved system, voids the

 > certification and I must remove the factory data plate from my

 > engine. I realize that some would see no problem with this, though it

 > does reduce the perceived value of your aircraft in some buyers

 > minds. <snip>

 

 

 You can't have a "certified" engine in an experimental aircraft. You no 

 doubt maintain your engine the same way it would be in an aircraft with 

 a standard airworthiness certificate, and that may indeed enhance the 

 resale value, but the engine in your RV ain't "certified" to anything.  

 

 Sam Buchanan

JFLEISC(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject: Alternative engines

Correct! Just as you can't take a "certified" Lyc from a certified Piper  and replace the certified Cont  in a certified Cessna with that Lyc and  still call it certified to the original aircraft. Once it has been run with  a different cooling system, prop, etc.(different from the certificate) it  has no longer been maintained as it was certified. My understanding, technically  it needs to be "torn down" and "re-certified" that nothing changed. 

  

  

 Jim

  

  

 In a message dated 3/9/2008 3:32:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  sbuc(at)hiwaay.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  You    can't have a "certified" engine in an experimental aircraft. You no 

doubt    maintain your engine the same way it would be in an aircraft with 

a    standard airworthiness certificate, and that may indeed enhance the 

resale    value, but the engine in your RV ain't "certified" to anything.     



Sam Buchanan

	


 

  



It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

  [quote][b]

JFLEISC(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: Alternative engines

Define "properly maintained". Example; A certified aircraft guarantees that  the airframe's cooling system won't fry the engine. No experimental can  guarantee that which is why it is "experimental".

  

 Jim

  

 In a message dated 3/9/2008 4:15:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  michael.phil(at)ca.rr.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  I    disagree. The Lycoming engine leaves the factory with an airworthiness    certificate and as long as it is properly maintained and all AD's are complied    with, the airworhiness certificate remains valid 	


 

  



It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

  [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum