Mail Sack, 5/19/13, Various topics.

Builders,

Here is a large sample of the mail. You can click on the topic headings to review the original story the letter is referring to…….

On  MA3-spa carb pictures, Wagabond notes.

601XL builder/flyer Ron Lendon writes:

“WW, you must have written this for me.  Monday I will contact Russ and have him build one for me.  The oneoff the 65hp continental should remain there.  Maybe it it can be a core, but it’s coming off my engine and getting replaced by a D & G.”

Ron, I am glad to see you moving to the same carb that others find to be very successful. I feel that the smallish carb that you engine had contributed to lean/hot operation. Smart move.-ww

International Builder Howard Horner writes:

“Ahhhh. Nitrous! I had a conversation with Dan at Sun n Fun about Nitro vs Turbo or supercharger for short boosts of power on a CH 750 float plane. He thought you might like the idea… maybe he was right!”

.

On the story Built by William Wynne? Built according to The Manual?

601XL Builder/flyer Charles Leonard writes:

WILLIAM, I HAVE BEEN READING EVERYTHING YOU HAVE WRITTEN , OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. THIS HAS PROVIDED ME WITH A WEALTH OF INFORMATION, AND HELPED KEEP ME FROM KILLING MYSELF. HOWEVER IN THIS E-MAIL, THERE IS ONE POINT I THINK IS WRONG.

YOU SAID,” NEVER BUY A SECOND HAND ENGINE”, IF THIS IS TRUE, THEN AFTER YOU ARE THROUGH BUILDING YOUR PLANE AND ARE GOING TO MOVE ON, YOU SHOULD NOT SELL IT, THE PROJECT SHOULD JUST BE THROWN OUT. THIS I DO NOT AGREE WITH.

KEEP THE E-MAILS COMING. CHARLES LEONARD 601XLB

Charles, I was not clear enough in my comments, and I have gone back to amend the story to fix that. What I didn’t want people to buy were unknown second-hand, project engines. An engine like the one in your aircraft is fully proven and conforms to the best ways we have of doing things. No problem there.-ww

Aviation professional Jon Ross Writes:

“William: I know how you feel… I was asked to assist in licensing a Fairchild that had been damaged in a ground loop accident. The airplane was in the experimental category (not amateur built of course) and the owner wanted to put it back in the standard category. There had been an engine change to another model of the Ranger engine. The TCDS supported the change to the more powerful Ranger, so that was not a problem. But in the accident the propeller had been splintered down to about 3 feet in diameter. The aircraft owner (a physicist of all things) was surrounded by friends and “Experts” that stated all that was needed was a runout check on the crank. I wanted the engine torn down and inspected but with Ranger so long out of business I could not supply any data supporting the need for a teardown after a prop strike. If it had been a Lycoming or Continental this would have been no problem. I refused (politely) to assist. The aircraft owner heard what he wanted to hear from his friends and so they repaired the airplane and hung a new prop on the existing engine. I reminded the owner that he was not exempt from the laws of physics and that this was simply not safe.

I am now the bad guy, and I no longer feel welcome on that side of the airport. After witnessing two crashes of pilots from the same group of guys as a result of taking off downwind I am really on the outs with these folks. All because I did not tell them what they wanted to hear.

I tell you this because you are not alone. Your situation is worse because you have much more latitude in the experimental world, which makes many builders hide behind the Experimental label… It is all very dangerous.

People like you describe will continue to do as they do, and guys like us will continue to counsel them. When it’s all over perhaps we will have made a difference. You would make a very good DAR William, I encourage you to apply for designation as such. You do look better with shorter hair, but that is just an opinion and I suppose Grace has some preference here:) Best, Jon Ross A&P IA AB DAR”

Pietenpol builder Terry Hand writes:

“William, If I buy a Corvair engine that I did not build, then I do not know for sure what I am flying behind. I might as well buy an O-200 (with a similar unknown provenance) at the Flymart. But I want to build my Corvair so I KNOW what is on my airplane. There are no shortcuts to that feeling of accomplishment.”

Noted Corvair enthusiast Bob Helt writes:

“William, You certainly don’t need my feedback, but I feel it necessary to compliment you on your knowledge, explanations, and concerns. Thank You. This is a very impressive educational lesson.
Regards, Bob Helt”

Cleanex Builder and CC#22 grad Vic Delgado writes:

“William, I am one of those people that is stubborn in my ideas once I have done my research and made up my mind. I actually had chosen another option which I thought would be simpler, less expensive, and dependable. Once I had the opportunity to speak with you at CC23 about my choice, and you explained the different options available, and why you thought the MA3 was a good choice, I was reluctant to change, at that moment. But the explanation you gave made so much sense, and your experience counted for a lot as well, that I knew I was looking for an MA3 carb for my engine before the weekend was over.   I really appreciate the way you explain things, and even more that you don’t sugar coat the truth, bad or good. I respect that presentation because it is honest, and straight forward, which it the way I like to deliver as well.  I am still looking for a good MA3, if you have any good leads where I should be looking for a fair price, please let me know. I too am building for myself and my family to fly behind, and there is no “Bargain” that will make me skimp on my safety and peace of mind. My goal is to try to have my engine completed by end of 2013 if possible. I am really looking forward to it! I will be getting in touch with you regarding my engine block and work.
thanks, Vic”

Builder “Jacksno” writes:

“…stone reliability…”  If I had an aircraft parts company, it’d be Stone Reliable Aircraft Parts.  Also, really like your priorities, especially concerning ‘glass/’instruments’ a distant priority from that of a reliable carb.  I try to stay positive, but have to admit I was sorely disappointed with the choices made by the EAA staff (latest mag) and their CH 750 build- I love the concept, the airframe choice, am willing to accept the use of the on hand historic Continental power plant, (although, of course, would rather see a 5th bearing Corvair), but reached for the puke bag when I got to the sell out (my opinion) on the Dynon.  Not saying anything at all against Dynon, just that a) having them do the panel is completely out of line with homebuilding and may violate the 51%/majority build rule, (which may not apply to the organization as it would to an individual), and b)  as an example of entry-level home building for entry-level pilots ostensibly planning to fly for the pure joy of it, (just like crows do as opposed to mission oriented raptors), ‘steam’ gauges seem far more appropriate. They are free to do as they please, just didn’t like it and using this opportunity to vent.  Thanks.”

Jacksno: Everyone knows I like stupidly simple stuff in aircraft, so let me take the counterpoint on this and give a little of the opposing perspective: Of all of the Glass cockpit stuff, I like Dynon the best, it is well proven, and if someone likes that stuff, it is a good value. Part of the mission of the plane is to fly all of the EAA air academy students that go there during the summer. Most of these kids are far more familiar with that type of display that steam gauges. The thing I like best about their choices are that the plane, the engine, and the instrumentation are all US made products. You know what aircraft they were using at the Air-acedemy? A Chinese built Skycatcher. I will accept nearly anything over that. I want every kid who goes there to understand that Americans wrote a large part of the history of flight, and we still have a fantastic engineering education system here, and that they should take their place as the next generational link in the chain of achievement by becoming as educated as possible and then using that knowledge to create more manufacturing here. The plane, as they are building it, supports this. Flying in a Skycatcher built by repressed labor in a communist country sends the message that we once went to the moon, but today the best you can hope for is a ride in a cheap toy built for maximum corporate profit by using the lowest wage workers they could find on the planet.

The paint, interior, engine and panel all are not considered as part of the 51%. Builders are not penalized for purchasing these items nor hiring them out.-ww

.

On the story of Starting procedures on Corvairs, 2,000 words of experience.

Builder Dan Branstrom writes:

“I always considered that cutting off the mixture would starve the cylinders of fuel that could be fired by magneto ignition if the prop was moved and either there was a broken P-lead or the ignition was not turned off.”

Charles Leonard  601XLB builder/flyer writes:

“If  I start using the ignition switch to kill the engine, may I leave the mixture control in between flights, or what?it sounds like I can just leave the mixture control alone. Charles”

.

On the story, Machines vs Appliances Part #2

650 builder Becky Shipman writes:

“Great topic, with 1/2 a beer I could go on for hours about this. Mostly I agree w/ a few exceptions. Rotax 912s – you are right for the most part. I do know someone who rebuilt one who was not an A&P but took a Rotax repair class.

Cars – while they are harder to work on, there is one particular area where I love modern cars. They don’t rust! I would still drive my ’76 Nova if it hadn’t rusted out. In 5 years. And because of unibody construction, once the rust gets significant you are done, unless you weld / replace major body portions. My 2004 Ranger, 150,000 miles, not a spec of rust.

Materials – especially rubber and plastics, last much longer. Modern cars rarely leak oil if you don’t abuse them. Door and window seals last forever compared to the ’60s. I like that you can incorporate that into rebuilding old engines w/ improved seals. In the process control world, a computer is much more reliable than a room filled with timers and counters and relays that gets really, really hot. But if something goes wrong, you need a EE degree just to get into the logic and trace the circuits.

My car never knocks or detonates. There’s the darn check engine light – but what that really means is that the computer control system had to go full on or off to try and control the mixture (at least most of the time).  In my opinion, the problem isn’t that the technology is bad in and of itself, it’s that the designers try to make it so you don’t have to know how it works to use it. In the Jenny days, you had to know how the OX-5 worked to be safe flying it. Modern airplanes, you sort of don’t have to know as much, but I believe you are still safer if you do.

The Corvair engine and the way you approach it guides builders into knowing how it works, and that makes us safer. It’s more reliable than an OX-5, even if you know the OX-5 by heart. But with the Rotax, I think there’s overlap – if you don’t know your Corvair the Rotax is probably safer, if you know your Corvair but not your Rotax, the Corvair is safer, if you know them both – maybe a tossup? But no one demands you know your Rotax before you take off, and that in my opinion is the real problem. I would like to hear you try to convince me to own a V8 Vega …….Becky Shipman”

Becky, think of a V-8 Vega as a Nova that weighs 700 pounds less, and has about 50% of the aerodynamic drag. Go to You tube and search “V-8 Vega - Burnout” , there are about 100 great clips in there. My Brother and I had several V-8 Vegas, mostly 1974 GT Wagons and a Panel Express.-ww

My Brother in Law Col. John Nerges shares:

“I am typing this on a Dell computer, a model they probably made 5 million of. This computer could be called a machine, but for all intents and purposes it isn’t. A computer is another thing entirely. It is an appliance. Is there anyone reading this who thinks that there will be a single 95-year-old laptop of this model working in the year 2105?”

Wow, talk about perspective.

Builder “Jacksno” writes:

“It’s hard for me to accept the word as applied today:  technology.  It WAS a beautiful word.  As all words, it’s value and veracity are directly proportional to the integrity of the ‘heart’ that powers the brain, mouth, and lungs to utter it.  You nailed it re ‘consumer-ism’.  Such a poor, poverty spirit business concept.  Somethings, like my product, are in fact consumable.  It’s not a Machine, or even a machine, but a substance.  That’s different than a Machine, which has a very widespread definition for me, something made by a maker called to make things, one who has the greatest admiration and respect for working parts functioning in harmony toward a designed purpose, made to last as long as possible regardless of the potential ‘profit’ of the greed driven concept of ‘engineered obsolescence’.  Thanks for your standard of integrity.”

Builder Charlie  Nowlin Writes:

“Yes, William, I am a 15%-er too!  I immediately understood your first post on this subject. The second? A piece  of  cake! Keep up  the  great work!”

.

On the Video of Running 2850cc engine.

Corvair/Merlin, builder/flyer Jeff Moores writes:

“Hi William, loved the video; sounds great as all Corvairs do. With the 2850 what is the prop dia. and pitch? What is your WOT rpm? Thanks, Jeff Moores Corvair/Merlin”

Jeff, that is our test prop, it is only 62″ diameter. The peak RPM in the video was a momentary 3,000.-ww.

.

On the story of The cost of being Charles Lindbergh

Builder Dan Branstrom writes:

“To add to the biography of Lindbergh, it is the theory on the part of Pulitzer Prize winner Scott Berg that the reasons that Roosevelt didn’t want to let him reenlist were twofold: Lindbergh had voiced his opposition to the Army pilots taking over the air mail routes because he said that while the Army pilots were excellent pilots, that flying the air mail was a totally different type of flying.  He was proved right when there were many fatalities.  That ticked off Roosevelt.

The other is that Lindbergh in a dramatic move had resigned his commission to head up the America First movement.  It was understandable that he would have those views because his father had been one of the few Congressmen to vote against going to war in WWI.

Lindbergh had even contemplated moving to Germany, not because of any great love for the country, but because in that totalitarian state, the press left him alone.  If you think that today’s paparazzi are bad, the press of that day was far worse towards Lindbergh.  It is for that reason he had moved his family from the U.S. to England in the years after his son was kidnapped.

The award he was given by the Nazi government was sprung on him, and it was a propaganda ploy on the part of Germany.  The Germans, proud of the Luftwaffe, showed him everything, and he shared this information with U.S. intelligence.

Because Roosevelt didn’t let him rejoin the Army, he quietly became a manufacturer’s rep and troubleshooter in the Pacific.  He had orders cut that let him go anywhere in the Pacific.  He is responsible for teaching fighter pilots how to increase their range by a substantial margin.  As he put it, “It’s in your engine manuals.”

They learned that at low RPMs that they could use power settings that were over-square  to increase their range at low power settings.  They could use settings of very low rpm and high manifold pressure without damaging the engine, yet cruise at much greater efficiency in the trip to and from the site of a battle.  This gave them at least an extra hour of flight time.  Because he was Lindbergh, fighter pilots listened to him.  If he’d been someone else, they might not have.  He also flew fighter sweeps with them and demonstrated that he knew what he was talking about.”

.

On the story of  The Quote, 1927, C.A.L.

Builder “Jacksno” wrote:

“That’s it.  Period.”

.

On the story about the New Photos of JAG-2, a Corvair powered twin.

Pietenpol builder Terry Hand Writes:

“William, I am in awe of guys like Jim and Dan Weseman and others. Their skills and their projects make my build project look down right minuscule in comparison, but I proudly stand up with them and say “I am a homebuilder.” And thank you for having a place for us to share the journey with likeminded people. Semper Fi, Terry Hand”

.

On the two stories about Gary Burdett’s 750, Gary Burdett, 2,850cc Zenith 750, now flying. (engine selection) and Zenith 750 Flying on Corvair Power, Gary Burdett, Illinois

759 builder Blaine Schwartz writes:

“Congrats Gary! The plane looks great!”

650 builder Becky Shipman writes:

“Hello William, I am glad to hear that Gary’s plane is flying.  Another zenith success story. It is interesting that you mention the RV-12 and zodiac 650 since that is exactly the choice I had to make before starting to build my plane.  I went to both the vans factory and the zenith factory before deciding.  The RV-12 looked to be an excellent plane, vans kits have a great reputation and the instructions were excellent.  But there was no flexibility in design options.  The plane was licensed as an ELSA which meant that every option had to appear in a production plane.

I have flown about 200 HRS behind a Rotax 912s.  The engine was fairly reliable but there were a couple of problems I noticed.  While the fuel consumption was low at low altitudes it was unreasonably high at high altitudes.  The cylinder head temperature would occasionally be too high when climbing.  Both of these issues could have been handled in flight with a mixture control, but the Rotax with its Bing carburetors didn’t have one.  The Vans also didn’t allow any options for flight or engine instruments.So I decided to go with the zodiac which allowed me to put off making my decision on instruments and engine until I had checked out more options.  Regards, Becky”

International Builder Howard in Hati writes:

“I chuckled (and cringed) when I read this blog post on a builder forum and it caused me to think about your dedication to educate and empower builders.

Charging Issue: …While taxiing to the active, my battery charge indication shoed low voltage, fluctuating into yellow. On run-up, the bar still showed slightly more than 12 volts. It usually reads 13.2 or so. I went back to tie down, and quit for day. Later, the battery would not turn engine. On charger all night. Does the Jabiru have a voltage regulator that may be bad? If so, where is it, and what does it look like…

-Thanks, Haiti Howard.”

Builder Paul Sanders writes:

“Great article. I spent a lot of time comparing the main players in the game and until recently had decided on the Viking, with the Corvair a close second (largely due to the perception that is a lot heavier – a perception that has since been corrected). As I’ve watched the Viking grow it has become obvious that it is not the engine for me for a lot of reasons. Your arguments are good, one needs to look closely at all aspects, not just cost and weight etc. In my case particularly, I know very little about engines, and the system you have designed to support the Corvair conversion is just what I need. I don’t think I can succeed if I buy an engine and am then abandoned. I’m hopefully going to be in touch with you soon to talk about having you build one for my “forthcoming” 750.”

.

On the story about our dog, Scoob E,

650 Builder Becky Shipman writes:

“Hello William, It’s funny how dogs focus in on sound.  My family had a Collie named Mac.  The dog loved my father and used to run to the door when he pulled up in our 76 Chevrolet nova.  I inherited the nova when I moved away after college.  A couple of years later I drove back to the house to visit my parents and they told me that Mac ran to the door when she heard the car even though dad hadn’t driven it for two years. That nova, with an in-line six and three on the tree was my most reliable car.  I would still be driving it if it hadn’t rusted out. Glad you and Scoob E survived Grace’s absence. Regards, Becky”

.

On the story about 76 Days until Oshkosh 2013.

Pietenpol builder Ryan writes:

“William, Have you thought about drawing up your redesigned Piet gear? I think I would like to do something similar but not sure where to start. Ryan”

Ryan, I am working on an informal Pietenpol notebook which would have all of the information I have gathered on them, and drawing of this like the gear. I am gathering this along with positive storieds of fun and adventure in Corvair-powered piets. I hope to sweep this together before Brodhead this year.-ww

Builder “Jeffeoso” writes:

“I shall likely see you there. at Oshkosh”

Looking forward to it-ww.

Pietenpol builder John Francis writes:

“William,  I am interested in purchasing a motor mount for a Pietenpol at Brodhead.”

John, Send me a direct Email to williamtca@aol.com, and give me some detail on your fuselage. Be sure to include an evening phone number. I will be glad to get started and bring you one.-ww

Built by William Wynne? Built according to The Manual?

Builders,

Below are photos of three Corvair engines. All of them were sold to new owners this year. The sellers of these engines said things to get the new owners to pick them up, things that we will just call “Less than honest.” One of the engines was said to have been built by myself; another was said to have been inspected by me, and successfully flown; the other was said to have been built “according to the WW manual.” Let’s look at why these statements are not accurate, and at the end I am going to make some serious suggestions about shopping for second-hand engines or engine projects.

blog050913a

Above, a 2700 engine that was built by a WWII B-17 pilot named Sam Sayer of Florida, who has now passed from this earth. The engine was sold with his plane from his estate, then resold to the new owner. I knew Sam, and he was an outstanding human. He was shot down on his first mission by an 88mm flak shell that went through the throttle quadrant but failed to fully detonate. He evaded capture and returned to England. You can read more about him on this 2006 link to our main Web site, a story about Corvair College #9:

http://www.flycorvair.com/cc9d.html

He was a great guy, and I spent a fair chunk of time with him. He was a “regular” at our Edgewater hangar. But this doesn’t mean that the engine he built was airworthy nor worth buying.

Plenty of things are wrong with me; in many ways I am an opinionated jackass and I have made plenty of mistakes in life. But here is something that I do correctly: When a veteran aviator in his 80s shows up at my hangar, doesn’t have a medical, is pretty much aware that he isn’t going flying, and just wants to enjoy himself by exercising some creativity and building something with the hands that still bear the scars of shrapnel from an 88mm shell fired 60 years before, he gets the red carpet treatment.

I am not there to lecture a man my father’s age that he is “Doing it wrong.” It is my task to make that man’s day a little brighter and do anything I can for him: Tools, time, coffee and being a good listener. If a 35-year-old guy came to a College and wanted my help to build and run the above engine and then put it on his plane, the answer is of course ”No,” and I am going to make Mr. 35-year-old do it the right way, because he is going to take it flying, and he didn’t sacrifice his youth in 1944 trying to do something to stop fascism. Most aviation companies wouldn’t let a guy like Sam hang around any longer than it would take to find he didn’t have a lot of money to spend: “That’s just good business.” To hell with them, they may be business people, but in my book they are not aviators and they are piss poor Americans if they judge the value of men like Sam by the thickness of their wallet. This country is filled with people who think that having a yellow ribbon sticker on their car that says “Support the Troops” completely fulfills the obligation.

Back to the main point: Look at the photo above. It has no 5th bearing and the crank probably isn’t nitrided. Look at the rust on the hardware. Do you think this was stored wrapped up in a really dry place the past 7 years? The guy who sold this to its current owner said that it was “Assembled by WW for Sam Sayer,” and was selling it for many thousands of dollars. I didn’t build this engine, the guy just said that because he is a B.S. artist who wanted to make a buck. Trust me, he isn’t the only guy like that selling something in aviation.

blog050913b

Above, rear view of the engine: I have not put a rear starter on an engine in 14 years. Note there are no rear tins. I have never put a belt driven alternator on that side of the back of an engine; search the name of my friend “John Blackburn” and “V-6 Ford crash” on my www.FlyCorvair.com Web site to find out why. The valve cover clamps are on backwards, the distributor clamp is the wrong one, none of the accessory brackets are strong enough. I have no idea what is inside this engine, I didn’t build nor assemble it. What I did do with the builder was spend two Veterans Days in a row with Sam in my hangar, treating a great guy with the respect and camaraderie that he deserved.

blog050913c

Round Two: Above is the KR-2 built by David Dergins in Florida circa about 2002. I saw this plane in a housecall, and was very concerned that it would crash on the first flight. Dergins was a very friendly and successful real estate guy, and he had the money to do a good job, he just didn’t have the patience. I told him it needed to be redone. Several months later he brought it to our hangar at Spruce Creek on a trailer to “Show Me” that he had taken my counsel seriously. He had not, and he stated he was going to fly it that week. Kevin, Grace and I had a real dilemma; we had no power to stop him, we were all pretty sure it was going to be an accident, and Dergins had already shown that he wasn’t going to listen to advice. We were looking at a bomb that was going to destroy a lot of the reputation of Corvairs that we had worked to build, we had no way to defuse it, and after it went off, we all knew that few people would understand that we had really tried to defuse it. I had already been in the engine business for 10 years at that point, and I knew the story would be “And Dave, that wonderful craftsman, had it up at WW’s hangar just the week before for his approval.” Dergins took it home in anger, and later said that he did get it off the ground, had problems on rotation, did a very low 180 and said he would never fly it again. He said to me several times that I was wrong, it did “fly.” By a miracle, the bomb was a dud. It was as if he had fashioned a suicide vest made to look something like a clothing line we sell, but at the last moment, it didn’t go off.

blog050913d

Above, Dergin’s engine. Look at the front cover and compare it to Sam Sayer’s. Sam had craftsmanship but little money, Dergins had money but no craftsmanship. To settle the academic debate, I would rather fly Sam’s engine, but in reality, no one should fly either. Just get a look at the intake logs on the head. Yes, this engine will run, but cylinders 5 & 6 will run super rich, 1 & 2 will run very lean, and the head gaskets will blow in a few minutes of climb. The seller of this aircraft represented it as a KR-2 in flyable condition that has a WW inspected engine. Factually true? Yes, if you get into legal debates such as “It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.” For the rest of us, we can just say that the seller is not an honest man. I have spoken with the new owner, and he is a good guy who fully understands that every single part needs to come out of this and be looked at with a very critical inspection.

587819

Round Three: Above is the inside of a case of an engine that I tore down for the second owner. The guy who built it and sold it stated that it was built according to my manual. I ask all the reasonable builders to show me the part in my manual that tells builders to overspray all the rotating engine parts with orange paint. This was under the bearings, down in the lifter bores, and in the oil galleries. I guess he didn’t want the inside of the aluminum case, bathed in oil, to get all rusty? Looking at the engine, and reflecting on my communication with the orignal builder, I will tell you that this engine wasn’t a budget nor a craftmanship problem, it was an attitude problem. Specifically, the builder didn’t like taking advice from someone whom he perceived as a long-haired, opinionated, know-it-all, punk kid from Florida.

First, I do have long hair, live in Florida, and I am a jackass, but even if you hate me, that doesn’t invalidate my words on engines. Maybe now that I am 50 years old we can put the “He is too young to know a lot about planes” crap to rest. I may not know every single thing about engines, but comparing my understanding of Corvairs with this builder, I am Albert Einstein (and I have the hair style to prove it).

587818

Above, a piston assembly out of the engine. That’s not just a cast piston, that is a Chinese-made cast piston. That symbol, just ahead of the wrist pin, is “Genuine Brand,” a massive, low quality Chinese engine partmaker’s logo. Their Web site says they are ISO-9001 certified, but this is taking the word of people who claim Mao Tse-tung was a great humanitarian, and that everyone in Tibet welcomes the 50 year Chinese military occupation of their country.  When I say that every flight engine needs forged pistons, it goes without saying that you don’t consider using cast ones from a communist police state.

The engine had many such “features” inside. Every single one of them was the result of the original builder saying “This will be alright,” or “This is just as good.” Often the justification for going against the experience I share falls into two categories: The builder doesn’t like me personally, or he is going to “show me” what he knows. Neither of these are good motivation for taking a detour from what we know to work.

Most often, the people who have decided they don’t like me have never met me. Out of 2,000 pages of written information on our Web sites, they have found a few sentences that they deem offensive, or they got set off by the moniker “The Corvair Authority,” or they thought the words “The Corvair movement” sounded like some hippie commune. From that point forward, they decided they were justified to selectively reject information from me that didn’t validate their existing mindset. That’s how you get cast pistons from China in a flight engine. Know this: If I threw away everything I learned about airplanes from people whom I didn’t find charming, I would know about 50% of what I do. Just because you don’t want someone like me for a son-in-law, that doesn’t invalidate what I have to say about Corvairs.

Second, I have encountered many people who were going to “show everyone” something, namely how wrong I am on some topic. This is very poor motivation for anything that is potentially as dangerous as flying. Usually it is just a waste of time and money, like when a quitter named Robert Haynes told everyone on the Net he was going to show everyone the things I say about EFI are wrong. (He never even made the engine run, far less fly.) But it is also a very dangerous motivation, and it played a role in the fatal accident of Steve Jones, a great guy, but a hyper-competitive person who always falsely believed that everyone around him was judging his efforts. I have a handwritten letter from him saying that he was going to have the fastest KR-2 or die trying. His accident was testing CG locations, but I hold that his attitude on “showing everyone” was the underlying cause of it. If you ever detect that you are about to do something in aviation that you normally wouldn’t, but some part of you wants to impress others, just stop. Just stop.

In summary, don’t buy a second-hand engine, no matter what anyone tells you about it. The average asking price of the engines above was more than $5,000. Sound like a bargain? The motivation to get a deal or a running start is not valid. You are not in a contest to see how cheap you can build an engine, and you are not in a race either. Both of those mindsets come from day-to-day life outside of building and flying.

You have to identify thoughts and motivations like that and shelve them when getting down to learning, building and flying. You are here to learn as much as you can, build a first class engine, and operate it with intelligence and good decision-making. We are not here to waste money, but it isn’t going to be “cheap.” It is going to require investment, not primarily of your money, but something more valuable: your best effort. Anyone who can take advice and read can do better work than the engines above. They were not a bargain, even if they were free, because accepting these as a starting point is about looking for something of a deal or a shortcut. If you come across one of these, recognize that the primary problem with them isn’t mechanical. If an advertised engine like the ones above has appeal, it is an indication that you have not yet come to see that you can be a better craftsman than you realize, a craftsman who will not accept the work of others as good enough. Developing that understanding is the real value in building experimental aircraft.  -ww

MA3-spa carb pictures, Wagabond notes.

Builders,

In the last few days we have featured some stories on Carbs. Today I went to the mail box and picked up a package that happened to be my MA3 carb returning from overhaul.  It was gone about two weeks.

588011

Above is the MA3, freshly overhauled by D&G Suppy in Niles MI, (269)-684-4440. This is the FAA fuel system repair station that is run by Russ Romey. We have been sending builders there for 10 years. He is an excellent source of rebuilt MA3′s and Stromberg NAS-3s.

Several points here; It is hard to see, but the carb is sitting on my receipt from Russ. Although we are friends, note that the overhaul cost me the same price as he charges any other person, $650. Years ago, a handful of people on the web, led by Lon Wall of the Corvair Underground inc, frequently spread the lie that I made money and kick backs off the products I recommend to builders. This was Lon’s explanation why I suggested people shop with Clarks rather than him.

He didn’t understand that he lost the business solely because he wanted to sell builders cast pistons and old rod bolts. His claims went on the net for several years, mostly unchallenged or unmoderated. They sounded good to a handful of people who liked a good conspiracy theory or hated me since I first used the term “The Corvair authority”, (All of them missed that the acronym TCA at the time was a FAA airspace called a Terminal Control Area, and the letters stuck in aviators memories, and “WilliamTCA” my email address, predates our name “FlyCorvair” by several years.) Let the receipt be one more piece of evidence that my endorsements are not for sale.

My allegiance is only to the best interests of builders. In the last 10 years, lets conservatively say 1,000 people have built a complete corvair aircraft engine. On average, between cams, pistons, bearings cylinders, balancers, gaskets etc they spent $1,750 each on parts from a Corvair parts house.  Thats $1,750,000 in shopping. The lion’s share of this went to Clarks. I did not make a single dime off any of this. If Lon or any other parts house wanted a part of it, all they had to do was sell the parts we recommend and not offer advice like using cast pistons in flight engines. Evidently, he couldn’t do this.

Second; An MA3 is a simple carb, I have been an A&P for 22 years, I am qualified to overhaul this myself, but parts are expensive, more than half the price of the complete job. In the end, I am glad to pay Russ a few hundred dollars to make it perfect. I have no problem paying another American aviation professional for his expertise. This is how the infrastructure of aviation as we know it in this country stays in place.

If someone chooses to buy a Rotax with their two German Bing motorcycle carbs, they are only fueling the trade deficit, and doing nothing to support American manufacturing and aircraft maintenance systems. And no, a person who took a 40 hour Rotax ‘mechanics’ class is not a trained aviation professional, they are just an extension of a foreign companies sales staff.  For a reality check, my A&P training at Embry Riddle had the strict FAA requirement of 2,800 classroom hours.

If I had told the maintenance department chairman, Dick Ulm USMC ret. that I was ready to evaluate airworthyness on aircraft at the end of my first 40 hour week in the program, he would have laughed his ass off, and then punched my lights out. If I then complained to the University president, Kenneth Tallman, Maj. Gen. USAF, ret., I am pretty sure it would have had the same result. If anyone asks in 5 years why S-LSA”Light Sport category” failed live up to any of its potential to do positive lasting good for aviation, at least part of the blame will be on the fact the ASTM ‘certification’ standards on these planes are a bad joke, and the maintenance on them is done by woefully underqualified people.

Third; This carb is going on our own Wagabond, the plane that my wife will also fly, and we will bring the dog. The day it flies it will not have a radio, a transponder, a GPS, a Glass anything, an interior or a fancy paint job. Those things don’t make planes fly. It will however have this carb and it will have a 5th bearing, and a very well-built engine. Aviation is about good decision-making, and placing any of the first items ahead of the latter ones is an example of poor decision-making, and no one can offer a rational argument otherwise. Looks and tech toys come after airworthness items. If you have budget left over, add those things if you wish, but only after it is mechanically as good as you can make it.

588013

It is a free world, and  you can use any carb you like on your Corvair.  Physics, Chemistry and Gravity also think it is a free world, and they fully support your right to make a poor choice, even one that will harm you if it doesn’t work within their system of laws.  If you wanted to run a German motorcycle carb, don’t be mad at me if it doesn’t work. I didn’t make up the laws of the physical world. I am just the messenger here to remind people that Physics, Chemistry and Gravity are great allies if you play by their rules. They are also absolutely remorseless in dealing with people who feel like the rules don’t apply to them. Be advised, if they find you guilty, the penalty phase of the system moves much faster than our criminal courts, and does not have an appeals system.

It is no secret that I like aircraft carbs. Look at the photo above, the lettering cast into the body says “Marvel Schebler Aircraft”, the logo in the middle is a propeller. This was not designed for use on motorcycles. Look at the silver throttle arm. I could literally hang the entire weight if the engine off this arm. It is not fragile. In contrast the throttle cable on a Bing carb is a tiny bicycle cable, the exact same kind that you see on cheap bmx bikes at Wal-mart. A long time ago I flew ultralights with set ups like that, and justified it by the low landing speeds. Today, I am older and somewhat smarter, and I would not fly in any plane that used a bicycle cable as a primary engine control, especially not one where the carb is going to close if the cable breaks. If the cable falls off an aircraft carb, suction alone will generally make them run at full power.

In mechanical situations, I am a traditionalist. If we are going deer hunting, no one can argue that my choice to bring a .30-06 will not work. If we were going to sea in a storm, no one could argue that my choice of going in a USCG 44′ motor lifeboat would not work. If we needed a light truck engine, no one could argue that my choice of a 350 v-8 would not work. If the goal is to put a carb on a Corvair flight engine, no one can argue that my choice to use a MA3-spa will not work. They might say it was expensive, (valid, but not in the big picture) hard to find (not valid, just call Russ) or less efficient that EFI (not valid, see my testing), but no one can even begin to say that this carb is not reliable. It works and does this task with stone reliability, end of story.

588014

Above, this side of the carb shows the accelerator pump, and the bronze mixture control arm. the orange plug it covering the threaded fuel inlet port which an AN fitting goes in. Just to beat a dead horse, let me point out that Bing carbs on Rotaxes just have barbed slip on fittings for rubber hose and hose clamps for fuel inlets.

The intake in the background is for our Wagabond. It is stainless, just like our others, but I elected to have it powder coated. It has a longer, one of a kind up pipe between the carb flange and the main pipe, on production manifolds this is about 1/2 that length. The small tube was for a primer line when the plane  was equipped with a Stromberg carb. Going to an MA3, I have deleted the primer system. I will just have to find a plug to fill the hole….or maybe just screw a NOS nitrous fogger nozzle into it….-ww.

Starting procedures on Corvairs, 2,000 words of experience.

Builders;

I recently had some conversations with out neighbor Bob Woolley. He is building a Panther, and he is the second pilot who is working with Dan to fly the test program on the Panther prototype. You can read this link about Bob on the Panther website:

http://flypanther.net/2013/02/05/meet-panther-beta-builder-robert-bob-woolley/

Bob is the F-4 Phantom pilot in this story I wrote last year about Marvel Shebler (MA) Carbs:

Carb applications, choices people make

Above, three aircraft with carbs below the engine parked in our front yard. L to R, Louis’s 601XL – MA3-spa, Grace’s Taylorcraft – Stromberg, and Dan Weseman’s Cleanex-MA3-spa. The 601/650 is one of the few Corvair powered airframes that uses fuel pumps, almost all others are gravity feed. You might not guess this at first glance, but the Cleanex has no fuel pumps, it is only gravity feed, but it worked great, even during aerobatics. Do not accept complexity without good reason. The 601/650 have the fuel in the wings, which is a good trade-off for complexity. High wing planes can also have the fuel in the wings, but they don’t need pumps.

Bob is a outstanding pilot with a lot of experience both in building and flying, his professional approach rooted in his years in the USAF. Although his homebuilt experience runs from Pitts Specials to Glassair IIIs, almost all of the time is behind Lycomings. The panther was the first Corvair powered aircraft that he flew, and I wanted to catch his first impressions the same day he flew it. Came down to three points: It was the smoothest engine he could remember, It had more power than he expected, and it started easily.

Anyone who has been to a college and seen a Corvair that has never run before fire right up after 3 or 4 seconds of cranking will attest to Bob’s last point. When I put up the video of the test run on the 2,850 a few days ago, I intentionally showed how well the engine will repeatedly hot start. Between videos like this, colleges and flying planes, there are countless examples of how well the engine starts.

A second thing that came out of the conversations with Bob was that part of his Lycoming experience was different from Corvair procedure. With Lycomings, the major concern in starting operation is not flooding the engine, because if you do, it can be very hard to restart. For this reason, Lycoming pilots shut their engines off by pulling the mixture to idle cut off and starving the engine for fuel. When starting, they are very cautious not to get too much fuel in the engine by priming. The biggest factor on why Lycomings flood is their magneto ignition producing a low voltage, low energy spark, a plug gap of only .016″ and fairly low compression. If you get too much fuel in a Lycoming cylinder, the ignition can’t burn it off the plugs, and the lower compression will not vaporize the fuel just from the heat of compressing the air in the cylinder. It is a big issue, and if you are at an airport and you hear someone grinding away on a Lycoming starter, they probably flooded the engine.

The Corvair is a contrast to this. The 40,000 volt high energy ignition and .035″ plug gap is comparatively immune to flooding. The ignitions that we build have enough energy to fire plugs that are dripping with fuel, and when they do start, they will generally burn the carbon off the electrodes. The Corvair’s compression being one point higher doesn’t sound like much, but it gets it over the threshold of vaporizing fuel. If a corvair is cranked, it will vaporize excessive fuel and blow it out the exhaust, where a Lycoming will often leave wet drops of fuel in the cylinder even when it is cranked repeatedly.

When a piston comes to top dead center on the power stroke the air and fuel in the cylinder gets instantaneously hot. This is called adiabatic heating. The higher the compression, the hotter it gets. Our thermodynamics teachers loved pure textbook examples, where there was no heat transfer to the container, but those scenarios only exist in textbook land and unicorn world. Professors actually love things like “Carnot cycle engines”  which we paid money to learn was perfect, albeit with the small flaw of just being theoretical and not possible to build. Thermo is the only branch of science that devotes time to studying and being fascinated with perpetual motion machines. Ah, but I digress…….

Above, an overhaulled NAS-3 that went on the Pietenpol of Dave Minsink. Read the story at: Stromberg Carbs

What you can take away from this is if you ever have a hard time cranking a Corvair, it is far more likely to be under primed than flooded. Dan provided Bob with a detailed procedure checklist to adapt his Lycoming experience to Corvairs. This included stopping the engine with the ignition switch rather than the mixture, priming the engine with the MA3′s accelerator pump one second before cranking, and starting the engine with the throttle cracked open slightly opposed to on the idle stop.

With these differences, the Corvair will start instantaneously. These procedures apply to MA3-SPA planes, but a variation on them also works well for Corvairs with other carbs. Our test stand has an old MA3-SPA on it, and it has done the first run on more than 150 engines. It has no primer, other than the accelerator pump in the carb, but I can generally get a brand new Corvair to fire off in 3 seconds at a College. Builders at these events in cold weather have seen me use the accelerator pump with as many a four shots before starting. This will make fuel drip out of the corers of the airbox. This leads people to think of the engine as potentially ‘flooded’, but in reality, excess fuel in the airbox doesn’t mean it got to the cylinder head.

With a warm engine or in warm weather, as seen in the video, the engine will start without any priming at all, unless the last operator shut it down by pulling the mixture. Again, other carbs will have slightly different procedures on a Corvair, but the concepts are the same, and I can think of many flying examples of Corvair powered planes for all of the popular carb choices that are capable of starting instantly. There is no reason to accept less than this on your own aircraft.

An entirely separate issue is engines that don’t crank well. Over the years I have had a handful of builders report to me that their Corvair powered plane had difficulty starting. One of the common things that these people said was that it could start easier on the points side of the ignition than it can on the electronic. More than one builder went to putting a very small second battery just to power the ignition during cranking or as some sort of back up. The fact this ‘worked’ seemed to validate their conclusion. In reality something else was likely at work. Read on;

First, let me say that several hundred running Corvairs use our E/P ignition. It completely dominates the flying Corvair community. Aircraft as diverse as Mark Langfords KR2S and Bernard Pietenpol’s ”Last Original” have used our system. It is on the vast majority of all the Corvair powered planes you have ever heard of or seen pictures of flying. It works period. One of the things that any operator can tell you is that going from E to P, the ignition is on the other side instantly. Going from P to E, there is an audible delay of perhaps 1/4 of a second. Most people would not notice it without the comparison. From this, people with a starting issue often conclude that the two different sides should have different starting behavior. If they are just looking at one plane, this looks like reality. However, I have seen countless planes start easily on the Electronic side. Since we know that the modules, coils, and effectively the engines on these planes are the same, why are some people having an ‘issue’?

The most common answer is not the ignition, but the cranking end of the equation. Several things I have seen on planes have caused enough voltage drop on particular planes that the Electronic side had difficulty getting the voltage to start instantly.

Before we get to specifics, a quick test: If a plane is hard to start on the electronic side, hook a second, fully charged, 12 volt battery just to the E-coil with little jumper wires. If this ‘cures’ the problem, you almost certainly have one of the following going on:

-Low Main battery, or a dead cell in it.

-Missing or barely connected ground wire or strap causing high resistance and a system voltage drop.

-Starter shimmed too tight and binding, causing excessive current draw/voltage drop.

-undersized or poorly connected positive power cables.

-a separate ’starter solenoid’ on the firewall (your starter has one, and if you put a second in, a-la the aeroconnection work book, you will cause yourself issues.)

radically advanced timing, incorrectly set.

Putting a second battery in is not the ideal way to correct the problem, the right way to do it is to fix the direct issue that is making the hard starting plane different from the others that function correctly.

The battery on the test stand is just a cheap one I borrowed from a garden tractor 9 years ago. It has less than 40% of the cranking power of a Oddessy 680. Yet it will go for a College and many months without being charged, happily starting Corvairs instantly. If an engine does this on my stand for its first fire up at a College, but is a hard starter when later installed in a plane, chances are, it has something to do with the airframe installation.

You might scoff at this, but last year, Dan and I had a series of phone calls with a Corvair pilot, a second owner who didn’t build his plane,  who was having an ‘issue’ with a ‘bad’ starter. Dan specifically told him to get a set of jumper cables, and jump the starter off a car directly as a test. Pilot claimed to have done this, but didn’t actually try it. Instead he replaced the battery; borrowed a car and drove 100 miles and paid a guy to rebuild the starter in spite of the fact the rebuilder said there was nothing wrong with it; called me and asked if we could send him an entirely new starter: went on the internet and asked local experts for help; nothing worked. The issue? Of course his ground wire to the engine had fallen off. If he had followed the test of the jumpers, he could have saved several frustrating days and about $1,000. Experimental aviation is a very expensive hobby if you have trouble with following good advice.

Here are things that are not likely to be an issue:

-”stuck weights” in the distributor. I have had people claim this as a possibility on a hard start, but I can show anyone that the starter we use on the Corvair can crank the engine with 30 degrees of static advance.

-a variation in parts i.e. “My Crane E unit must have a different character than all the others” Mass produced electronic devices are not like this. There is far more variation in the quality of ground straps and battery connections made by homebuilders.

If any builder experiences anything other than quick starting, I encourage them to write me or call. There is no reason to tolerate sub-standard operation, and there is really no reason to follow sub-standard advice. ww.

76 Days until Oshkosh 2013.

Builders,

We are now slightly more than 10 weeks from Oshkosh. We will actually be leaving Florida about 70 days from now, as we are going to the Pietenpol Gathering in Brodhead WI on July26-28. Oshkosh is only 80 miles further up the road, we will be setting up there on Sunday the 28 in the afternoon.

Our booth at Oshkosh is in the same place as last year, directly across from Zenith Aircraft in the north display area. We have many things planned for Airventure, including a large Cookout with The Panther crew and a reserved row for Corvair powered aircraft right behind our booth. I will also be giving forums, as I have done for the last 14 years. We are driving up with a trailer full of parts, and we will have almost all of our regular items on hand.

I bring this up to remind builders that if they would like to pick up a large item like a motor mount, at Oshkosh or Brodhead, we will be glad to save you the shipping. I just got enough CNC tubing sets to make four 601/650 mounts and four 750 mounts. We are also planing on bringing one or two Pietenpol mounts. If you are planning on attending either of the two events, and there is anything that you would like to pick up there, please drop us a note and we will get it into the works. -ww

Machines vs Appliances Part #2

Builders;

Above, Arnold Holmes,and I enjoy the prop blast of a running Curtiss OX-5 engine.  This engine is Ninety-Five years old. Why do I love simple machinery? because, of the 12,000 OX-5s made, maybe 100-200 are left, but the still work just as they did nearly a century ago. These engines are great Machines.

If you want to know the advantage of working with a fifty year old design, think about going to Oshkosh this year and looking at a new engine, super high-tech, purpose-built. Who knows what issues are yet to emerge by the time they make the 500th unit. Yet your old Corvair engine has 1,800,000 examples and half a century to say that GM did get it all right. That is a track record that counts more than some nifty cad drawings in a brochure.

Our house has it share of broken or semi-functional items in it. Most of these are electronic devices. I understand that electronic stuff should be inherently reliable, no moving parts, etc., but they suffer from being made in the disposable era, and seemingly their designers don’t have any personal fascination with studying examples like Soviet military equipment.

I don’t really have an ax to grind against technology, I am using it right now to type this. However, I think there is a lot to be said to simplicity when the continued operation of the system has high consequences. I have observed that the items in our house that will outlive me, (some of the tools, the trucks engine, 90% of the firearms, and my Corvair) were all designed before I was born. If they were animate objects, they would view my whole life as an era in theirs that passed with time.

The Whitney-Jensen box and pan brake worked in a factory for a decade before I was born; the 1928 .30-06  fed a family in the depression; Graces Taylorcraft was built in Ohio by people who are just about all gone now. It used to disturb me if I dwelled on it, but today I think it is just a good gauge of what pieces of machinery in my life are worth spending time with and getting to know well.

It’s a good thing this laptop can’t read and doesn’t have feelings, because it would be hurt to know that it works today, but I am going to take it to the landfill long before anyone types my obituary on it.-ww.

……………………….

Part #1 Redux:

I am typing this on a Dell computer, a model they probably made 5 million of. This computer could be called a machine, but for all intents and purposes it isn’t. A computer is another thing entirely. It is an appliance. Is there anyone reading this who thinks that there will be a single 95-year-old laptop of this model working in the year 2105?

To me, the most basic division between a machine and an appliance is that a Machine is understood by a skilled operator and it is made to be maintained and rebuilt. Conversely, an appliance is likely to have a sticker that says “no user serviceable parts inside.” Almost no consideration was given to maintainability. When it stops working, almost all appliances are discarded by the consumers that used them. Note the wording: the owners were “consumers,” and the item was “consumed.” Virtually none of the users of appliances understand how they work, and the people who market them have no interest in informing them.

By my perspective a Corvair engine is truly a Machine, and a Rotax 912 is really just an appliance. Our goal is to have every Corvair operator really know his engine. Contrast this with the fact that almost no 912 owner will ever overhaul his 912. If they break or wear out, the most likely outcome is that another 912 will take its place.

My oldest friend runs one of the largest on-line automotive test drive and review services. He packages the reviews into broadcast quality segments that are picked up by the major news services. Because of the popularity of his product and his location in NYC, he has access to virtually any car made. This can be fun, I was with him last new years eve when he plowed a $175,000 AMG into a huge snow bank and got it stuck overnight. We have been friends since we were 13. We have never thought alike about cars: in high school he had a Datsun 280ZX, I had a V-8 Vega. In the last 35 years we have had endless discussions about cars, and by extension, Machines. The type of vehicles he likes have morphed with every new model year ever closer to being just moving appliances. It’s hard to look at them closely and see any single part that shows evidence that it was touched by a human hand, not a robot. They essentially ceased making vehicles that I would consider owning. But I have no complaint; this has driven me to develop enough craftsmanship to build my own. It has made me a happier person.

Machines have a very important quality that appliances never have. You can really grow to love a machine, especially if you built it with your own hands, like your Corvair engine. It becomes a physical reflection of what you understand, can make, and know how to operate with precision. It isn’t the metal that you love, it the part of you that went into creating it. real builders, maybe 15% of the people in the EAA today,  reading the above statement understand immediately.  For the other 85%? Well, I guess that’s why they make appliances.-ww

The cost of being Charles Lindbergh

Builders,

I spend a lot of time reading, and my first choice in reading is always biographies. I will often read two on the same person, at the same time, to compare the writers’ take on the person. I don’t have to agree with the writer to get a lot out of it, biographies can be subjective. I rarely read about one-sided people, and I avoid the work of writers who want to portray complex people as either all good or all bad. People and life are not comic books like that. The word “dilemma” is of Latin origin, involves a decision which cannot be easily made. My interest is mostly about how complex people face issues that have no good or easy solution. That is where character is revealed. The insane and the zealots never doubt their own path, their stories reveal nothing. The life of the person who has questions and doubts is worth reading.

Several years ago, Bono, the lead singer from the band U2, made an outstanding documentary film about Elvis Presley. He started it by explaining that he, himself, had become a superstar in the 1980s, a millionaire, proceeded to lose everything, and then went on to recreate his career 20 years later. Bono pointed out that none of this was new, it was just following a blueprint that had been done long before by Elvis. His point was that Elvis himself was the man who was “lost” and had no precedent or plan to follow. Bono said, “Elvis was shot into space,” as a way to express how alone he was in dealing with fame, fortune, and all the ways it can poison a person’s life. Bono also pointed out that America voyeuristically watched Elvis’ life, most often praising him as a demigod, or judging him harshly, neither position acknowledging that he was just a very lonely human being who had lost or broken most of the people he loved, a person in a terrible struggle for his life, a battle he eventually lost.

Bono is very clear on one point: The young, youthful, beautiful Elvis, was not the real person. This was the media image, the one that was easy to love and simple to understand. You can go to YouTube and look up “Elvis Unchained Melody 1977″ and see concert footage that Bono felt was the man actually revealing himself; his appearance has devolved to match the self-image he always had, he has experienced enough pain in life that it pours out of him with the sweat. It’s not nice, but it is very real. Consider the following comments from Bono:

“Jerry Schilling, the only one of the Memphis Mafia not to sell him out, told me that when Elvis was upset and feeling out of kilter, he would leave the big house and go down to his little gym, where there was a piano. With no one else around, his choice would always be gospel. He was happiest when he was singing his way back to spiritual safety. But he didn’t stay long enough. Self-loathing was waiting back up at the house, where Elvis was seen shooting at his TV screens, the Bible open beside him at St. Paul’s great ode to love, Corinthians 13. Elvis clearly didn’t believe God’s grace was amazing enough….. I think the Vegas period is underrated. I find it the most emotional. By that point Elvis was clearly not in control of his own life, and there is this incredible pathos. The big opera voice of the later years — that’s the one that really hurts me. Why is it that we want our idols to die on a cross of their own making, and if they don’t, we want our money back?”

All of the above is a long lead in to my point. To my perspective, Elvis was not the first global superstar created and then attacked by society and media. Charles Lindbergh was. The pattern was the same, only in the case of Lindbergh, it was amplified many fold, it involved the murder of his child, and his public adoration being quickly converted into hatred over his alleged pro-nazi feelings. It was a long way to fall in a short time, especially for a man who foolishly believed that honestly speaking his mind would protect him against very skilled publicity people in need of a scapegoat or a tabloid story. This brings out the question, who was the real Charles Lindbergh?

It took one week for Lindbergh to go from average airmail pilot to world’s most famous human. How do you prepare for that? If it happened to you, would every action of yours hold up well under a microscope? Would the things said about you be true and accurate representations of you? How smart and valid was everything you thought when you were 25? Are you glad no one was there to record it?

I have read a lot of books about Howard Hughes, and I think he was a very interesting person and a great aviator. The interesting comparison between the lives of Hughes and Lindbergh: Both had the before/after event in their lives. With Lindbergh it is the kidnapping and then the murder. With Hughes, a number of skilled biographers have made the case that he had two massive head injuries in plane crashes (1943 & ’46), either of which could have been fatal. His personality was altered and/or exacerbated by these injuries.

Today, people are just beginning to understand the long reaching effects of Traumatic Brain Injury. For Hughes, empathy and understanding, far less treatment, didn’t yet exist. Although he was never “normal,” he declined dramatically in his ability to function in the years following the crashes. When I think about Hughes, it is mostly of the early years, flying around the world or chasing Jean Harlow. My contention is that Hughes had a massive physical trauma, and Lindbergh had an emotional one. I don’t have to like the later things they did, but it gives some understanding of the forces that changed them.

After the “Crime of the Century” Lindbergh’s life goes on, but I have a hard time believing that he ever felt he was in control of it. A series of things happened that worked against the public ever understanding him. Many people today say they are disgusted with the media. No human on earth ever had greater claim to this than Lindbergh. Once he no longer sold papers for them as a hero, they were glad to have him as a victim, and then they got some mileage with him as a traitor. He was never able to effectively counter this, and after the murder it led to fleeing to England. After December 7th, 1941, there was nowhere he could go to avoid many people accusing him of being some sort of traitor. It is not exactly fair that on December 6th, 65% of Americans were against entering WWII. They were all allowed to change their minds without repercussion. Lindbergh was given no such latitude.

Many people expected that Lindbergh’s opinion on a wide variety of subjects outside of aviation would have some special significance. Why was he expected to be clairvoyant on world politics by age 35? His father was one of the very few politicians who voted against U.S. entry into WWI. This was no small matter; after the Sedition Act of 1918, many prominent people in the U.S. were jailed for simply speaking out against U.S. involvement. This is very ironic because Wilson won the presidency in ’16 with a promise to keep the U.S. out of the war, reversed this 180 degrees in 20 months, and went along with jailing people who held true to his campaign promise. The freedom we have to protest conflict did not exist yet. Lindbergh’s father felt that international banking interests made money off conflicts, and his son largely utilized his father’s opinions in the absence of his own developed ones. In many families this is a method of honoring one’s father. Lindbergh also was befriended and influenced in the 1930s by industrial titans like Henry Ford. The things Lindbergh said on behalf of staying out of WWII were things he really believed. Ford held and anonymously published in his private newspaper anti-semitic beliefs that were PG versions of the Third Reich’s propaganda. When war came, Ford made vast sums on government contracts. No one ever called him on this except Alexander P. de Seversky. It didn’t stick, and Ford skated into icon-hood and Lindbergh, who didn’t have a publicity machine, went down in flames.

In recent years, it has been revealed that Lindbergh had post-war German mistresses and fathered children there. His wife was not the saint the public demanded either. The posthumous release of her diary hinted at a love affair with French aviator/writer/hero Antoine de Saint-Exupéry before his death in 1944. If the Lindberghs didn’t have a storybook marriage, then maybe they were just humans. I have a hard time imagining most marriages living through what theirs did in the 1930s.

Today, celebrities and athletes talk about how hard it is when their 15 minutes or few seasons are up. Nothing that has happened to such a person can compare to Lindbergh’s going from hero to zero between 1939-41. There are many things to admire about FDR, but his use of political power to make a public pariah and an example out of Lindbergh, and his moves to block Lindbergh from rehabilitating his public standing, are not his finest side. Later, Ike treated Lindbergh very differently, but time had passed, and America largely didn’t care about Lindbergh any more.

One of the things that Lindbergh wrote that caught my attention was his private thoughts about the Japanese who fought to the death in the islands of the Pacific. He saw this up close and personal. In his diary he mentioned that no one wanted to consider it, but the doomed island defenders were something like the 300 Spartans or even the garrison of the Alamo. He wrote this 60 years before the film “Letters From Iwo Jima” explored the same idea. I grew up in Asia and was well aware that the Japanese military frequently committed atrocities without the slightest remorse; Lindbergh knew this but could also see their other actions. He did not admire them but could understand how their own countrymen would.

Divide his life as the period before his child is kidnapped and murdered and afterward. I think he is fairly easy to admire before the “Crime of the Century” was inflicted upon his family. Afterward, perhaps the man could be judged less harshly in light of this. He never really wanted to be the most famous person in the world, he didn’t crave attention, fame nor money. He got those things for flying the Atlantic, but it also made his family the target of a sociopathic murderer who killed his child. In the wake of it, even the harshest critic would concede that Lindbergh would have given up everything achievement brought him to have had his son grow up instead.

In the end, he was none of the exaggerated personas the public wanted or needed him to be. He was just a human. He was granted wealth and fame, the things most people’s dreams are made of, in unfathomable quantity by the ripe old age of 25. In five more years he learns that neither of these are going to do a damn thing to bring his kid back. It was the first of a long series of bitter lessons, where Lindbergh, a naive optimist at heart, would learn that there was little a man could count on in life. His beliefs in peace and war, love and marriage, justice and law, politics and public friends all had bitter days ahead. I don’t think he ever thought of himself as a hero, and maybe this was a blessing that lowered the height of the fall when he found himself far short of being the ideal husband.

Out of all of this, a very vital message remains, something Lindbergh can directly share with you, and I think it is the most important thing to understand about his life: The only real peace he knew in life was aloft and alone. His faith in the simple magic of flight never wavered. The quote from the previous story is really him, it is the essential truth of a very far-reaching and dramatic life, and ironically, it is one of the few things that you can explore for yourself. Lindbergh never gave up on flying, it was the only thing in his life that was never poisoned, manipulated or corrupted. Let him teach you that this, the truth that flying is one of the few things you can count on. Understand this and you have learned something that cost that man very dearly. -ww

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 286 other followers