Norm M

Here is what I found with my install: Lycoming IO306A3B6D As is, there is plenty of room to remove the filter in the stock location. No adapters required. Removed the dual 'T-Pack' mags and replaced with Lightspeed dual electronic ignition, crank sensor. This also serves as an oil seal retainer. Went all electric, installed an SD-8 backup generator on the Vacuum pad location. Had to make a decision to either use a Nippondenso alternator (I would use one from a tractor, but others are buying them from salvage yards) or to spend more money for the B&C. I made the decision to spend the money for the B&C. Bought the lightweight B&C starter, and have dual Hawker 17AH batteries. Wired per Aeroelectric Z-13 w/ second battery. Bought engine mount from Jeff Russell, it bolted right up. Bought IO360 cowl from Jeff also, but this cowl was made to fit a 'C' sump. Mounted cowl rearwards 3-4 inches to allow clearance for intake pipes, would have been better to mount cowl in stock location and add blisters. Exhaust system from wherever it lists in the newsletter. IO360 requires high pressure boost pump package, I bought mine from Airflow performance. This is expensive compared to facet pump. Also bought new injector lines from Airflow. They are only about $10 more than the component parts, and everything is SS and silver soldered. Baffling was different from plans, but Angle valve engine has big square jug fins on it, and I thought the baffling was quite straight forward to make. 8 inch prop extension from Judy Saber, Sensinich prop (bought used from Nat). 13 row Positech Oil Cooler. Throttle quadrant and cables from wicks. Plusses: Everything except Cowl off the shelf and bolts right up. 200 hp plus whatever gains from electronic ignition. Cost from Modworks was $10K for basic engine. Negatives: Starter and boost pump pricer than standard Lycoming or automotive installation, I think there is a kit to use an automotive starter, but I wanted a bolt-on solution. I think that there will be more successful automotive installations where the information and learning is shared, and people will have better resources for components such as intake, exhaust, ignition, fuel, and redrive systems. I abandoned the rotary when I could not identify an exhaust system or intake system that was developed, and when there was no agreement on how to mount a rotary. I still have three base plates sitting in the garage, along with three core 13b's! I have an associate who is taking delivery of a subaru 3.3l this next week, and will be following that engine closely. In the meantime, the Lycoming is a bolt-in solution that is ready to fly. To go through your questions by number: 1) If you are considering automotive fuel injection, install a return line in each tank. This can be plugged if you don't use it. 2) I know people who are flying with 93 Octane Amoco Ultimate in their high compression Lycoming engines. I have seen recommendations to mix some 100LL with 93 occasionally. Also many arguments against mogas. This begins to smell like a religious argument. Mogas users typically haul fuel to airport in 5 gallon containers. Some airports get excited about this practice, some airports have mogas available. I plan to fly with 100LL, and may consider a blend inthe future. But not until after plane and engine are well proven. 5) EI Installation was very clean. I chose to install both boxes on engine side of firewall, with a big hole for connectors they could be installed on passenger side also. Approx 12 pound weight savings over T-pack mags. Regards- Norm

I thought it would be a good idea to clean up and organize the shop before I started building. It is still probably a good idea, but 3 1/2 years later I still have a messy shop with unorganized tools, plus an airplane in the hanger. John hit the nail on the head. Start building sooner. -Norm

Homemade. Brand new. Installed once. Not removed yet. Realized springs run right through transponder and comm radio, plus I really wanted to use that little switch thingie on the grip. Brock gets $49.45. Will sell for $5.00 plus S&H Thanks! (Plus, this one has the bends the right direction!) PS: I may just bring this to Oshkosh and give it to the first person who runs up wearing spandex and says 'KCRR makes me a winner!'.

I put an ICOM A-200 in my panel. The same radio is sold as a King KY197 (I think that's the model). Easy to install. Regards- Norm

I used the 9 ounce plastic cups from Walmart or Sam's Club. The brand I currently have is from Praire Packaging, model 9-C. They are clear PETE, about 2.25 diameter at the bottom, 3.75 diameter top, 3 inches tall. They work real nice with the paint mixer that I use for mixing resin. Popsicle sticks also work, but not as fast. The biggest I ever mixed was in a 32 ounce uberBigGulp cup from 7-11. Used that a couple times on the wing layups. But most of the time was done using the 9 ounce cups. For mixing dabs of 5 min epoxy I picked up used communion cups from church. Rinsed them out, and they work nice for about a teaspoon (or less) of 5 minute. For mixing the West system filler, I used a 5 gallon pail with a drywall paddle. Much easier than the superfill stuff that I did. But you gotta be fast with getting it spread out! Regards- Norm

I put a small window air conditioner in my garage. It's primary job is to knock down the humidity. Plus, once you are done with the epoxy, it doesn't hurt if the temperature is more moderate. For doing layups, I think ideal would be about 80 degrees and 40% humidity (or less...) Running the dehumidifier tends to help out with both of those. Of course, you could always just work naked...

George is flying an eracer. I looked at his installation several years ago (summer 99, I think), and talked many airplane things with him. His plane was built on a budget, and is a great example of how you can build a flying machine without pouring in huge piles of money. But, it is perhaps not a good example of how an auto conversion is going to run circles around the conventional aircraft engines. The roadblock I hit with the rotaries was the issue that many of the support systems were not commercially available. Intake manifolds, carburator or injection system, exhaust system, mufflers, mounts, etc. Plus, complete lack of agreement on what might be the correct way to accomlish these things. So, each person was really on their own to develop the entire package. More than I wanted to bite off. (Plus I found a Lycoming that was appealing!) I also suspect that the 13B is a good substitute for the 150-160 hp engines, without a great amount of fine tuning required on the intake and exhaust. Squeezing another 20 hp through those pipes is going to take a lot more attention to detail. More than 200 hp in a Cozy sounds like a good way to make noise and heat the air behind the plane! As more of these machines take to the air, we will learn what works, and what does not work. If the concept is viable, perhaps there will be some intakes and exhaust systems that are commercially available, or flight proven designs that can be replicated. I still have three 13Bs out at the hanger, two completely broken down, and one that has been reassembled. Some day, it would be fun to get them running. But that will be after the Lycoming is pushing my plane through the sky! Regards- Norm

One of the things that I don't care for on this style forum is the lack of density. A normal maillist doesn't really solve that either, but the archives are a great source of information. I have downloaded all the archives from Marc's site, and would read through them on a regular basis. They are easy to load onto the laptop so I could review them while on a trip, sitting in a hotel room someplace. And you could search for a certain word or phrase. Once this forum gets loaded so there are 8 pages of posts on a topic, it becomes somewhat tedious to page through the messages to find the important stuff. I know you can do a search on the site, but you still have to go message by message to see what the context was. The other problem that I have with sites such as this is that they seem to accumulate jerks who make it a point to comment and snipe at most threads. Sorta takes the fun out of it. When you go back through the archives, you see where that has gone on in the past on the maillists also. But the threads continued and the content is still in there someplace. It will take this forum several years to develop meaningful knowledge base. One of the reasons that I built a Cozy is because of the archives. The maillist is/was also an excellent resource. This is another website, and is also of value. To each their own. Regards- Norm Muzzy

<<<Norm, I have some questions ...>>> I understand why you have questions. Until I got one on the bench to do some testing, I wasn't really sure how they were plumbed and wired up. I have been through the factory where these valves are built, and talked to the people that designed them, but that was 10 years ago. If you want a system with redundancy, three tanks, multi control modes, etc, you are going to end up with some level of complexity. I have a design with a reserve tank that can be switched in for last ditch, but everytime I mention it I get flamed with the complexity argument. Here is the skinny- If you fly a plane that doesn't return fuel, you can argue for days about common sump, valve type, and placement, and never come to consensus about the ultimate system. If you choose to fly an engine that returns a significant amount of fuel, you must have a fuel managment scheme that allows for deaereation of the returned fuel, temperature dissipation, valving for return fuel, valving or some other tank selection criteria, plus all of the issues associated with the trivial non-return design in the previous paragraph. Propose any solution, and it will be attacked with arguments of complexity and non-reliability. These forums are interesting and entertaining, but seem to be of minimal value for advancing the art of the design. Ultimately, the designer of the system needs to make their decisions, design, test, evaluate, and live with it. Looking for intelligent feedback from a forum group is like asking my flight physical doctor for feedback on my charging system design for the airplane. The information that is of value comes from those people who have made an intelligent decision, have built it, and have pushed the state of the art forward. I apreciate how Tracy has put his system together, and how it has worked out. It is of 100 times greater information value than what the rest of us might sketch on napkins. Of course, 100 opinions are much easier to get than one flying example. I suppose I could go find that valve selector and carve it open and do some motor stall tests. But I don't intend to fly with one, so I don't think I will go any further with that concept. I have offered to send the valve down to John for his enjoyment. My fuel system is pretty much by the book, right up to the boost pump. I am running the Airflow Performance package which uses a scheme that is also debateable ad nauseaum. I just had the oil cooler lines and two fuel lines crimped up Saturday. $78 total. Dang that aircraft stuff is expensive. (Watch for the 666 lines and fittings on eBay soon!) Regards- Norm

I still like the design I came up with way back when. Pressure pump on each tank, plumbed into the fuel rail (perhaps at opposite ends). Use a motorized valve for the return side, that has one lead from the motor connected to the left pump, the other to the right pump. When you power one of the pumps, the return moves to that tank. If you power both pumps, it stays put. You can use the fuel guage contacts on the valve to give you an error signal if the valve should stick and begin returning fuel to the tank opposite where you are drawing it from. I have tested these valves, if they stick in the middle they act like a tee. If they stick on one side, the switch would tell you it was in the wrong position. You can control the pumps in a couple different ways with the switches. That is a whole discussion by itself, to determine how one pump is always powered, or sometimes two pumps. Depending on how you trust the check valves in the pumps, you may want to have an extra check valve feeding the fuel rail for each pump to connect to. So long as you never expect consensus, this is the perfect forum for developing alternatives!