Category: Uncategorized

Builders:

Four and a half years ago, a Corvair builder named Ed Jeffko got in his Lycoming powered Glasair and took a flight over the Cascade mountains. He never returned. An extensive search and the passage of years have found no trace.

.

Ed was a very lucky man. Not for how he was lost, but speaking of the life he had, and specifically the extraordinary woman he shared it with, his wife Claire. When he was missing for 6 months, Claire wrote a very impassioned letter, explaining why she supported her husbands flying, and how it defined the man she loved. The letter is printed below, and it deeply moved nearly everyone who read it. It spoke of a love that was not a selfish desire to posses, but the love that fully supports another’s spirit.

.

Last week, Claire wrote the letter directly below, an update four years later, to let everyone know that the love she has for Ed, and the example of how he lived has sustained and nurtured her in the passing years. It is a beautiful letter. Nearly all of us have someone, family or friend, who doesn’t understand our need to build and fly. Someone important in our lives that we have never found the right words to have them understand. Perhaps sharing Claire’s letters with these people will allow them to feel what you could not explain.

.

Claire’s  December 2016 letter:

.

“Ed and our Glasair were never found. It will be five years come next July that he flew away to be with all the other “birds” that need to fly. Not want, but need to fly. Big difference. I really don’t want to have the plane found, and Ed is not there anymore. But, he is in my heart and I will always say I am married, because I am. No one could take his place. However, I grew strong by little bitty steps and somehow found myself a nice life, laughter, and a treasure trove of friends who shored me up when I could not even walk. Somehow, I knew he would be so pissed if I whined and cried forever about losing him. And, so I did what he always said “he” did…just put one foot in front of the other and keep going forward, and it worked. I learned to run our business without him, I learned how to live with out him. He taught me well. However, I have decided I will find him…when I pass I will be cremated and my ashes flung from an airplane high above the Cascades…He thinks he’s safe ! Ha! At least one molecule will find him! Life is good, and finite. I learned that the hard way. Please always remember that, and be kind and love one another. We are all in the same…well, big ass airplane! –Claire.”

.

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

.

The original 2012 story:  Ed and Claire Jeffko, a love story.

.

Friends, 

I have exchanged a few emails with Claire Jeffko, and I asked her permission to share with you her letters about her husband Ed. I thought they are very moving letters. It made me think about how we all promise to cherish, love and support on our wedding day, but very few of us can say that we have always fulfilled our vows. Here is a letter from a woman who lived up to hers.

.

 Last July Ed did not return from a flight in his Glasair over the Cascade mountains. It is very a rugged area, and the accident site has never been found. Many  spouses in the same position would regret their loved one ever flew. Not Claire. Her letter is the finest example of  how real love seeks to support the passions and dreams of a mate:

.

“William, Thank you for your kind response.  Ed loved everything about flying and I mean everything.  If he could have been a bird, he would’ve.  He flew with the wind and was the most up to date and careful pilot I
 have ever known.

 When I first met Ed over 33 years ago, he was flying a little Cessna
 150.  Green.  We flew every single day we could, which was often.
 After we got married, we had the 150 for about four more years.  Then
 he traded it for a D-4 Cat to work on our property.  Let me tell you,
 a pilot without a plane is a sorry situation.  I could only handle it
 for a year and then forced the issue to  buy another plane as he was
 driving me crazy!!!  So, we bought a Piper Cherokee which we still
 have.  The Piper turned Ed back into the man I knew and loved.  The
 man had to fly.  When the Glasair kit came out we fell in love with it
 and although it took more years than we wanted to complete the plane
 we finished and had it signed off about two years ago.  When our
 grandkids saw the Glasair they were not happy.  After all, we would
 lug all their bikes, trikes, and assorted stuff over the mountains for 23 years.   But, in the Glasair there were but two seats….Grandma and Grandpa seats. Certainly not grandchild friendly. I helped every inch of the way to build that plane and the N number was my birthday.  Flying the Glasair was as close to heaven as we could get, especially with the clear canopy. We essentially were flying our dream.

 And, so last July as he went to pick up one of our grandsons for the
 summer, Ed and the Glasair 743CA went down in the North Cascades,
 taking so many dreams with it.  However,  Ed was a pilot through and
 through and wherever he is, I know he is flying. – Claire“

Claire also added:

“We may never find him. He and that plane were as one. But, I will search for him the rest of my life.”

.

If you go to a zoo and look at a tiger or a bear in a cage, you will often see them repetitively pacing in a trance. You don’t need to be insightful to understand that a wild animal in a cage looses it mind and all the elements of what made it fascinating in nature. All that remains is its body, and only the most ignorant observer thinks they are seeing the actual animal. On the other end, domesticated animals consider their pen home and are happiest with the security it seems to provide. In extreme cases they will return to, and stay in, their pen even when the barn is burning down.

Men with real value to their lives are neither wild animals nor fully domesticated ones. They have a full range of actions. Most men today have the domesticated end down pat. There are a lot of good aspects of this, but alone, it is unbalanced. Powerful forces of our society steer men to and reward them for becoming fully domesticated. There is no such general acceptance for the man who seeks to have his individual adventure, make his own path, reject the fears he was told to internalize.

Many spouses of both genders, meaning well, seek to protect and shield their mate, to prevent the possibility of any harm. Claire’s letter is the rejection of this. She understood that a large and integral part of the man she loved was a free bird. One can try to justify caging a bird by claiming to ‘protect’ him, but we know this only reduces one to being a warden, not a protector. Her letters speak of fulfilling and supporting all aspects of Ed’s life, all of his passions and facets. Her reward was 33 years with a full person, not half of one.

What makes aviators different? some one from outside of aviation would read Claire’s words as some type of accident story. People inside of aviation, people still committed to having full lives including adventure, read her words as a very moving love story. People outside of flying would only focus on Ed’s accident, and think of his ‘bad luck.’ Aviators, Ed included, would see just the reverse, that Ed was one lucky guy, because he obviously found the right person to share his life with.

.

.

-ww

Builders

Below is a picture of Roger Grable’s Zenith CH-750 stol, flying since 2015. I have a number of stories of flying builders to catch up on, particularly Zenith builders, look for these stories over the next few weeks.

.

.

Above, Roger and his lovely wife pose with their Zenith 750, powered by a 2,850cc Corvair engine. The date on the photo is 12/22/16.

.

The Grables came to Corvair College #22 in Texas, and they liked what they saw. After thinking it over, Roger decided to have us build his engine while he concentrated on the airframe. Roger and his grandson came to the next college, learned a lot of operational procedures, and test ran his engine: Corvair College #23 – 2850cc Engine, Roger Grable, CH-750 Builder .

.

Life kept Roger busy, and delayed him getting his plane finished until 2015. He wisely selected an experienced Zenith pilot to cover the first tests. All went very smooth and he was very happy with progress. About the 7th test hour, Roger started the plane to taxi it across the ramp, and it ran rough, accompanied by a knocking sound. A moment later it went back to normal operation, but it was a question that remained in Roger’s mind. We spoke about it. I told him, no questions asked, drive it right over to the near by Corvair College #34 in Mexico MO, at the Zenith factory, I built it, I would get to the bottom of it, period.

.

Roger brought the engine over the last afternoon of the College, and we formed a plan for me to take it back to Florida. Roger said he and his wife were planning a trip to my state, and would like to pick it up asap. In the back of his mind was a question about the crank, if it might have been the source of the noise. I told him we would find out.

.

Two weeks later, Roger and his wife came to my shop, to pick up the motor. I had taken it down to every last nut and bolt and found nothing. I had the crank inspected by two different shops in Jacksonville, and no flaws were found. After listening to a very detailed account of Rogers story, I became convinced that the original Falcon heads on the motor had momentarily stuck an exhaust valve, something that had happened on another set of heads from 2012. However, I understood that the Grables confidence in their new plane was on the line, they had been good customers, and there was a simple way to make sure they returned to the feeling they had for the first hours of operation.

.

I went down to the SPA/Panther hangar, and bought a completely new 8409 crankshaft from the Weseman’s inventory for $1,500. This was used to reassemble the Grable’s engine. The whole job, teardown, reassembly and test run took a day and a half of labor. They were very gracious, and confidence restored, they headed for home. Their total bill from me was exactly $0.00, nothing.

.

There are just two kinds of companies in our industry, those that treat people fairly, and those that don’t. I like to say the former outnumber latter, but they don’t. The only thing I can say is that the ones that treat people fairly last. The only engine company that has been continuously active in the experimental market, under the same ownership, longer than me is Lycoming. Would you like to know why? Just ask the Grables.

.

-ww.

.

.

 

 

.

.

Builders:

While some builders have taken proper steps to document both their expected and actual performance numbers for Take off roll and for Rate of climb in normal operations, the really critical number to understand about your own plane is the “+ROC/5”, the Rate of Climb on Five cylinders.

.

This is critically important, because you should NEVER operate your Corvair powered plane under a set of circumstances where it wouldn’t have a positive rate of climb on five cylinders. Dan Weseman and I have done elaborate and accurate dyno, ground and flight testing to confirm the Corvairs we promote make 78% of their rated power after one cylinder becomes inoperative. This includes the RPM loss of losing the cylinder. This is achieved because the Corvair has an incredibly flat power band, and few other aircraft with six cylinders could match this, and none with four cylinders could without magic.

.

78% output  will produce a positive rate of climb at standard conditions, at gross weight on the applications we promote, but it requires the PIC (pilot in command) to have accounted for other factors such as propeller selection. Additionally he must account for the local atmospheric conditions. It needs to be specifically known for the individual aircraft. To get in a plane and fly it, particularly with a trusting passenger, without knowing if the plane could still climb after fowling a plug , is not acting in a responsible manner required by the title PIC.

.

How you test this: You note the static rpm of the motor (Critical Understanding #2, Absolute Minimum Static RPM.) Open the cowl, remove one plug wire and conduct the same test. Note the exact difference, which will be about 200 rpm. Later with the plug lead replaced, go flying on 6 cylinders over your airport. Reduce the power to the simulate the rpm loss of one cylinder, and then conduct rate of climb evaluations. Developing a number of data points for different weather conditions will provide a picture of the factors. If you are using a ground adjustable prop, try one degree less pitch in the blades, on a Corvair it can easily drive up the gross weight of “+ROC/5” by 200 pounds.

.

Keep in mind that these tests need to be done at Vx and Vy speeds. Pilots who inexplicably always climb planes well above their Vx speed will find in the sudden loss of a cylinder that their plane will not climb at their artificially high chosen climb speed. A Zenith 601XL has a Vx speed near 60 mph. the rate of climb in the plane will be half as much above 90mph and may not be positive on 5 cylinders at that speed. Pilots that don’t ever fly their plane at the right airspeeds, and may never have written them down in the logs at the end of phase one, are a danger to themselves and their passengers.   This is the kind of thing I am speaking of in the general decay of flying standards in the country. Such people are not being weeded out in an era of very lax biennial flight reviews. You can’t fix that, just be determined to be better than that yourself.

.

Notice how the ‘expert’ who says “that plane climbs like a dog”  Never says, ” last week I conducted a test at 1300 pounds and a density altitude of 6,300′ and found the ROC at the Vx to be..” This is how you identify bullshit artists. While it isn’t legal for you to harm them, for some reason it is OK for them to spread disinformation that hurts other people. Steer clear of such people, you can’t learn anything from them.

.

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

.

Factors that affect “+ROC/5”:

.

The gross weight of the plane:

The PIC must know the max gross weight at which his plane will still achieve “+ROC/5”. Surprisingly to many builders, this number will be far above the gross weight of the plane, even on a 100F day. We tested this many times on our Zenith 601XL, and the number was near 1500 pounds at 100F. Do not take that as a guarantee, the PIC must develop his own chart for the specific plane and conditions he will be flying in.

.

The atmospheric conditions:

The PIC must know the effect of the local Density Altitude on his plane. People often ask about performance in mountainous areas, and make comments like “Sure corvairs work in Florida, but what about Denver?”  Go here: http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_da.htm  and run some numbers. We live on a 2,500′ airport, surrounded by 60′ trees, where the surface in the summer is 6″ of lush grass. Even though the field elevation is 75′ we frequently are operating with a density altitude of more than 4,000′ in the summer. Being near sea level doesn’t allow getting lax about DA awareness. Higher field elevations almost always have much longer runways without obstructions.

.

The propeller selection and adjustment:

This is part of the reason why I am a stickler for having a prop that turns enough static rpm: (Critical Understanding #2, Absolute Minimum Static RPM.)

.

First, a comparative example: I have seen a great number of people fly a passenger in a Pietenpol powered by a 65hp Continental on a hot day. I doubt many of these pilots have tested it their plane would climb if one magneto failed at that point. I have serious doubts that any of these planes would climb with a stuck valve on one cylinder, a serious possibility on an A-65. (Read note “A” below) It isn’t my mission to police such pilots who’s responsibility for passengers is reduced to wishful thinking. My mission is to make our own builders, people who have willfully chosen a more considered path, better educated.

.

Comparatively, a Corvair powered Pietenpol has great reserves of power, and has the potential to easily have a positive climb rate on 5 cylinders, even on a 100 degree day at a gross weight of 1320 pounds. My own Pietenpol could do this. It is a significant safety advantage.

.

No offense to any builder who wants to make his own Piet prop, but you have to look at what you are getting over a Warp Drive prop besides looks. At Corvair College #39 it is my plan to carefully document Weight/ROC/Weather data on Bob Lester’s 2,700 cc Warp drive 66″ two blade Pietenpol. I want to use this as a base line and look at his “+ROC/5”, which I believe will be a lot higher than any wood propped Corvair/Piet.  Kevin Purtee had both a wood prop and a WD, and used the WD when he knew that he would be climbing with passengers. The point is to make sure that pilots, particularly those with passengers, are not flying with a negative “+ROC/5” value because of an underperforming prop. The day to find this out is during solo flight testing, not when you fowl a plug over unfriendly ground with a passenger aboard.

.

===========

.

Note “A” ; There will be Continental fans who come back and claim that the planes will easily fly on one mag, but they are referring to Cub’s and T-Crafts with 36′ wingspans and substantially more wing area. They will make the same claim on stuck valves, but I have hundreds of hours in a C-85 hp T-craft, which includes sticking a valve twice, and I have serious doubts that 20 less horse power and seven less feet of wingspan would climb. I have a 71 x 38 B-90 metal prop on it now, which statics near 2,400 rpm. This is dramatically more potent than any A-65, and I believe it would take such an installation to have a positive rate of climb on 3 cylinders. If anyone in your EAA chapter wants to debate this, note that they will not offer to weigh the plane and conduct the test in front of you, it will all be conducted with “I had a buddy who had one once and it…” for evidence.

.

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

.

Note Book Section:

Make line 5.1 in your Hand Book a entry that reads the full static RPM. It should also note the prop and pitch, and the atmospheric conditions at the time. It must also include the fuel and the timing settings.  

.

Make line 5.2 in your Hand Book an entry under the same conditions as 5.1, but with one plug wire removed.  Through subtraction note the rpm loss and write this down.

.

Imbed in your mind that any time the plane loses this amount of rpm, it has lost a cylinder. I have had second owners of planes that turned 2700 static, later in the flight day think nothing of doing a take off and flying to a new airport with a static of 2500. This was justified by a 5,000 hr pilot as attributable to the OAT being 25F higher. Don’t be that kind of an idiot, and don’t trust people just because they have a lot more flight hours than you. Read. think, understand and be in charge of your own life.

.

When your plane is still in phase one testing, pick a typical solo flying weight, and climb your plane to 2,000 AGL. Set the plane up in a Vx climb and time it from 2500 AGL to 3500 AGL with a stopwatch. Back on the ground, making note of the DA,  Make line 5.3 in your Hand Book this value. Repeat the test with 100 pounds more fuel in the plane, and make a similar note. Work  your way to gross weight and graph the results in your Hand Book. If you will fly at higher DA’s Perform these evaluations at those altitudes. Don’t be the kind of dolt that flies around for 40 hours in phase one boring holes in the sky. Learn something.

.

Don’t use live humans for ballast, EVER. People who conduct gross weight vs performance tests by adding live humans to their plane are placing a very low value on peoples lives. three 60 pound bags of play sand cost about $10. I don’t love people, but I operate on the general assumption they are worth more than $10 a piece to someone. If anyone flies any of their test period with a passenger, they are making a serious judgement error, even if the FAA says it’s ok now.  If anyone flies a new high gross weight in a plane using a passenger for ballast, they are making a serious judgement error. If anyone tells you this is wrong, nod politely, but focus on how you would be responsible, not him, in the event of an accident.

.

Repeat the tests of 5.3, but when you set up the climb,  do it at a power setting that is at the lower rpm that reflects the measured  differential between 5.1 and 5.2. Make 5.4 in your Hand Book a series of notes on your “+ROC/5” climb rates. Graph it out, and you will be able to predict your service ceiling when +ROC/5 = 100. Make notes on this at different DA’s. Study the trends, they will give a very good idea of when you are operating within the intelligent margin of safety provided by having a positive number for “+ROC/5”.

.

If the numbers are  not satisfactory to you, going for a lower prop pitch is the immediate solution. If you have a ground adjustable prop, this takes very little effort, but you should go back and document with a climb test series to have hard numbers for what you gained. 

.

Lest anyone tell you that the service celling of a typical Corvair powered plane is low, Consider that on a standard atmospheric day Lynn Dingfelder’s 601XL with an Elison EFS-3A fed 2700cc Corvair and a 66″Warp Drive prop still had 200 foot per minute ROC at 17,000′, while flying at 1150 pounds. Obviously it’s +ROC/5 = 100 is a lot lower, but it isn’t sea level as some people would have you believe. Andy Elliott’s 601XL took off loaded with a DA near 11,000′. The point of this exercise is that you will know exactly what your own plane can and can’t do with a good margin of safety.

. 

-ww.

.

Builders:

Every Corvair manual I have ever published has contained very stern warnings never to fly any engine that you even suspect might detonate. That is pretty plain, but still a number of builders damage their engine each year by ignoring that warning.

.

Here is the golden rule of detonation: Anytime your engine experiences a loss of rpm, even as small as 25 rpm, it is detonating, and you must instantly stop or you will damage and possibly break the engine. There is no tolerance for detonation. Where a modern car might reduce the timing or go into limp mode, a pure aircraft engine only has one system to protect it: You. If you do not act, the engine will break.

.

This is particularly true any time the engine is at wide open throttle. If you are on the take off roll, and the engine rpm sags off even 25 rpm, you must have previously committed your mind to ABORT TAKE OFF. If you get to even 100′ or more, and you have the option of landing straight ahead, even on the over run, ABORT THE FLIGHT, land. Detonation does not get better until one of the factors is removed. If you do nothing, even for a few seconds, the engine will be damaged, in another few seconds it will blow a head gasket, and shortly after that it will potentially stop altogether. Yet every year, we have a number of pilots, mostly who never personally set the timing on their engine, sit there like a bump on a log doing nothing while the power of their engine is decreasing from raw detonation. They are hoping it will go away, the mental mindset of a sheep.

.

Most common causes of detonation (all preventable)

.

(one) Not setting the timing.

A subject I have addressed before:

YOU MUST SET THE TIMING ON YOUR ENGINE

When to check your timing, Lessons learned Pt#2

Ignition Timing on Corvairs

Ignition timing on Corvairs, Part 2

.

(two) Not Using the Correct Fuel:

I have always recommended using 100LL through all of the test hours. 93 octane fuel can be used once the rest of the systems are validated. UNDER INDIVIDUAL CONDITIONS, some Corvairs with lower compression, perfect timing at a reduced setting, and proven cooling, can use fuels lower than 93 Octane, but this has no across the board approval, and it never has. In 2014, we had a guy destroy his plane on the first flight because he first refused to set the timing for months, then reluctantly did it incorrectly, and went on to fuel his plane with 91 octane car gas. He was at an airport with 100LL, but instead, perhaps to save a few dollars, he instead used 91 car gas. Mind you this is a 150 hour pilot in his 30’s who clearly didn’t have much respect for anything I have to share.

Read: Food for thought on Fuels.

.

(three) Having a Carb that is running too lean:

If an engine has perfectly set timing and 100LL fuel, it can still be made to detonate by just letting it run too lean.  Traditional aircraft fuels had dual octane ratings like 115/145 “Purple Fuel” the 115 is the octane rating of it running on “Auto Lean” setting and 145 is the octane rating when the same radial and fuel are running on the “Auto Rich” setting. All fuels work like this, so you don’t want some monkey playing around in your carb and you don’t want to use some carb like this:How I became a genius in 6 minutes.

Read this story about aircraft carbs to understand that they automatically run richer at wide open throttle. There is a lot of information in the story: Air / Fuel ratios on Corvair carbs.

.

(four) Using the wrong spark plugs:

If there is a single issue I will never understand, it is why some builders compulsively must use spark plugs which we don’t recommend. What they gain out of it I don’t understand, but I do know what they stand to lose. Read: A Tale of Two Spark Plugs……

.

(five) Having an engine with incorrect or  deficient cooling:

I have had many people tell me “I am using your cooling system” but when I look at it, their cowling has untrimmed inlets, no inlet rings, and no lip on the underside of the cowl. All of these make the engine run very hot, and hot engines detonate. Our cooling systems work very well, but this means the builders has to actually build our system, not something that looks like our system. Read more here Corvair Cooling, something of a human issue…..

.

+++++++++++++++

.

Your Corvair, if built and installed correctly, need never detonate, not even once. It is a machine, and it will work correctly if set correctly. It doesn’t have a mind of it’s own, it will never turn on you nor will it decide to harm you. There are plenty of builders who have flown hundreds of hours over many years, who have never experienced it once. Conversely, we have had a person, who I directly warned in writing, proceed to destroy his plane on the very first flight, and put himself as well as his illegal passenger in the hospital. Either outcome success or failure, can be replicated, it is completely up to the builder to decide which he will have.

.

Note Book Section:

Make line 4.1 in your Hand book a hand written entry, to seal in your mind that you recognize that any loss of RPM is Detonation, and it is never acceptable.

.

Make line 4.2 in your Hand book a notation that you have set the timing on the “A” side of the ignition with a timing light, at full static rpm and it is 30 degrees total. (28 degrees for 93 auto fuel)  Note the actual RPM also.

.

Make line 4.3 in your Hand book a notation that you have set the timing on the “B” side of the ignition with a timing light, at full static rpm and it is 30 degrees total. (28 degrees for 93 auto fuel)  Note the actual RPM also.

.

Make line 4.4 in your Hand Book a notation that the first 40 hours will be flown on 100LL fuel.  As the hours are flown, amend the entry with the actual measured fuel burn on an average hour of flight, the minimum hour and the maximum in an hour.

.

If you choose to use 93 fuel after 40 hours, make line 4.5 in your Hand Book a note stating the timing was reduced to 28 degrees.  Note the new full static rpm. Enter a new test period of 5 hours of solo flight to evaluate the compatibility.  Amend the entry with the actual measured fuel burn on an average hour of flight, the minimum hour and the maximum in an hour.

.

Make  line 4.6 in your Hand Book read that the only acceptable spark plugs are AC-R44F, or Denso IWF16-5359, IWF20-5359, or IWF22-5359. No other plugs are considered airworthy.

.

Make  line 4.7 in your Hand Book read the EGT of the engine after running for 30 seconds at full static RPM.  While running, pull the mixture out slowly, and the RPM MUST RISE, and the EGT MUST DROP. Note the numbers in the Hand Book.

.

Make  line 4.8 in your Hand Book a note of measuring the diameter of inlets, noting minimum as 4.75″, and that they have been equipped with inlet rings. After completing the “Two Minute Test”, note the Static RPM and the CHT in this entry also.

 

.

-ww.

.

Builders:

Go to your EAA meeting, and listen to the first question asked when a guy mentions putting a new prop on his plane: 95% of the time, the first question will be the nearly pointless: “How fast does it go?”

.

I say ‘nearly pointless’ because that would be the important question to ask if the plane was a Reno Unlimited racer. Notice that almost no one asks “What is the rate of climb?” which is the critical question to ask.

.

Think back on your last 100 flights in a light plane; perhaps we are speaking of 75-150 hours aloft. That is 4,500 to 9,000 minutes of flying.  Realistically, answer this question: How many of those minutes did you spend flying at the absolute top speed of the plane? Now stop and consider that on every single one of those 100 flights, each and every take off and climb out was performed at the maximum rate of climb.

.

Thus, the critical understanding of props should be absolutely focused on Rate of Climb. There are other factors, but truth be told, there is surprising little difference between good designs on the factors of speed, smoothness and efficiency. However, there is far greater differences in take off and climb on different prop designs and pitches.  There are very good reasons to focus on differences in climb, and bias your selection for the prop that delivers the highest rate of climb. When I make a prop recommendation, it is focused on having a very good climb rate. If you gave me a choice between a 5% top speed increase or a 10% rate of climb increase, I pick the latter, and would certainly do so if the plane was open cockpit or STOL.

.

There will always be someone who claims to want a ‘cruise prop’ because he likes the idea of speed. Consider this: most pilots who choose one of these props select one that will not reach red line rpm in level flight, thus limiting their top speed. If they picked one with lower pitch, the plane would actually speed up, and incidentally it would also have a better climb rate.

.

The next time you are looking at a set of logs for an experimental aircraft with more than 40 hours on it, look to see if the builder filled in the FAA required Vx and Vy ( speeds for max rate and max angle of climb) in the logs which is required for the plane to be done with phase one flight testing.  I look at logs of planes all the time, and roughly 50% of the logs don’t have this filled in. If we asked that builder to tell me what these speeds were for his plane, do you think he would be able to give us a specific set of values? If the same guy was on a very short strip do you think that he would fly the correct speed to not hit a 50′ tree at the end of the runway? This lack of taking Vx and Vy seriously goes along with most people focusing on speed rather than climb.

.

Combine a guy with too low a static RPM ( Critical Understanding #2, Absolute Minimum Static RPM. ) and a guy who doesn’t know the Vy for his plane, and you have the makings of an accident. This isn’t speculative fearmongering,  just that accident happened in a Corvair powered plane in 2015. I would name the person, and point out his previous accidents in the same plane, but read this Comments on aircraft accidents and understand that I am not always at liberty to say such details, but I want people to understand that when I say certain mistake combinations will not end well, I am speaking about history, not theory. -ww.

.

Make the book or comparative ROC  for your plane/engine/prop line 3.1 in your Hand book

.

Make the calculated ROC  for your plane/engine/prop for typical conditions at your test airport  line 3.2 in your Hand book

.

Make the measured ROC  for your plane/engine/prop  line 3.3 in your Hand book

.

.

 

 

Builders:

Full static RPM is the actual rpm the engine turns when the plane is held still by the brakes.  The minimum static rpm is important  to having the engine make proper power on take off, but it is critical to preventing the engine from detonating on take off and climb.

.

On a Corvair flight engine, the absolute minimum static rpm is 2,700. If the engine is built and running correctly, the sole factor determining the static rpm is the propeller selection and setting. If the number is lower than this, the engine will not make expected power on take off and climb. This will extend the take off roll and reduce the rate of climb, but the really critical issue is the same as other direct drive aircraft motors: A moderate but significant reduction in the static rpm at full load leaves the engine vulnerable to detonating under a full load.

.

Many people ask “How much difference can 100 rpm make?” In reality, it will make a lot. An engine being held back to 2,550 rpm and run on 93 octane fuel with the timing at 30 degrees has almost no margin against detonation on a 90F day. The exact same engine with a lower pitch prop with the static rpm at 2,700 will have vastly increased margin of safety. I have said this many times, but still builders persist in believing the myth that lower rpm is somehow ‘easier’ on the engine, when just the reverse is true.

.

To demonstrate that this doesn’t just apply to Corvairs, below is an excerpt from the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet for a Piper PA-22 “Tri-pacer.” Notice the phrase “Not under“, this is the manufacturer specifying an Absolute Minimum Static RPM for a combination of engine and prop on their plane. The number is different, but the concept is identical. On a certified plane this is the law, in the case of Corvairs,  I can’t force anyone to use my number, I can only point out that an engine failure on take off is the eventual result of too low a static rpm.

.

“2. Propeller (with Lycoming O-290D or O-290-D2 engine) – fixed pitch metal    (a)  Sensenich M76AM-2  or +25 lb. (-50)  (b)  Sensenich M74DM +30 lb. (-50)  Airplane Flight Manual shall be revised to reflect the subject propeller and limits. Landplane:    Static r.p.m.:  Not over 2450, not under 2150    Diameter:  Not over 74 inches, not under 72.5 inches Seaplane:    Static r.p.m.:  Not over 2450, not under 2350    Diameter:  Not over 74 inches, not under 72.5 inches”

.

The primary group violating this Critical Understanding of Corvairs are builders who have made their own props and builders using a ground adjustable props with too much pitch in the setting. There will be pushback on my number on discussion groups, where people will say “So and So has done flown with a static rpm of 2,450 for years” Great, that is a testimony to the toughness of the Corvair, but his engine is likely protected by a retarded timing setting or a very rich carb setting. Notice how people repeating a BS endorsement of low rpm don’t even understand that the ignition timing, the A/F ratio and even the camshaft profile and timing marks play critical roles in the minimum acceptable static rpm. Consider that Grace flew B. H. Pietenpols’s personal Aircamper, and it’s static rpm was near 2,800; consider that no person on earth has spent more time running Corvair flight engines on dynos and developing their engine installations than myself, and Ernest Jones was my mentor in aircraft propulsion at Embry Riddle. Yet some people think that having a “a big, good looking” wood prop on their plane or taking the advice of a local ‘expert’ outweighs my recommendation.

.

 It is a free world, they can make that choice, but when their engine breaks, I have a right to expect them to ‘own it’ and tell everyone that they chose not to listen to my experience. Ironically a lot of these people develop amnesia after an engine failure or a crash, and they have absolutely no recollection they ever failed to follow any recommendation of mine, or at least that’s what they tell the people in their EAA chapter, the internet, the FAA and their lawyer.

.

(Make Vx line 2.1 in your Hand book)

.

(Make Vy line 2.2 in your Hand book)

.

-ww.

.

 

 

Builders,

Walk up to a pilot who just flew a plane, and ask them a simple question: “What is the pilots operating handbook (POH) take off distance for your plane?”  and 75% of them will not be able to answer you with a real number. Yet this is a critical fact for the Pilot in Command (PIC) to know.

.

Would you like to read a story about a guy killing himself and his wife by ignoring the published take off distance for his plane? I wrote one several years ago about a 2007 accident, you can read it here: Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy…… Notice that the PIC rolled 2,500′ into a 10 mph before his plane lifted off, that is five or eight times as long as it should have taken to get airborne. He had 60 seconds to pull the throttle back and roll to a halt, but didn’t. Even at the 2,500′ mark he could have aborted, and easily stopped on the remaining 1,500′ of runway, but he didn’t. Instead he chose to die and kill his wife also.

.

Current Zenith Aircraft literature clearly states a 650 with a 110 hp engine at gross weight has a take off roll of just 500′ There are published numbers for every model of their planes, but 600′ is representative of most of the 600 series Zeniths with 100 hp. As an additional free resource to our builders, I operate our private Zenith/Corvair Database and discussion group, where more than 100 builders can directly share this information. Read: “Zen-vair” and “Piet-vair” Discussion Groups, your resource. Thus any builder has acess to know just how long it should take his plane to get off the ground before he ever flies it.

.

Since I published the crash story years ago, We have had the discussion groups for years, and Zenith has always had performance numbers available, the easy conclusion is that no one should have been hurt in an accident like the one detailed above, right? Guess again: In the last 3 years, we have had four other pilots destroy their planes in nearly identical accidents just like the one above.  These accidents were directly the pilot in Command’s fault, period. If a plane is supposed to take off in 600′ and the pilot is still holding the throttle in when the plane passes the 1,000′ mark on the runway, than every single thing that happens after that, injuries and damage, is absolutely and solely his fault, no matter what he and his attorneys want to claim. In the case of the 2007 accident, the only redeeming thing Ray Blondin did was make sure there were two less scum lawyers in the world, and I gladly praise him for it.

.

Since 2009, we have had a “Flight Operations Manual”, that includes a proven format for running a Zenith specific flight test program, and a number of articles specifically about flight test protocols. Half the articles in the Manual were written by Zenith pilots. I wrote a list of ten things never to do on a first flight, and one of the pilots who ignored standard take off distance and destroyed his plane less than 60 seconds into his first flight, broke four of the rules, and he brought a passenger, fueled his plane with gas 9 points below the required octane, and wait for it: Ignored an email from me the day before the flight telling him his plane was not airworthy. If you think I am kidding about this, just read this: Understanding Flying Corvairs Pt. #6, 98% DNA not enough.

.

 If that story isn’t bad enough, I have another where a Zenith pilot with his prop pitch set wrong turned his engine 3,800 rpm Static. He did his first flight from a pave 5,000′ runway, and later said that his plane took 4,000′ to break ground, and had less than 50′ altitude at the end of the runway. This was his first flight, he flew “cross country” that way for a few minutes until he hit a small tree. Because God has a sense of humor I am yet to understand, he lived.

..

Here is the bottom line rule: No matter what kind of plane it is, no rational PIC sitting in the cockpit about to take off, pushes the throttle forward without knowing the exact distance it will take to get his plane airborne, and all rational pilots decide before they start moving, they will abort the take off the second the plane goes past the take off point and is still on the ground. There are no exceptions here, there is no excuse for rolling down the runway and hoping the plane gets off the ground.

.

Before getting in the plane, the pilot must know:

The POH take off roll for his plane on a standard day.

(Make this line 1.1 in your Hand book)

The adjustment made to this number for his available HP output.

(Make this line 1.2 in your Hand book)

The adjustments made for the atmospheric  conditions that differ from standard

(Make this line 1.3 in your Hand book)

And he must have a physical distance marker (like counting the number of runway lights that make up the distance, at our airport they are 200′ apart, and if a Zenith isn’t airborne by the third, the take off would be aborted.)

.

If your own personal POH for your plane doesn’t have the first three written down in it before the first flight, your not just taking a stupid chance without a plan, your plane is not airworthy in my book, period.

.

If that sounds like too much to for a guy to know, he is with the majority of pilots flying, who just guess at these things, but if you want to know what you are doing around planes, you will be able to answer anyone who asks these questions. The alternative is just being part of the herd that just pushes the throttle forward and hopes things turn out for the best. Take your pick.

.

-ww.

.

 

Builders,

I am writing this as an index page for a number of articles to follow. As I write them, their titles will appear here in addition to being the lead story on my website.

.

I cover a lot of topics on the website, but a review of working with builders this year has focused my attention on a simple fact: We have too many builders operating planes taking enormous unnecessary risks, often without really thinking about it. These builders are a product of two factors that didn’t affect previous generations of pilots: Today we have badly eroded standards of instruction in light aviation, and second, we are in an era that invests more interest in avionics and paint jobs than fundamentals of intelligent decision making.

.

While I can make the case that Corvair builders are far better than average, I don’t teach with the goal of merely beating a sadly lowered bar. My goal is the traditional aviation standard, mastery. Any builder who is willing to read and consider with an open mind can greatly reduce his risk and that of his passengers, for whom he is solely responsible for. That will not fix people who don’t care, but it will teach you to recognize such people and give them a wide berth.

.

If that sounds harsh, consider how serious the subject is, and tell me who would be served my me sugar coating it?  We have had a number of aircraft destroyed and some people killed, by pilots who doing indefensibly stupid things. Notice, I didn’t say they were stupid people, just that they were doing stupid things in an environment with serious penalties for bad logic, impatience, and lack of understanding.

.

My #1 goal for this year is to have a very high percentage of builders read, understand, and utilize the information in  these articles. I want to encourage builders to develop their own POH for their plane and print and keep these notes as a manual. To develop their basic hand book I will write questions in this color and font: (Make your own hand book) at the end of each article for builders to answer and form the basis of their handbooks.

.

  Other companies might be happy just selling parts, but I have always been motivated to share what I have learned. How important is this? I spend a large part of my working year on educational tasks like writing and Colleges, neither of which generates a dime.  Preventable accidents ruin the reputation of Corvairs, make insurance more costly, lower sales that cover the costs of Colleges, wreck planes, injure people , occasionally kill  builders, and worst, they have hurt and killed passengers. If anyone objects to how plainly I am going to speak in these articles, please direct them back to this paragraph and point out to them when I said it polite enough for Girl Scouts, many people thought listening was optional.

.

 With the goal of minimizing this in 2017 and beyond, We have this index page and the articles that will be linked here. -ww.

.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

.

Read: Thought for the Day: Mastery or?

.

Critical Understanding #1, Take off distance.

.

Critical Understanding #2, Absolute Minimum Static RPM.

.

Critical Understanding #3, Rate of Climb, the critical prop evaluation.

.

Critical Understanding #4, ANY loss of RPM is Detonation.

.

Critical Understanding #5, Knowing “+ROC/5” Rate of Climb on Five cylinders

.

Critical Understanding #6, The “Two Minute Test”

.

Critical Understanding #7, The Most Qualified Pilot, ALONE.

.

 

 

Builders 

I am driving to a gathering of family in NJ. First stop is Charleston SC. The Swig and Swine, The place shown below, is for real, not an Internet photoshop meme. It is on US-17 just south of 171. 

.

Special note to friend Tara B., I never pass the place at a reasonable hour, so I have never partaken, but I like the humor anyway.

.

.

Above, if Bing Crosby was from SC….

.

.

Something funny to break up a 1,000 mile drive. -ww.

.

Builders,

In anticipation of a day off, I spend the evening wrapping up some details on engines at the SPA/Panther factory. A pleasant time in the shop listening to Led Zeppelin’s masterpiece, “Physical Graffiti” for the zillionth time in my life.

.

.

Above , two Corvairs; a 2,700 complete case assembly and a finished 3,000 cc.

.

I was 13 years old and living in Hawaii when Physical Graffiti was released. I was in 7th grade  at tough private institution named Punaho. It was an excellent education; one of my schoolmates became President of the United States 32 years later.

.

I distinctly recall hearing the song “Night Flight” and not really knowing who Led Zeppelin was, but intrinsically understanding this was something different than the ubiquitously popular KC and the Sunshine Band.  40 years later,  I have spent countless nights working on machines, in too many different shops and hangars to remember.  The songs on Physical Graffiti  are an unchanged constant, threading these places and times in my life together.

.

-ww.

.