Zenith 750 / Corvair reference page, October 2013

Builders,

Here is a single location page that has a great number of links to information specific to the Zenith 750 / William Wynne-Corvair Combination.  It is a particularly good match, we have a number of different ways to approach it that serve the needs of many different builders, and it is a success story that builds on our 10 year history of working with Zenith builders, starting with our own personal 601XL in 2003. Since then we have assisted more than 80 builders to complete and fly their Corvair powered Zeniths. In the coming years these will be accompanied by an ever increasing number of 750’s.

If you already are working on your Corvair, this page will have information you have seen already on our websites, but I have included it so that this page can function as a ‘stand alone’ guide for 750 builders who have just heard about our work with the Corvair. Our approach to serving builders is different than typical businesses geared only to sell things to consumers. Our goal is to assist you on your path to becoming a more skilled aviator. The products we sell support this, but simply getting you to buy things is not what I am in aviation to accomplish. If you would like to start with a simple three page spec sheet on the engine, read this link first: Basic Corvair information

This page is broken into the following sections:

1) Introduction

2) Engine and build options

3) installation components

4) Support for builders

5) Flying 750’s

6) Builders in process

7) 750 flight data and safety notes

8) who is WW?

9) Comments on dangerous trash.

At the end of each section there are links to supporting stories that have expanded information on concepts discussed in the section. Take your time and study it carefully.

I will be glad to answer further questions just email WilliamTCA@aol.com or call 904-529-0006. You can also check our two websites, https://flycorvair.net/ , http://flycorvair.com/ . The first is our ‘newspaper’ the second is our ‘library’ and ‘store.’ The links below are stories that already appear on these two sites, they are just arranged here to support this introduction to Corvair power for 750 builders.

blogburdett050813

Above, the flying 2850cc Zenith 750 built by Gary Burdett of Illinois.  It has our full complement of Zenith installation components and one of our production engines.

.

1) Introduction:

The Corvair has been flying since 1960, and I have been working with them as flight engines since 1989. It is a story of careful development and testing, a slow evolution to the engines we have today. It is ‘old and proven’ rather than ‘new and exciting.’  If that approach appeals to you, read on. There is a lot of material here, and it isn’t something you are going to absorb in one quick scan. Frankly, your engine selection deserves careful consideration, and it isn’t the kind of decision you should make based on a 4 page sales brochure.

Corvairs have proven themselves to serve a very broad variety of builders. Many alternative engine options for the Zenith are offered only as a “buy it in a box” import, more of an appliance than a machine, with little or no consideration of the builders, skills goals, needs, budget or time line. The Corvair has options to address these valid considerations, because your power plant should conform to you, not the other way around.

This said, Corvairs are not for everyone.  In the 25 years I have been in the EAA and working with builders, the Corvair has always been very popular with ‘traditional homebuilders’, the people who have come to experimental aviation to discover how much they can learn, understand and master.  The expansion of the EAA has brought more of these builders, but it has also brought a great number of people incapable of distinguishing between mastery of an aircraft or an engine and just merely being its buyer and owner.  People who’s consumer mentality and short attention spans are better suited to toy ownership than mastery of skills and tools in aviation. Corvairs, and perhaps experimental aviation, are a poor match for such people. Many salesmen in our field will gladly sell anything to anyone with green money. I am an aviator, not a salesman, and the gravity of the subject requires more frank discussion and ethics than many salesmen bring to the table.

If you came to experimental aviation to find out how much you can master, not how little, then you are among the aviators who follow Lindbergh’s timeless 1927 quote: “Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could you ask of life? Aviation combined all the elements I loved.”  Even if you are brand new to aviation, I am glad to work with you. I have a long history of working with builders of all skill levels. We have a number of successful builders out flying their Zeniths who are the masters of both their airframes and engines, who had never changed the oil in a car before building their plane.  If you got into experimental aviation just to buy stuff, then any salesman will do just fine for you. If you got into experimental aviation to learn, develop your own skills and craftsmanship and make things with your own hands, then who you work with really matters. You can’t become and old school homebuilder / motor head by buying things from salesmen. They have nothing to teach you. What you will do in experimental aviation is not limited by what you already know. It is only limited by what you are willing to learn, and selecting experienced people to learn from.  If you are here to learn, I am here to teach. It is that simple.

.

—————————————————————————-

a) – Complete Lindbergh quote is here: The Quote, 1927, C.A.L.

b) – Explanation of machines vs appliances : Machines vs Appliances Part #2

c) – Story of real engines vs ‘ideal’ ones: Unicorns vs Ponies.

d) – An example of our ling standing working relationship with Zenith: Friday out of shop until 4pm.

e) – A direct explanation of what makes my work different than typical LLC’s : 2011 Outlook & Philosophy

f) – A moving statement of philosophy: Sterling Hayden – Philosophy

.

Above, the 3,000 cc Corvair, configured for a Zenith 750. An inherently simple engine, It’s opposed six configuration makes it the smoothest of available power plants. It has outstanding cooling because GM put a tremendous amount of cooling fins on it and  gave it a factory CHT redline of 575F. All of our engine parts are made in the United States.

.

2) Engine and build options:

.

If you are new to Corvairs, lets quickly cover some ground: General  Motors made 1.8 million Corvairs. brand new parts, including billet cranks, forged pistons, valves bearings,  virtually every single part inside is currently made and readily available, and will remain so. Rebuildable Corvair engines are plentiful, and much easier to find that Lycomings or Continentals. We have been working with Corvairs for 25 years, and there is no shortage of core engines or parts. If you doubt this for a second, Google “Corvair engine parts.”

The Corvair makes an outstanding aircraft engine because it is a simple, compact, direct drive, horizontally opposed six cylinder, air cooled engine. It is robust, and ‘flat rated ‘ from it’s automotive output. The engine runs equally well on automotive fuel and 100LL, and it does not care about ethanol. In its 53 year flight history, more than 500 experimental aircraft have flown on Corvair power.

The engine can be built in three dispacements with three respective power outputs. They are 2,700cc / 100HP, 2,850cc / 110HP and 3,000cc / 120HP. The two smaller displacements weigh 230 pounds, the larger actually weighs 8 pounds less because it uses lighter cylinders. All engines are completely rebuilt from very high quality parts before flight. They are not just removed from cars. The parts we use are specifically selected to convert the engine for the rigors of flight use. Forged pistons, Inconel valves, chrome rings, ARP rod bolts and many other components are upgraded in the rebuild.

To absorb the propeller and flight loads a “5th bearing” is added. It is a billet housing with a very large bearing from a V-8, bolted on the end of the case.The ignition is redundant and utilizes two 40,000 volt systems, one driven by digital electronics the size of a match book, the other by a traditional set of points. The engine is direct drive, it has no complex reduction unit. It makes good thrust because it has more than twice the cubic inches of a Rotax 912. All of the systems on the engine are intentionally patterned after those on Lycomings and Continentals, because they are the  model of success in proven aircraft power plants. People who do not acknowledge certified engines as excellent models of success are often just zealots.  To succeed in experimental aviation you need dispassionate information not emotional opinion.

One of the unique features of the Corvair is that it can be built at home, from our information and parts and a locally acquired rebuildable engine, or it can be purchased from us, test run with logs. 90% of current builders are building their own engine at home. Only 10% of the builders opt to have us build their engine. We have happy to serve both builders. In either case, Corvairs are the best match for builders who want to understand and be the master of their engine.

Because of the plans built vs production engine nature of the Corvair, there are large variations in how much builders budgets run. Below is a quick look at the differences. Keep in mind, these budgets are for first class, completely overhauled, zero timed engines with 5th bearings, starting, ignition and charging systems. We have clever builders who have built and flown engines for less than $3,000, but this not representative of main line builders. The numbers below are much better for Zenith builders to budget on.

.

2,700cc / 100HP typical homebuilders budget: $6,500- Same engine assembled and run from us $9,750

2,850cc / 110HP typical homebuilders budget: $7,500- Same engine assembled and run from us $10,750

3,000cc / 120HP typical homebuilders budget: $8,500- Same engine assembled and run from us $11,750

.

If you are attracted to the concept of building your own engine, but have not built motors before, Good.  About half of our builders have never built any kind of an engine before. Our main work is teaching people what we know and providing the parts to work with. Our system does not require anyone to be a machinist nor to have previous engine experience.

The procedure of building an engine in your shop follows this format:

1) Get a conversion manual and DVD’s from us, use them to find a rebuild able core engine locally. Disassemble this engine following the steps in the DVD.

2) Send the crank and heads to our approved facilities for rebuilding and modification. They come back ready to ‘bolt on.’ Other parts of the engine are cleaned and inspected. The parts to convert the engine are ordered from us, many of the standard rebuild parts like lifters and gaskets are available from local auto parts stores. We do not ‘middle man’ anything you can directly buy.

3) Assemble these parts according to the manual and DVDs. There is no machine work required, only basic tools are needed, and a few specialty tools like a torque wrench. Many builders attend our free Corvair Colleges and directly learn hands on skills. You can even bring your parts and assemble them under our supervision, and test run your engine on our equipment. College attendance is a plus, but not required. Our methods work without direct training; a good number of engines are built and flown each year by builders who have never met me in person.

4) The test run serves several purposes. We teach people to build one of  three specific models, and we teach them to use specific parts. Not only are these proven, but it also allows me to verify from a remote location that the engine was assembled correctly. A builder can report his static rpm, CHT, oil temp during the test run with his Warp Drive prop at the specified setting, and I can confirm the output and assembly of the engine without seeing it personally.

If you would like a sample of the information on working your way through the above four steps, get a look at this: Getting Started in 2013, part #1, Crankshaft process options.

I have broken down building a Corvair and installing it on your airframe into 42 “groups”. The previous link is about  ‘Group 1000’ the crankshaft. If you would like to look at every part that goes into a Corvair, along with the conversion parts we sell, look at Groups 1000 -3300 at this link to our catalog: http://www.flycorvair.com/products.html

All builders get started with a conversion manual. The first part of the above link is about manuals and DVD’s.  The direct link to the manual is: http://www.flycorvair.com/manual.html. almost all builders looking for a rebuild able engine also order the Disassembly  DVD, which covers core engine selection visually. The direct link to it is: http://www.flycorvair.com/videov.html We encourage everyone to get started with information, even if you are pretty sure you would like to purchase a production engine from us. If you eventually buy an engine from us, we directly reduce the price to rebate all the money you spent on manuals and DVD’s.

.

———————————————–

a) – Corvair Weight story: Corvair vs O-200…. weight comparison

b) –  Samples of our production engines:  2012 Corvair Engines For Sale: 100, 110 and 120 HP

c) – For an explanation of ‘flat rating’ and a 750 engine build : Shop perspective: Mastery or ?

d) – A story about engines running on our hangar Dyno: http://www.flycorvair.com/thrust.html

e) Engine of builder now working on 750 airframe: World’s Strongest 3,000cc Corvair, built by Greg Crouchley

f)  3,000cc engine we built for 750 builder Larry Hatfield: 3,000cc Engine Running

g) A story about the evolution on 120HP Corvairs: 3,000 vs 3,100 cc Corvair engines.

.

Headed to the 2012 Zenith open house, six of our powder coated 750 mounts. All of our mounts are welded in house, all of our parts are made in the United States.

.

3) Installation Components for the 750:

We provide every single part it takes to install a Corvair in your 750.  You can buy them one at a time, or all at once. Ninety percent of these parts are common to our Zenith 601/650 installation, which has been successfully flying for a decade. Only the mount, the diameter of the prop, and the size of the air inlets is different. Our Zenith installation manual detail how and why each of the installation components are installed on your airframe.

The installation does not require any modification to the airframe fuel system like most EFI engines do.  Being air cooled and carbureted, it is one of the easiest engines to install. Many companies that are good at selling things are poor at teaching things, like how to install their products. Teaching is the very cornerstone of my work, I am a skilled writer, we run Corvair Colleges, and we have a simple engine. All this adds up to a comparitively easy engine to install. There is no need to rush it, but I can do it working in one long day.

 Installation part numbers are Groups 3400 through 4300 in the second half of our numbering system. Get a look at this link: http://www.flycorvair.com/products.html From that list, you can see that the major installation parts for a 750 are: #3601(S) intake manifold, #3901(A) Stainless exhaust, #4002 spinner bulkhead, #4003 Warp Drive prop, #4101 baffle kit, #4102 nose bowl, #4103 cowl kit and a #4201(B) mount. The other smaller items listed are detail in our Zenith installation manual. All of the above parts have links to stories through the products page, but just for an overview of a single part, look at this link: Zenith 750/Cruiser Mounts. P/N 4201(B)

Many people new to building initially think that very economical engines like the Corvair must also be inexpensine to install. In reality, the cost of items like motor mounts and cowls are not affected by the cost of the engine they mount and house.  A mount for a $30K UL-350 and a $7K Corvair have about the same amount to tubing and welding time in them, and thus cost about the same. Most engines for Zeniths have installation kits that run from $4,000 to $6,000. The Corvair is near the bottom of this range, but the savings of using the Corvair is in the engine, not the cost of installing it. Builders can save a significant amount of money by fabricating many of the parts like #4103, but most people are near the finish line at that point and opt to buy it and save the time. Exact cost on the installation parts varies a bit, I will be glad to review it with builders after they study the installation manual.

—————————————–

a) – For an example of 74 years of aircraft welding talent: Zenith 601/650 Motor mounts, P/N 4201(A)

b) – To learn about the Stainless exhausts we make: Stainless Steel Exhaust Systems

c) – A 2008 look at how we developed the 750 installation on one of the first kits:

  http://www.flycorvair.com/750.html

d) You tube video of an engine we built running on a 750 fuselage, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_1ov0DAbe8&feature=plcp

.

An overhead photo of a CH-750 installation we did in 2009.

.

Above, 2004 at Oshkosh: Next to our personal Zenith N-1777W, I explain our dual ignition arrangement two executives from Falcon insurance, The EAA’s provider. To offer real support, an alternative engine provider must be an effective advocate for his builders on many fronts, including meeting the requirements of underwriters. Just being an engine guru is not nearly enough. Corvair engines that follow our design,  including to ones assembled by builders, are fully insurable at the lowest rates, right from the first flight, because they have an outstanding safety record. Having good effective hands on support is a critical element in this outstanding record.

.

4) Support for Builders:

Beyond the basic engine and installation components, we offer many forms of support to Zenith builders:

.

a) We have a very detailed Installation manual for all Zeniths: http://www.flycorvair.com/601im.html We also have a flight operations manual with specific test flight plans and procedures: http://www.flycorvair.com/ops09.html

.

 b) we hold 4 free hands on technical seminars called “Corvair Colleges” every year. This includes an annual College held in Mexico MO at the Zenith Factory timed to coincide with the factory open house in September. For an introduction to Colleges, read this link: http://www.flycorvair.com/cc21.html  An overview of upcoming colleges is at this link:  Upcoming events, Airshows and Colleges #26-28. If you would like to see video of a College, here is a link to Corvair College #17 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfa85e3ibI4&playnext=1&list=PL1D40A102EC2A194D&feature=results_video

.

c) The “Zenvair” group is a separate on-line peer-to-peer discussion group just for Corvair/Zenith flyers to directly and freely share information and data with each other in a civilized productive format. The link is : ‘Zenvair’ Information board formed  This is very effectively moderated by Zenith/Corvair builder and flyer Phil Maxson.

.

d) Woody Harris, subject of this story:  Zenith 601XL-2,850cc, Woody Harris Is our west coast representative. Although we have held 5 Corvair Colleges in California, including 2 at Zeniths west coast facility Quality sport planes,  we only make one trip to the west per year. Woody covers all the shows and events from Arlington to Copper State when we can’t be there.

.

e) I am the last guy in aviation who still makes free house calls. Over the years I have made more than 400 in person visits builders projects. I travel extensively, and go out of my way to include builders workshops on these trips.  These stops and the colleges allow me to really understand the needs, strengths and dreams of rank and file builders that no one can read in email or at an airshow. for a sample, read this story: Corvair House Call, Range: 335 miles.

.

f)  By my continued advocacy and industry relations, Corvairs have full insurance, at the lowest rates, available from a number of sources. If you would like to find out more Contact Bob Mackey, VP of Falcon insurance, The EAA’s designated provider, seen on the left in the photo above.

.

g) Over the years, we have built a very tight knit community of like minded builders. If you read this story about fools at our county airport: A visit to the insane asylum, and it sounds like your airport, and if your local EAA chapter is devoid of homebuilders and filled with negative people, you will find the Corvair movement to be a powerful antidote. Many Corvair builders catch several colleges a year, there they find positive, outgoing, energetic builders, effectively making the Colleges their “local EAA chapter” We have worked very hard to attract outstanding people interested in accomplishing their goals. I  go out of my way to encourage new builders but I am intolerant of people who are compulsively negative. I am willing to be a cheerleader, but not a therapist.

.

——————————————

blog050213stevenson

Doug Stevenson’s 750, powered by a 3,000 cc Corvair engine in California. This was the first Corvair powered 750 to fly.

.

5) Examples of flying Corvair Powered Zenith 750s:

Doug Stevenson : Flying Zenith 750 w/3000cc Corvair, Doug Stevenson, California

Jeff Cochran: New “Zenvair-750″, Jeff Cochran, 2,850cc engine, N750ZV

Gary Burdett: Zenith 750 Flying on Corvair Power, Gary Burdett, Illinois

first story: Gary Burdett, 2,850cc Zenith 750, now flying. (engine selection)

Tom Siminski : Flying Zenith 750, Tom Siminski, 2700cc, PA.

———————————————–

blogvdm030613

Above, Coenraad Van Der Merwe at the controls of his 750 during the first run of the 2,700cc Corvair he built for it. In spite of a busy work and personal schedule, he completed the airframe and built his engine in 18 months. Electing to build your own engine need not significantly increase the length of your build.  In many cases, the vastly lower cost of this option compared to other engines allows the aircraft to be completed years earlier. Money, not time, is the limiting agent in most aircraft builds.

.

6) Examples of Builders working on this Combination:

Coenraad’s 2,700cc: Running Zenith 750, Coenraad Van Der Merwe, CA

Blain Schwartz’s 2,850cc: Zenith 750 Builder Blaine Schwartz video on you tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4HwntCo2-I

Rodger Grable’s 2,850cc Corvair College #23 – 2850cc Engine, Roger Grable, CH-750 Builder

———————————————-

.

7) Operational Data for this combination:

If you would like to read a story about detailed flight data collection on a 2,850cc 750, check out this link: CHT part #5, flight data from Zenith 750 . It is an example of the type of information exchanged on our ‘Zenvair’ group.  If you are attracted to a builders group that is made of intelligent thinking people, you will fit right in with Corvair builders.

If you would like a single example to effectively demonstrate that I am an aviator not a salesman, it is the type of data that I discuss with builders. No salesmen will acknowledge accidents nor difficulties that involved their products, even circumstantially.

Conversely, I am here to teach people what they need to know. I have a long history of writing about subjects that salesmen wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot pole. I write about accidents and friends I have lost, honest mistakes people made and things you can learn from them.  Just about everything know in aviation cost someone dearly to learn. If you are unwilling to talk about these things in plain language, people are doomed to repeat them.

For an example of  plain speaking, I conducted an in person investigation of an accident on Doug Stevenson’s 750. It had an off airport landing on it’s third flight, and was damaged. It was caused by fuel exhaustion. You can read the whole story at this link: http://www.flycorvair.com/stevenson.html . Doug made a simple mistake., but he was man enough to admit it, and he wanted others to learn from it. As the leader of the Corvair movement I long ago set the ethic that we don’t demonize men for honest mistakes, we work with them to investigate and teach others. Doug repaired the airframe and we tore the engine down and internally inspected it. His aircraft is back flying and a proven performer now. As you read the report, keep in mind that I am a graduate of the same Embry Riddle degree program that most NTSB accident investigators. The data I collected, including the video, was taken into the official report.

.

——————————————-

Above, A photo taken at Sun n Fun 2006. My wife Grace Ellen and myself, in front of the first Corvair powered Zenith, our own N-1777W. The plane was the first XL model with conventional gear.  Grace is a skilled pilot in her own right. She has been a pilot longer than I have, holds more advanced ratings and owns two aircraft. As a point of ethics, we do not promote, advocate nor sell things we have not personally flown behind.

.

8) Who is William Wynne?

Modern consumer sales logic dictates that that business should ‘de-personalize’ themselves so consumers find nothing objectionable about the provider while they are spending money.  That model may work elsewhere, and even have advocates experimental aviation, but I don’t buy it.  I contend that Aviation is a different arena, and who you are dealing with, and their ethics, experience and perspective matters.

Building a plane or an engine is a marriage of sorts between the builder and his airframe or engine company. I believe that it is best if everyone goes into it well informed with their eyes wide open. I am always surprised how few people even Google the name of a person they are thinking of working with. You don’t need to see eye to eye with them on every point nor even love them, but the relationship must absolutely have trust and respect operating in both directions. In 25 years I have seen many builders try to justify buying a product from a provider they didn’t really trust. It never works out. It doesn’t matter how good it looks, what it costs or how great it is supposed to work, if it is from a bad guy, it isn’t worth buying.

I could write a quick paragraph about how I am a pilot, a 22 year A&P mechanic, and that I hold both an AS degree in Maintenance and a BS in Professional Aeronautics (accident investigation) From the worlds #1 aeronautical university, Embry-Riddle , but I don’t think that any of that explains my commitment to builders nearly as well as the flying planes of our builders and things we have accomplished. Henry Ford said “A man can not base his reputation on what he says he will do; only what he has done.”

I am plain spoken. to understand why, read the ‘Effective Risk Management’ story below. I have many friends who are experienced aviators who value plain talk. This type of speech also tends to offend people who dabble in aviation and would rather read polite things that align with their pet opinions. I am in aviation to share experience builders need to know, not say things people want to hear. Below are a selection of stories, some humorous, but all with a point, that give people a better understanding of who I am. From there you can decide if you choose to work with me as your engine mentor.

a) Fixing America is going to cost each of us $1.69

b) Greatest Book on Flying Ever Written, (Is your life worth $16?)

c) In defense of plain speaking……

d) Turtles and Cell Phones, 6/24/13.

e) A thought on Easter….

f) Happy Father’s Day William E. Wynne Sr.

g) Effective Risk Management – 2,903 words

.

—————————————————————————————.

9) Notes on trash from Bankrupt LLC’s:

Not all things called a Corvair represent my work or designs. Over the years, our success and willingness to share information has brought out a number of short lived LLC’s that were run by rip off artists, and mentally ill people. Particularly, there have been four businesses that made poor copies of our parts or untested garbage. All of these are bankrupt today. Because they were LLC’s they could take peoples money without any liability to repay it. Today, I have just heard that another is coming back with a new name. The story will never end as long as people don’t do their home work or believe that they are getting a bargain. You can read about one of these companies at this link: Cloudn’t have happened to a nicer guy……

I warn people all the time not to buy things from these people, or to buy this stuff at the flymart. For examples of things no one should have bought, look at this story: Built by William Wynne? Built according to The Manual?

Let me be absolutely clear, that I will be polite to people, but I will not work on, offer advice on, or help with products made by bankrupt people that I considered vermin. If you have one of the engines from these LLC’s you are out of luck. I will not allow you to join our ‘Zenvair’ group nor will I allow you to attend any of the Colleges. This isn’t out of spite, it is to protect these builders lives. They all want to put a band aid on their bad purchase and make it “good enough to fly.” A band aid isn’t going to do it, an amputation is in order. People who blew $12K on Junk don’t want to hear this, they are still looking for a cheap out that doesn’t exist.  I will not assist them in the delusion that they have found one.

The Zenith Builders and flyers website has a small number of old posts from people who bought trash like this for their projects. If you look closely, these people offered great testimonials, but later abandoned their builds. On the same sites, I have builders like Larry Winger and Rich Whittington sharing that the same people took their money and delivered trash. Some people still don’t do their home work.

Below is a photo of a heavily damaged Zenith 750 with a Corvair in it.  At first glace you might think it was the work of one of our builders, but it is not. The photo was sent to me by the insurance agent who wanted to know who much it would cost to repair. I told him I wouldn’t touch it for any price.

The problem with the plane is that the owner bought from the wrong people, and later wanted a ‘band aid’ fix, and tried to alter his engine to look more like the ones we teach people to build. Looks don’t count, function does. This plane had a rear starter that deleted the harmonic balancer. This required a goofy motor mount to clar the ring gear in the back. After the builder had a number of failures with the original starter, the builder bought another crank from another LLC in Georgia and tried to set up the plane with front starter parts bought second hand. On one of the first flights after the band aid was applied, the entire prop hub assembly and the prop came off the plane in flight and it crashed. The reason for this was probably something as simple as having the wrong flange on the replacement crank. The owner didn’t tell the insurance company that he had applied the band aid, but they found out anyway, and when they did they started talking about voiding the coverage. All of this could have been avoided by doing some homework before the original purchase, or just starting over when he realized his mistake. This is why I don’t help people put band aids on things that need to be amputated.

Just one thing to look at: The two down tubes in the mount that support the cabin structure. Note that they are actually broken. Look closely and see that they had a direction change and a butt weld right in the middle of the tube to clear the original rear starter set up. That is pure trash put out by people with no education and purchased by people looking for a bargain.  I am not here to serve such people. I believe that people have a human right to end their lives, but this doesn’t require me to assist them in doing so.

………………..

Ignition “issues” and I-U-S-F

Builders,

The last few weeks have seen builders with “issues” involving getting their engines to run on our ignition systems. Both of these builders stated that their ignitions were defective, in spite of the fact I test every single one of them before they leave the shop. Jumping to the conclusion that I sell defective stuff is not a rational response, nor one that engenders the better angels of my nature, particularly when both of the units were returned to my shop and tested, and found to be fine.

.

Here is a story about  how to wire a distributor, the mistakes people sometimes make, and a example of an unreasonable response: E/P Distributor wiring notes:  A link to our nine page illustrated instructions : http://shop.flycorvair.com/product/3301-epx-distributor/ notice these come with every distributor, and are on line also.

.

Several Common threads appear with builders having an “Issue”:

They have a “helper” or a partner, who doesn’t understand how the system works either

They have not been to a Corvair College, even though they would learn the specific elements they are missing.

They are not using information resources we have developed listed here: Outlook 2016 – The Corvair ‘Information Network’ now in gear.

They didn’t follow rule number one of ignitions: DO NOT change the point settings, or anything else in the ignition, just install it following the directions. If you have any problem understanding them, DO NOT ask another person who doesn’t understand, just call us, before taking anything apart.

.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

.

I am developing a term called IUSF. This stands for “Insufficient Understanding for Safe Flight” I am not kidding about this, and I am going to write a story about this so when people are not reading instructions, or taking incorrect advice, or jumping to conclusions about tested parts, I am going to reference this story in a formal notice to them, and directly invite them to the next Corvair College for in person instruction. I will be meeting them ‘more than half way’, for free,  in order to offer them an opportunity to develop a better understanding, so they can safely fly their plane. Some people “Don’t know what they Don’t know.” This will be a way of telling people they are not learning practical information fast enough to understand it before their plane is done. I can’t force anyone to do this, but neither will I be responsible for the results of people who choose not to understand the proven ways to install and operate our systems. 

.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

.


.

Above: A General Motors engineering report on distributor advance, specifically referencing the 180HP Turbo engine. One of the builders said  an engine can not be cranked with the ignition advanced. Really? Look closely, the initial ignition advance for all turbo Corvairs was 24 degrees at idle. Before a ‘helper’ convinces you of something about Corvairs, consider that I might just know more about them than he does. All of our DFI distributors : More DFI testing are based on cranking the engine with more than 20 degrees of advance. It works just fine.

.


.

Same report, sitting on the steps of my shop today, with a rear cover from a 180 HP corvair, notice the factory sheet metal timing mark extention, so that the idle timimg can be set to 24 degrees. I don’t make this up, many engines, including aircraft engines without impulse coupled magnetos, are all cranked with full advance.

.

.

One builder had a buddy who said that his engine only ran when he installed the points above in place of the ones we use, because these were better, and noted we should look into using them, implying we sent him a second rate part.

.


.

Same box as above, in front of my parts bin, showing that his helper wasn’t right, as I already use the identical points on every distributor we make. Yes, he took of the same set to replace it himself with the identical part, in spite of the fact the directions explicitly say not to touch the points.

.


.

Distributor in my machine, returned by the builder, with the claim that I sent him a defective electronic unit. Guess what, it works perfectly. But, look at the white points wire: I pulled off a little piece of tape the helper put on, and low and behold, the wire had been cut by being carelessly pinched under the cap. Just in case anyone is wondering, a piece of tape is not an acceptable repair to any piece of wiring with damaged insulation, anywhere on your plane, and particularly not in the ignition system. The owner said he didn’t do this, meaning it was the handiwork of the helper.

.


.

Above, a closer look at the cut wire under the tape. If any person did this on a plane I was in charge of, and hid it, I would never let them in the hangar again. Working on planes is serious business, and you have to take it more seriously than this.

.

I fully understand that people are not born knowing these things. But, you have to be willing to learn them, willing to follow the directions, willing to stop taking advice or ‘help’ from people who don’t know what they are doing, willing to use our information resources, and if you still don’t get it, you have to be willing to travel to a college to learn these things in person. That is as plain as I can say it. I do not say these things to offend, I say it to prevent accidents that never have to happen.

.

wewjr.

.

 

.

 

Evolution of a Pietenpol

Builders,

In the previous story, The small world of Experimental Aviation , I mentioned how much N-1777W changed over the years. He is a look at some of it:

.


.

This is the plane at Oshkosh 1970. The picture made it to the back cover of Sport Aviation in January 1971. Notice it once had 140HP heads, and other well meaning, but weak ideas. If you have the Tony Bingelis book “Firewall Forward” the Pietenpol/Corvair pictures in it are all of this plane, in this era. Bingelis didn’t like auto engines, and his writing spread a lot of old wives tales. He was a good guy and a highly influential writer, but he held opinions that testing by his contemporaries like Wittman and Monnett showed to be wrong.

.


.

Fast forward to 1995. Want to know how I became the expert on Pietenpol weight and balance? Want to know why I think it is annoying when people who can’t do a simple calculation, or have never weighed a plane on electronic scales question my work on Piet W&B?  Start with this photo: The reason why the cowl has a 6″ wide expansion in it is simple. After getting the plane, I found out the weight and balance, done on bathroom scales was dangerously wrong. I carefully measured, and in a single day, made a mount 6″ longer and plugged the cowl for test flying. In the picture is Gus Warren who did a lot of the work with me and covered much of the flying. It was an instant improvement in safe flying behavior. I have written extensively about this testing and work, you can find the links here: Corvair – Pietenpol Reference page, but today, the majority of Pietenpol builders willfully ignore the information. Much of this is driven by people in the Pietenpol community who personally dislike me for my tone or experience.

.


.

Above, same plane 1999. This is an entirely different motor mount, the first high thrust line (#4201-C Pietenpol Motor mounts, now on the shelf, ready for shipping.)  and a completely different set of gear legs.(New die spring landing gear on a Pietenpol, 10 a.m.-4 p.m.)  Bring up the topic of axle location, gear leg length, CG changes or thrust lines, and people will tell you they think it makes no difference. Of course their opinion is not based on any testing, just a guess, something they heard from a guy. When I speak of these things on a Pietenpol, it was because for a number of years, ready to cut up a good flying plane, or a mount that I had made a month before, in search of something better. Some opinions are made of guesses, mine are made of testing.

.

If you look in the upper corner of the picture, there is a blond girl sitting in the grass. She was getting away from her job as a newspaper editor. She liked planes a lot, and had a very pleasant way about her. Her name turned out to be Grace.

.

Above, side view of the same plane, taken just before Corvair College #1. Notice how much longer the gear is than when the fuselage was orange. Also note where the axle is located. In the last few years, we have had two Corvair powered Pietenpols heavily damaged by being put on their back, even though I warned people to move the axle forward if using brakes. It is frustrating to not be able to motivate people to correct things like this before an accident. When you see what I was willing to rework on my own aircraft to make it better, it is obvious that I don’t operate things in a condition that simple work and modest money will fix. If you are too tired to improve things, pick a different hobby, this one has potentially harsh penalties for the lazy.

.

-ww.

.

“I sure hope his opinion is worth money to someone”

Builders,

John Tower was a four term US Senator from Texas.  Between his service in WWII and being a reservist, he wore the uniform of the US Navy for 46 years. He was on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 20 years; he was on the Joint Committee on Defense Production for 16 years; Although he was a Republican, he lead the ‘Tower Commission’, that investigated and condemned the Reagan administration role in the Iran Contra Affair. After leaving the Senate Tower was the Chief US negotiator of the Strategic Arms talks at a critical time in the Cold War.

.

In 1989 President Bush nominated Tower to be US Secretary of Defense. Because he had never been a man of blind party loyalty, Tower was attacked on many fronts in one of the ugliest Senate confirmation hearings in history. At the height of the battle in the Senate, Towers enemies stated he was unqualified to be Secretary of Defense, because after serving in the Senate, Tower had worked for General Dynamics and was paid about $200,000/yr. One of Towers supporters went to the microphone and “We are speaking of making this man United States Secretary of Defense, on these issues,  I sure hope that his opinion is worth money to someone.” 

.

With the goal of finding someone who had not been paid for their perspectives, Tower’s nomination was defeated by a coalition of his political rivals and enemies.  Another nominee was found, a relative unknown from a state where he had few detractors. He was easily confirmed, 92-0, and thus began the rise to power of a Wyoming Congressman named Dick Cheney.

.

………………………………………………………..

.

Your Aviation Connection: In budget experimental aviation, there is a small (10%) but internet vocal minority that will constantly spout the myth any person who runs a profitable or successful business will advocate products and procedures, motivated solely by quick profit. In this distorted view, anyone who is ‘successful’ can’t be trusted, and their track record should be ignored in favor of getting advice from people who’s opinions have never been valuable enough for builders to spend money on.

.

This is a disease that doesn’t affect mid level builders like RV series builders. A part of the reason why their are 10,000 flying RV aircraft is the message Profitable=Evil doesn’t resonate with them. They want to build a proven aircraft, and they want to fly it. They are not interested in getting sidelined by conspiracy theories on success. To the contrary, the majority of RV builders selected Van’s Aircraft, specifically because it was successful and profitable. To sane people, this is taken as evidence of having a good and proven product.

.

When people who are against trusting successful people need medical attention, do they look for people who didn’t make it through med school? Do they look upon every successful professional with suspicion? Do the automatically trust the opinion of every amateur or failure? Your guess is as good as mine, I am an aircraft mechanic, I have little understanding of that kind of psychology.

.

On the internet last week, the claim was made I advocate pressure cowls because I make money selling baffle kits.  This is a joke, first because pressure cowls work, evidenced by 98% of RV aircraft and 100% of Cessna 172 and 150’s having them, second, we have more than a hundred of flying Corvair powered planes that use a pressure cowl, but lets not forget the point, I don’t even sell baffle kits. Even if I did, I am well known as a person who can’t be bought: Read this story: Expert Witnesses in civil Aviation trials. and know that I was offered $55,000 for 2 hours of testimony against Cessna, and I told their lawyers to “F–k Off. ”  In 2001, I had several attorneys promise me a million dollar settlement if I would sue the PIC in my accident. I told them to drop dead also.   So perhaps it seems unlikely that I would sell out for the ‘big money’ available from Corvair parts sales.

.

The anti-success line sold on internet groups isn’t just aimed at Corvairs; I have seen it used against any VW company that lasted, about half of the aircraft plans sellers, and a great number of people who offered parts for plans built aircraft. The people who sell this idea claim to be defending traditional homebuilding, but what they are really doing making it unattractive for people to make products of basic planes, to take away the opportunity for some builders to choose for themselves products that best serve their individual time vs money equation.  If you are a grass roots homebuilder who wonders why there are “A wealth of products for the wealthy“, but far fewer choices for those on a budget, here is a big part of your answer.

.

Here is irony: One of the things I do with the modest profits from our 27 year business is put them back into events that serve grass roots builders like our free Corvair Colleges: Corvair College History….in photos. and use the time to write about our R&D and testing projects: Testing and Data Collection reference page. Yet, a number of people who claim I am solely motivated by profit, have actually attended a Corvair College, and certainly almost all people who make the claim have learned something from my websites. These are the some of the people I was writing about in this story:The Hypocrisy of Homebuilders.

.

Every builder will choose his own path. Some will follow the proven path because their goal is success, and they interpret success as the sign of good product or service. I am glad to assist these builders, no matter how big or small their budget is.  Others, will choose to condemn any successful company, for reasons that are important to them, but in doing so will greatly diminish their personal odds of building and flying a reliable plane, all as the years drift by and their time runs out. Pick your own personal path carefully, most people don’t get two chances at this.

.

Above John Tower in the 1960’s. If you can see past the political necessity of his vote against the Civil rights act to gain office, the man had a long run where he put his loyalty with his conscience instead of either party. It wasn’t a long term strategy for gaining the favor or protection of his party. He was killed at age 65 in the crash of an Embraer twin turboprop, a scheduled airline flight. The accident was traced to the failure of a Hamilton Standard propeller. A later, nearly identical fatal accident caused a major safety probe that laid responsibility on Hamilton Standard’s overhaul practices.

.

-ww.

 

 

 

 

 

Air / Fuel ratios on Corvair carbs.

Builders,

Here are some short notes on the topic of carbs.  It is my hope that builders will read and think about them, consider the logic before jumping up to debate. The Comments are based on 25 years as a working aircraft mechanic and working with Corvairs since 1989. These comments are not based on a single planes experience, but take into account all types of testing, education, and practical experience.

.

How Rich is right?  Recently, a builder has told people that correctly running aircraft carbs on Corvairs need to have black sooty tail pipes.  I can flatly state that this is way too rich, and there are a number of very good reasons why you should not fly a carb running that rich.

.
 .

As a logical base line for what exhausts should look like, perhaps we can all agree that an Exhaust of Certified plane, running 100LL fuel, with a correctly running engine, with by the book performance, a Certified aircraft carb running without adjustment for more than 20 years. is a standard we should use. This engine has never fouled a plug in 17 years, has never harmed the engine in any way. Notice that the inside of the exhaust pipe has a dusty light gray color, and that new paper towel was vigorously wiped on the inside of the pipe, and only produced that light stain between my thumb and the exhaust pipe. This is the correct color and soot content for any Corvair running an aircraft carb.  I know this from working with countless flying Corvair powered planes over the years.

.

Why not black and sooty? A correctly running aircraft carb on an air cooled engine will have an air/fuel ratio of about 12:1 in normal cruise. This will automatically go richer, to some thing like 10.5:1 at wide open throttle, and in low power cruise at altitude, it can be leaned to 14:1 for maximum efficiency.  Any engine that is making black soot in the exhaust and can be seen to visibly smoke at 1,000 rpm is running an air/fuel ratio of 9:1 or so. I know this not just from books, and working on certified planes, but from directly reading a laboratory grade A/F meter while running an EFI Corvair on my dyno in 2007:

.

Above, An exhaust evaluation as part of an Electronic Fuel injection test on a 2,700cc Corvair in 2007. It is shown running at power on my dyno. With this arrangement, a simple twist of a knob on the computer produced any A/F ratio you wanted to test. This is how I can say what A/F ratio produces visible smoke on a Corvair, and it is part of how I can speak about it’s relationship with power output.

.

At any airport with a density altitude less than 3,000 feet, your Corvair should run perfectly smoothly and make good power with the mixture set full rich, just like any Cessna 150 with the same carb will do.  One of the reasons why I use MA3-SPA carbs is so they have the exact same ‘normal’ operation as any certified plane I have flown, and if the carb doesn’t work like it does on a Cessna or a piper, don’t fly it, period.

.

……………………………………………….

.

A builder with an MA3-SPA carb reciently said his engine only ran correctly with the mixture pulled half way out. He was considering actually doing his first flight in that condition. His home airport elevation is only 516 feet. If I went to his airport, and got in a Cessna 150 and it took pulling the mixture out half way to run correctly, You could only make me fly that plane with a gun to my head. Something is wrong with it, and sane people do not fly planes with things wrong with them. It doesn’t suddenly become “O.K.” because the carb is now on an experimental. Wrong is wrong, time to correct the issue, not to find some condition where it kind of works for the first flight.

.

Any guy who would consider flying a plane in that condition, has missed the point of this story: Risk Management, Judgement Error, money in the wrong place. Where Ken Lien was killed on the very first flight of his plane because he didn’t bother to correctly assemble the mixture control on his plane and it moved to idle cut off on its own. If you are in a plane, getting ready for the first flight, and the mixture has to be pulled half way out to run, please explain to me how you know that this isn’t the first sign that the mixture is assembled incorrectly.  You wouldn’t, and there is a significant chance the engine will quit.  People who want to die should step in front of busses, not fly planes that are not set correctly, as using a plane and poor judgment to end ones life only unfairly punishes those of us who practice intelligent flying.

.

…………………………………………

.

If the mixture was half way out on the first flight, and the new pilot had to do a go around on the first approach, most pilots would instinctively push the throttle, carb heat and mixture to the firewall.  This works, and it is the correct procedure. However if the pilot is tolerating a plane that must have the mixture half way out, when he does this, the engine will quit, he will overshoot the runway, and smash up the plane on the over run. All the local experts will then say “The Corvair quit, I told him not to use a car engine, he should have used an O-200” Neatly ignoring the fact that it is the same carb as the O-200, and it would have done the exact same thing.  If instead, the same pilot stepped in front of a bus, preferably while holding the hand of the ‘Expert’ who tells everyone not to use car engines, aviation would benefit, and the rest of us would come out ahead. Cold, but you know it is true.

.

……………………………………………

.

Engines running black soot are wasting fuel, prone to fowling plugs, can damage the cylinder walls, and will have excessive carbon build up. On the other hand……..wait, there is no upside.

.

……………………………………………

.

Anyone who says that an MA3-SPA needs to be jetted differently for different displacement Corvair engines is wrong. Think of how many different engines have run on my test stand, all with the same, untouched in 15 years, MA3-SPA. Note that I have the mixture set full rich on the stand, and it runs cleanly on all engines. And yes, my stand has both EGT and O2 sensors. Beyond this, Dan Weseman and I recently took his 3,000 cc and 3,300 cc Corvairs to one of Florida’s most respected dyno shops and ran them both is a day long session.  What carb did we use? Why the same one off my run stand. It ran perfectly on both motors and the shops very elaborate instrumentation showed that the air/fuel ratio stayed correct through out the power range on both engines, without any kind of adjustment. Aircraft carbs work like that.

.

…………………………………………………

.

Would you like to know how aircraft carbs are supposed to be operated? Read this story: Cylinder Head Temperature measurement and learn what a Lycoming Operations Manual is.  Down load it, print it, read it and know it. This is what successful people will do.

.

Conversely, You could get advice from a guy who is neither an pilot nor an A&P, who has never owned nor flown a plane with a mixture control, teamed up with a guy who has never seen a Corvair turn a prop in person, and another guy who damaged his engine by using a carb no one ever head of so he could save some bucks. Take your pick, but if someone doesn’t like the concept of listening to the professionals and people with experience, again, I am going to suggest that bus thing again, I know it sounds mean spirited, but people willfully doing dumb things shouldn’t even be called ‘accidents’ because they are not really. an accident is someone trying to do the right thing. Willfully choosing not to do the right thing is not an accident.

.

——————————————-

This ends the technical part of this story.  No valid technical information follows.

………………………………………………..

.

I am not listening to William Wynne because:

.

One: He sounds arrogant, and although I have never met him, and he wrote stories about people he loved: Risk Management reference page in hopes that others could avoid being hurt, I still say he is a jerk because I found two sentences in the 855 stories that are on this site that offended me, and I refuse to learn anything from him since.

.

Two: I own a Prius, and he is always mocking people who own Priuses, and I can tell he isn’t kidding, and he feels superior about this, which is stupid because as a Prius owner I alone have a right to feel superior to all other car owners because I know the best way to protest the use of fossil fuels is to buy a car that you can feel superior about.

.

Three: When I was in his tent at Oshkosh pontificating about how America has been ruined because no one follows the Ten Commandments anymore, he asked me to name them, and I couldn’t. The year before I said the problem with America was no one followed the Constitution, and he asked me how many articles it had and I said 10, and he said “guess again, you are off by three” , and I guessed 13.  I don’t get the connection that I should read more before being sure I am right.  I never listen to people with long hair, even though William has essentially the haircut as Jesus and everyone at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

.

Four: I don’t listen to people who sell things, because they are trying to make money off me. I only listen to people on the net who’s opinion about how to do things can’t get them a job doing it, nor is it apparently worth money to anyone. Those are the people I trust.  Yes, I know that I should trust William because he has a vested interest in my success even if he actually likes me or not, But I would rather trust people I have never met, who write in nicer tones, who I have a simplistic childish belief are motivated to tell me the truth, unstained by their limited experience, personal bias, and ego.

.

——————————————————————————-

.

If anyone read the above for points and didn’t find them funny, you probably have good taste, and I remind you I am a mechanic, not a comedian. I have a small but consistent group of people, most who have never met me, who remain quite sure that I have a “Condescending tone” and a “Giant ego”.  Before anyone is temped to say those things, I ask that they read the two paragraphs below, which appear both on my website and in every manual we print, and please share with me how this isn’t adequately honest and frank:

.

“If you have never met me, but read this and think that I am charmed with myself, you got it all wrong. I know countless humans who are better people than I. They are kinder, smarter, and harder working. I can’t sing nor dance, I learn slowly, and I can’t stand to hear my recorded voice nor see my image on film. If I was once handsome, all trace of it is gone along with my uncorrected eyesight. I can be a conversational bore, and I deeply wish I had given my parents more moments to be proud of me. At 50 I look back on my life with a very critical eye and stand on the far side of a very wide gulf from the heroes of my youth. Even our dog, impeccably honest and loyal as canines are, Loves Grace and only tolerates me.

Honest evaluation leads to harsh thoughts like this. I spend a lot of time alone and have long bouts of insomnia, which can lead to thinking about things excessively. But the secret I would like to share with anyone who at times feels the same way, is that I have a sanctuary where I am insulated from much of my self-criticism, and a have a front, where at 50, I am much better on than I thought possible in my youth. When I am building things with my hands in my shop, I rarely feel poor. Although I now need glasses to do any close work, and my hands have lost a lot of dexterity, I am a far better craftsman than I ever was in my youth. I am not a great craftsman, but over a very long time I have worked to develop these elements in my life, and I compete with no one except who I was last year. While all else fades, these things flourish. It is a gift I am most thankful for.”

.

ww.

.

Eyeball Exhaust Evaluations

Builders,

For as long as I have been working with Corvairs, I have had a segment of ‘experts’ tell me their opinions about the  Corvair exhaust such as ” It would make 30% more power with headers” All of these people were basing their misguided theories on ‘eyeball evaluations’ and the were just sure they were right. I knew they were wrong because I have testing on my side.

.

Below is a very interesting video showing how eyeball evaluations of exhaust systems are worthless. It shows a very potent 6,000 rpm V-8 on a dyno, in back to back tests where they flatten header tubes horribly, and it has next to no effect on the output. And that is on an engine making one and a half HP / cubic inch. The effect is even lower on engines like your Corvair flight engine.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azPKIjxmmdU

.

Engine exhaust requirements depend on cylinder head design and camshaft design. Typically, low rpm engines like your flight motor, have modest cam profiles with short duration, to build torque. These engines are not punished for having the backpressure of a muffler, nor are they rewarded for having perfect free flowing balanced tubes. In our application, the systems we use are the correct balance of reasonable flow, matched to the cam profile, with the two critical factors: Low surface area and stainless construction to prevent it from heating the inside of the cowl, and having low weight and a stiff design that will not resonate and crack. The systems we offer are made of the best materials, with the best welding, to long proven designs. Sorry if reality offends the ‘eyeball evaluation experts’, but that is reality.

.

Get a look at some of our exhausts here: http://shop.flycorvair.com/product/3901-a-zenith-exhaust/

.

Read about our designs here: Stainless Steel Exhaust Systems

.

Above, An exhaust evaluation as part of an Electronic Fuel injection test on a 2,700cc Corvair in 2007. It is shown running at power on my dyno. The urethane wheel directly reads foot pounds of torque off the digital scale. Note the engine has headers on it, that could be swapped in minutes for other exhaust. The EFI allowed the air/fuel ration to be corrected to optimize the exhaust instantly at the twist of a knob, giving the fairest scientific evaluation of exhausts. The air / fuel ratio was read on a laboratory grade digital O2 system. The data conclusively showed that headers make very little difference on a Corvair, and EFI was not impressive either. Read more here: Testing and Data Collection reference page

.

-ww.

.

YOU MUST SET THE TIMING ON YOUR ENGINE

Builders,

.

This is not a story about people making mistakes, because everyone does that when they are learning, This is a story about people reading the correct way to do things, and then thinking it over, and deciding not to, because they have some rationalization like ” I think someone did that for me” or “I’m busy, I will look at that later” or “I read that once, I suspect that mine is wrong, but there is too much information on ww’s site, it can’t all be important.” I wrote this last night after working 18 hours in the shop. It has a lot of spelling errors, and we have just 24 hours before the college. I was going to take 10 minutes to correct the spelling, but thought about the guy who will later say “I didn’t set the timing because I decided the advice wasn’t any good because I am a grammar and spelling Nazi and I can’t get past that, even to learn how to save my life.” Have a nice day.

.

Above is Gardiner Mason’s Pietenpol. The plane was nearly destroyed in the sun n fun tornado, but he rebuilt it. It flew for years and had a condition inspection every year. It was wrecked in a hard landing that tore a wheel off, it had a number of forced landings. During the years that Gardiner flew the plane, he adamantly refused to ever set the timing with a light, he never did it. He no longer flies a Corvair, and I am glad about that. Let some other engine be blamed for his death. BTW, Gardiner flew for both the military and Delta, and has 30,000 hours, and I honestly have to say he never learned anything from me, in spite of many attempts on my part: http://www.flycorvair.com/pietengineissue.html today his engine runs perfectly in the hands of someone willing to use a timing light: Terry Hand’s 2700 cc Pietenpol engine – w/Weseman 5th bearing

.

 

I have said in countless places that every one must check the timing on their engine with a timing light before flying it. I have even said that I suspect more that 1/5 of the people who fly Corvairs never do this. Perhaps you have read this and thought I was bull shitting people….Well understand this, and read it clearly, Today, I had two people with flying planes tell me in a single day that they never checked the timing on their engines. Yes, two in one day.

.

Guy “A” wrote with a picture that showed a broken piston ring, and asked what caused this? When asked, he stated that he had never checked the timing, because he had bought the engine from us years ago, and just assumed that it was OK to fly it without ever checking the timing.

.

Guy “B” wrote to say that his plane has one flight on it that went OK. When asked, he stated that the Cowl inlets were only 3.6″, He had no EGT information, one CHT, and he never set the timing on the engine. Again he bout the engine years ago, and some how assumed that it would be fine.

.

Here is what is wrong with that mentality: I have said in countless places, that being an aviator is about leaving nothing to chance that you can easily check yourself. Since you have to own a timing light, and you have to check the timing at least every annual, why wouldn’t you check it before flying. “Because I thought someone did this for me” is not an acceptable answer in aviation if you are planning on living long.   If I sold you a gun several years ago, and then you left it in your barn for several years, would you pick it up and handle it without checking to see if it was loaded? Only if you were a fool. Likewise, during an engine installation, there are many ways with lifting the engine, installing baffling, wiring the ignition, that the timing could be altered. It takes only ten minutes to check……but still, people who took 5 years to build a plane, evidently don’t have that 10 minutes. I wouldn’t install a Lycoming engine in a plane and not check the mag timing. Why is this OK to do with a Corvair?

.

I have to ask myself why I bother to write detailed stories and organize the in this format: Engine Operations reference page if people are not going to read them. In a previous photo Guy “B” sent me a picture of his engine running on his plane, with no cowling or airbox. I have said countless times that this is totally unacceptable, the same as running a water cooled car without a radiator or coolant. Yet there was some need to do this on a brand new engine. If there was ever a time in the life of an engine not to do this, it is when it is brand new. Between this, the undersized inlets, no timing set, and no egt information, how much damage do you think was done to the engine? If the engine fails in a few hours like Guy “A”‘s engine did, please tell me if you thing that all the guys in their EAA chaperts are going to say “I can’t believe he didn’t bother to take 10 minutes to set the timing” or do you think they will say “Stupid Corvairs, what a rip off that long haired jack ass in Florida is.”

.

How many people are going to try this? I don’t know, but here is a story about a guy refused to buy a timing light and check the timing on his Corvair, because I had build the engine 10 years earlier, and it had been sold twice since then, moved all around the country, and put on two different planes, but he was still sure that the timing must be set correctly, because I built it a decade before. Guess what happened? He crashed the plane on the first flight, with a passenger. Understanding Flying Corvairs Pt. #6, 98% DNA not enough.

.

In 24 hours we are leaving for Corvair College Number Thirty-Five. Is anyone learning anything, or am I just assisting in a free assembly service? This website has 740 stories on it, including many specifically on the need to set the timing on every Corvair. Is anyone reading stories like Ignition Timing on Corvairs or When to check your timing, Lessons learned Pt#2 which contains the sentence : 1) The timing needed to have been set on installation and checked at least at each annual. Please show me where it says “unless you think someone set it for you years earlier”

.

Every week brings this kind of news. Last week I spoke with a guy who has been flying his plane for four years…..and he has never done a compression test. Try this, call your FSDO, tell them you don’t believe in compression tests at annual condition inspections and see how fast they revoke your repairman’s certificate your plane. Better yet, tell ask your insurance agent if your coverage is still valid if you only do part of a yearly inspection. Freedom to build homebuilts doesn’t mean that one is free from following standard procedures of aviation.

.

The thing that gets me the most is the guys who are the beneficiaries of some great research and writing I have done, but willingly choose not to use the information, because they don’t have the time to correct some stuff, but evidently they have plenty of time to rebuild their plane. .Example: Plane flying to Oshkosh, with the landing gear 9″ too far back. I inspected the plane in California, told them the plane had poor CG and incorrect gear location. Neither corrected. On the way to Oshkosh, the engine is running poorly, (problem later traced to certified carb) but they flew past several optional airports to get to the one where the support van was…and promptly put the plane on it’s back…and said nothing when internet people blamed the accident on the Corvair engine of course. Plane flying again now, but with Chinese rockers…..

.

Plane under construction for 20 years, finished the engine at a Corvair College. Made a custom and unique cowl, but never felt the need for a CHT to see if it worked, operating at 7,000′ DA, leaning the carb, but of course no EGT, inspite of the fact I have said in countless places a Corvair leaned to rough running is detonating. Main gear installed 7″ too far aft, in spite of my reports on CG….First flight last 20 seconds to loss of power.. with gear too far aft plane ends up on it’s back….It is publicly blamed on my ignition buy builders “Expert”…plane is flipped over, and proves to run perfectly on points, pilot quiets admits he never flipped the switch to the back up…Later testing shows that distributor runs perfectly on BOTH ignitions, the problem was caused by the experts wiring.

.

Want to know how many Corvairs have been wrecked by running out of gas? Read this: Comments on aircraft accidents, everyone on the net thought that the accident that sparked the debate was caused by the Corvair…Maybe, just maybe I already knew that the pilot was a danger….He had damaged his $35 cam gear by not reading the installation instructions, so he didn’t replace it, he chucked it in a lathe and turned the aluminum gear down to save the money….and later tried flying his plane with only 5 plugs screwed into it.

.

Think that was the only time a pilot flew on five cylinders? Guess again, We had a pilot who did his first several flights, but missed that he never connected the 6th plug wire….He was also doing the flights with no working charging system. Same guy later flies his plane a 601, with 4″ of lateral slop in the stick from completely slacked aileron cables. Why? because he “just had to get to his destination.”.

.

How about flying to Oshkosh, having 80 hours on the plane, and never having changed to berak in oil? How about the same thing with 65 hours? How often do you think those builders inspected under the cowl? What did they learn?

.

I could keep typing these stories for hours.  Right now, there is someone working on making my list of stupid stories one longer…Just make sure it isn’t you.

.ww.

Comments on aircraft accidents

Builders,

I am well known in experimental aviation for speaking of the things we can learn from accidents. I have an entire section of my website devoted to this: Risk Management reference page . Very few people in our field do this. The reluctance of most companies to comment has nothing to do with protecting their work nor our industry, it is simply the unspoken acknowledgement that very few people are listening, and altering their actions as a result of findings. I have worked in experimental aviation for more than a quarter of a century, I was trained as an accident investigator at Embry-Riddle, and the focus of my work is teaching builders, and yet I have to concede that my fellow aviation business owners are actually correct, very few people in experimental aviation are willing to alter or improve their behavior over time. They may want to read about accidents and comment on them, but the statistics say that few people are learning and changing their actions.

.

If you are an individual, it doesn’t matter that 90% of people are doing what 90% have always done. This statistic is a concern of the industry, but it need have no effect on you. It applies to people who behave like a herd, but not the individual. I write the following points with the assumption that I am speaking with an individual, but the acknowledgement that this will also be seen ( I don’t use the word read here) by people of the herd who will ignore, take offence at, or misquote it. I can do nothing about that because my craft is teaching aircraft mechanics, and if my goal was to control herds, I would have been a shepherd.

.

For individuals who want to learn something, the following points are based on 26 years of continuous work with Experimentals:

.

Know the ” WW 100 Rule “: If the prototype breaks or has an accident before anything is being sold, that is called testing and R&D, and that is what responsible companies do; If 3 or the 5 first prototypes have accidents before getting to 100 hours, there is likely an issue with the product; If 2 of the first 10 have accidents before getting to 100 hours, you are likely looking at something about people, not the product; if 20 of the first 100 people have an issue before getting to 100 hours, then you are certainly looking at a human issue because it logged 8,000 hours for people who used it properly, and I have plenty of evidence that more than 20% of people have no judgment around planes. Read : A visit to the insane asylum .

.

There will always be accidents with every plane and product, even ones with several hundred examples. Fools would have you believe this a reflection of aircraft companies randomly producing a defective mechanical devices, and that is a joke. What it actually shows is that there is a large persistent group of people who think that transition training, following instructions, biennial pilot reviews, pre-flighting and spending money where it is needed, do not apply to them. This is not unique to flying, think of anything you engage in, boating, shooting, motorcycling, eating, breathing, whatever, there are at least 20% of people who also do these activities with a willful disregard for safety. The only difference with flying is that the results make better TV news.

.

The fleet of flying Corvair powered planes is about 400-500 active planes. While my original builders may be as low as 5% fools, there are strong industry records that show second owners of aircraft are a very accident prone herd. They are drawn from modern societies’ Darwin award candidates, and they are often people who thought learning enough to build a plane was for egg heads who like books. Second owners have a very high percentage of people with the pre-flight motto “kick the tires, light the fires.” These factors produce a steady flow of accidents. In most cases, if the engine is a Corvair, I will get a call from the FAA or the NTSB within 24 hours of the accident.

.

Remember Martha Stewart?; most people think that she went to jail for insider trading. She did not, she actually went to jail for simply misleading (not even directly lying to) Federal agents conducting an investigation. When a billionaire can’t hire enough lawyers to keep them out of jail after misleading Federal investigators, a reasonably intelligent blue collar guy like an aircraft mechanic concludes one should only say pure factual information to Federal agents. Not only because it is legally a good idea, but it is also the ethical thing to do.

.

There are rules about what you can share before the preliminary report is filed. Now, just think about how many times I have been informed about what was found, but then read stupid speculation from people on the internet, saying things I already knew not to be a factor in the accident. In the last 25 years, I am yet to see a single speculator, who was later shown to be absolutely wrong, come back on the net and admit that their speculation was complete BS.

.

Random Comments on the Net: Following an accident, there will be people who always comment, and in most cases, they will not use their real name. This may be the guys friends “sticking up for him”, but you are almost certainly looking at one of three things; 1) An on line know-it-all.  2) An axe grinder trying to do some PR damage by speculation. 3) A small business competitor. (The most famous cases of this were on the Matronics/Zenith list where there were it was later shown that many of comments following accidents originated from other aircraft companies.) Anything that doesn’t come with a guys name and address, from a known person is to be considered BS.

.

When there is an accident, new builders focus on it, but the time spent learning about accidents, particularly when people are just speculating, would be far better spent studying the people who didn’t have an accident. I have seen countless new guys focus on what they ‘think’ happed in some particular accident, but they can’t name a single successful builder’s plane they have studied in the same detail. This is stupid. Their time would be much better invested in learning to emulate the success of another builder who isn’t having accidents. Good flying is about patterning your success after what is proven to work. Even if a builder had a god’s eye view of what went wrong in every accident of the type of plane he is building, this still doesn’t tell him anything about what is right, only what is wrong. Study success at least as much as failure.

.

Keep in mind that when you see an accident, you are arguably looking at the guy who wasn’t following procedures nor exercising good judgment. If he comes right back and says, “I f^#*ked up, let me tell you the mistake I made”, he is the total rarity that can teach you something. but far more often, the person who had an accident says nothing because they didn’t know what they were doing, or still argue that they were doing nothing wrong. A person in that position has nothing to teach you.

.

After an accident, out comes the guy who met him: In many cases this speculator is the guy who knew the guy from his EAA chapter, or knew him from an airshow. Invariably the guy will include a comment like “I thought his plane was nose heavy” OK, and this is based on? Notice the guy never says “I did a weight and balance on it personally and found it to be at the front of the CG range in the drawings” it is always some random judgment, often meant to express how his own personal plane is somehow better than the one in the accident. All of these guys “just want to share facts” but in realty they don’t know what they are talking about. Even well meaning guys who post a link and say “He had an engine failure” are jumping to a conclusion themselves.

.

Do you know that the FAA lists running out of gas as a loss of power? I worked for several years with the late Jeremy Monnett trying to get a category called “Gross Pilot Error” to be included in the descriptive terms because we both thought that is a better description of running out of gas than calling it a “loss of power.”

.

I have written countless times that any commentary on an accident, other than a PIC report or the actual accident investigation is nothing but speculation, But this never stops idiots from doing it. Consider that both this plane: Flying Zenith 750 w/3000cc Corvair, Doug Stevenson, California and this plane: New Zenith 601 XL(B), Conventional Gear, Jerry Baak, S.C. were destroyed in accidents.  If you search the stories on websites, you will find at least 200 random speculations about what caused these accidents, mostly centered on what a terrible engine choice the Corvair is. Ready for reality? Both aircraft were run out of gas.   I flew to California and proved this on video:

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

  The Federal investigator agreed with the conclusion. Yet not one single speculator had the self-respect to go back on any list and say “I was wrong”. You can wait as long as you like and you will not see that on the internet.

.

For people thinking of speculation on vague info, consider how stupid the TV news commentator feels today about reading the “Confirmed Names” of the pilots in the Asiana 214 crash:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1JYHNX8pdo

.

-ww.

.

.

Above, a 2007 picture of the homebuilt of Ken Lien of WA state. The following year, he was killed on the very first flight. You can read the story I wrote a long time later here: Risk Management, Judgement Error, money in the wrong place. By an absolute coincidence, a life long best friend of Ken’s, named Denny Jackson became my neighbor at our airport in FL just after the accident. Denny was deeply hurt by his friend’s death, and finding out that I was the ‘Corvair guy’ lead to him angrily confronting me at our EAA chapter. He was 6’5″ and 325 pounds and not to be trifled with. Because I was part of the investigation, I already knew what Denny did not: It was caused by his friend putting his carb together incorrectly, it had nothing to do with Corvair engines, yet I could not say this to him, I could only ask that he withhold judgment. Months later, Denny understood the report, came and explained that he was just hurt at the loss of his friend. I told him I might have done the same thing. We ended up as friends, spent a chunk of time around the airport together. Denny’s picture is now on our EAA chapter wall, as he was taken by cancer 3 years ago.

.

An Internet drama in a teapot.

Builders:

A little internet drama is a guilty pleasure of many aircraft builders. Submitted for your approval, a little drama that ran this week; It has a cast, a plot and a twist. Fun, but in the end it is only drama, and like a dozen other dramas before, it entertains, but doesn’t advance your plane toward flying.

……………………….

Cast:

Mark from Falcon Heads, Roy from Roy’s Garage, and 601XL builder/pilot Ron Lendon.

.

Background:

At the end of last year, I privately told Mark and Roy that I was no longer going to have them at Corvair Colleges nor in my booth at Oshkosh. After nearly 10 years of being their single most vocal supporter, I was tired of Mark not making heads and Roy telling people his work was “Technically Correct” with the implication that people choosing other suppliers were making a mistake. To retain some portion of builders, they decided Mark would come up with a special set of magic head mods for $500, and Roy would run people’s engines on his dyno with promises of further power increases. To sell this to people, they enlisted Ron Lendon to put it on his plane, and then tell people what an improvement it was. The broke the ‘story’ on the “Corvaircraft” discussion group, a venue where I am not allowed to participate.

.

It all sounded pretty good to people who like a good drama/conspiracy theory. Mark and Roy had “discovered” the dirty secret of Corvairs: The way we tell people to build them (Just as Mark and Roy have done for years) is terribly down on power. They claimed to have raised Ron’s power output by something like 24%. Ron followed up with a detailed flight report that showed his plane to now run 116-117 mph, a large improvement. Roy then comes in with some graphs showing Ron’s plane now makes 100 HP.

.

Sounds great, except:

.

Several well known and trusted 601XL pilots with 2700 cc Corvairs chime in to say that their planes are that fast already. Lynn Dingfelder and Phil Maxson, who have both been flying for years, point out that their planes do 115 mph, and Ken Pavlou’s will break 120, in the same configuration as Ron Lendon’s in spite of Ron’s engine being a 2,850 cc. The logical observation is that these unmodified airplanes have the same output as Ron’s now does, which Roy’s dyno said to make 100HP. Most people concluded that the test validated my long standing power output claims, because there is little variation in 601XL airframes, so the same speed  = the same power.

.

—————————————————

.

Points to understand:

.

Roy claimed to have previously tested a 2700 cc engine and the output was only 82-83HP. His contention was that all 2700s built to my suggestions had that power output. Clearly that wasn’t so, based on the other pilots reports compared to Ron’s ‘modified’ 2850.

I have little doubt that Ron’s plane had an improvement. He had been plagued by engine problems in his first years of operation, mostly caused by his adamant use of a obscure carb of a 65HP engine. In spite of working for GM for decades and having significant flying time, Ron  missed that his engine was running lean enough to damage itself bad enough to need a rebuild. His plane was never a particularly good performer by 601 standards. He got another Carb, much closer to correct, but still didn’t recognize it was running lean.

.

There was no ‘before’ run made on Ron’s engine, just an after. Although he mentioned that his plane now has flat top pistons, he didn’t mention that the heads were changes from 95 to 110 high compression ones,  the valve size increased, and again the carb was made richer. because it was never tested, there is no before and after, but judging from performance, his plane does run much better, but evidently not significantly better than other 2700cc 601XL’s. Changing the compression from 8;1 to 9.5:1 and making the carb a lot richer could account for the improvement alone. Perhaps the other ‘modifications’ have negligible or negative effect.

A great claim was made that Roy’s dyno was scientific because it used a data program called “Labview”. A guy who got it from his work traded it to Roy for a discount. Same guy claimed “This is basically the same software & hardware that is used on a $50-$100K dyno.” I tend to disagree because you can go on National Instruments website and see they sell the Labview dyno soft ware brand new for $1,290. I don’t think having  that software makes Roy’s dyno the equal tool as a $100,000 dyno.

.

No mention was made of correcting the dyno runs to standard atmosphere. Without this, there is no comparisons between engines, even ones run a few hours apart, far less weeks or months apart.

.

———————————————————————–

.

135864

.

Above, Roy and I running an engine I built in 2014 on his dyno. Several people chimed in on Corvaircraft to praise Roy for his testing, even though they have no experience with dynos. Does this look like a $100,000 piece of equipment? On the day in the photo we could not get a test more than a few seconds long, and Roy had to manually manipulate the controls, there was no real data from this. I am sure it is better now, but this isn’t the “technically Correct” infallible tool that some people suspect.  If you would like to read a dozen stories of practical testing spanning 10 years, look here: Testing and Data Collection reference page

.

.

Above, a 2008 dyno calibration run in my yard in Florida. Notice Kevin and I are wearing jackets. We’re waiting just before sunset for a rare weather phenomena to occur: a perfect standard day of 59F 50% relative humidity and a pressure of 29.92. Any time you read a dyno report and it says “corrected horsepower,” they’re making a calculation, sometimes accurate and sometimes not, to adjust for their test conditions not being at standard atmosphere. Because we live in Florida near sea level, there have actually been three occasions the past years when these conditions were met during daylight hours on testing days.

Our dyno relied on the super accurate optical Prop Tach for the rpm measurement and it will only reliably pick this up in daylight. A few minutes after the photo above was taken, we made a dyno run which required no correction. By testing the same engine later in the week, we reconfirmed our correction factors for this particular dynomometer and we retained accurate measurements all year round. If you want to read the whole story, it is here: Dyno testing Corvairs, 2008 Any dyno run that doesn’t reference a correction to the ‘ICAO Standard Atmosphere’ has no meaning, and there is a significant difference between  the reliability of a calculated correction and a measured one, as we are doing above. People get excited hearing about ‘software packages’ but in reality the value of the tests relies on basic things like atmospheric corrections. 

.

.

Above, Ron Lendon, running his engine on my stand at Corvair College #17, having a good moment. Yesterday he said this on Corvaircraft: ” I even heard WW say to Dan W. that he would fly the engine I just built at CC17 to the Bahamas. But I don’t here him saying that now, no he is heaping his opinion on people he called friends because they are behaving as he did several years ago. “  A big part of why Ron’s engine ran great on my stand is that my stand has the recommended carb, a MA-3SPA. He promptly went home and bolted the incorrect carb on his plane, because it was cheap, starting a long series of issues. Oddly, the people Ron is championing today, Ron and Mark, supplied him with parts and service that he was previously angry about. As for his evaluation of the behavior of ‘friends’, perhaps he can review the definition of “ingrate.”

.

.

As for Mark or Roy being able to claim ignorance of the output of engines they happily built and sold to people, I submit the photo above: Marks EFI 2,700cc Corvair in 2007, on my dyno, right in front of mark’s shop in WI. He certainly didn’t think this motor, nor a carbureted one was 82hp that day. You can also see that Mark was present in the calibration story above. Roy had also flown as a passenger in Lynn Dingfelder’s 601XL and saw what a good running plane, with a stock 2700cc ww engine could do. Before making his claims this week he understood that his ‘modified’ engine in Ron’s plane was no more powerful than Lynns.

 My testing was absolutely satisfactory for Mark and Roy to sell heads and engines to people for years, but somehow they have suddenly ‘discovered’ that none of these engines worked, coinciding with them becoming unwelcome at events I am hosting. Think it over.

.

————————————-

.

That concludes todays entertainment programing. I am headed back out to the shop to prep for the next Corvair College, I suggest builders intrested in progress do the same.

-ww.

Sherpas. Part #2

Builders:

Maybe you read yesterdays story on Sherpas and thought my central point, that no one should follow the advice of anyone who has never built a flying plane, was a little obvious, and that everyone knows that, it’s just a given.  If you are aware of that, you have probably been around planes for a while. On the other hand, a great number of new arrivals in homebuilding either don’t know this, or think I am overstating this. I am not.

.

Above, the EFI 2,700cc Corvair in 2007, at power on my dyno. This was built as a joint project with Mark at Falcon. Conclusion: It offered little or no benefit while adopting a giant level of additional risk over a simple carb. Read more here: Testing and Data Collection reference page If you want to understand what successful people are doing, read this: Carburetor Reference page

.

Case in point: A potential builder contacted today expresses an interest in EFI, specifically one promoted by a guy named Robert Haynes. New guy undoubtably read Haynes’s website, which clearly states that Haynes has been working on this project for 11 years, and it has never satisfactory run, far less flown. That  is the definition of a guy standing in the village for more than a decade telling people that he is going to climb the mountain real soon, just as soon as he gets his electronic climbing gadget to work. The new arrival is yet to understand why people who want to climb the mountain work with Sherpas.

.

Haynes is at least direct and honest, if misguided. He says he doesn’t believe in 5th bearings, and he is so cheap that he assembled his engine with an old worn stock cam and gear. He changed the rod bolts and goes through an elaborate balancing routine, completely missing that resizing the rods is the critical element of rebuilding them, the one step he didn’t do. His basic engine is flawed, and represents an obsession with rationalizing not doing any of the advancements we have made in Corvair in the last 15 years. He then uses this as the basis of a decade long search for a way to make a cheap homebuilt EFI system. If you are thinking I am kidding about this, the site is: http://www.hainesengineering.com/rhaines/aircraft/corvair.htm. If you think I am judging harshly, read the part where he took apart a very filthy, internally rusty core, and he is actually going to use the same lifters again, because spending $3.60 each for new ones is a waste of money in his book.

.

Now think that our new arrival looked at Haynes’s website, including his wooden motor mount and plywood disc in place of a test prop, the engine roughly running for 20 seconds in a video clip without a cooling shroud, nor even a rudimentary exhaust system, read descriptions of going through a series of batteries trying to make it run, even looked at Haynes welding skills like the photo below, and believes that this guy is on to something that negates my observations on EFI : Fuel Injection – Corvair flight engines reference page

.

thatcher cx4

.

Above, a photo of the motor mount weld Hanes did for his VW powered Thacher CX4 project. If this was good enough to photograph and use, I contend that Mr. Haynes doesn’t know how much he doesn’t know about aircraft construction. If you are not familiar with the definition of the word “Hubris”, take a moment to look it up, it will enrich your understanding of a mindset that does not match well with building planes.

.

Haynes might be a very nice family man, clever with computers, but his value system and workmanship has not generated anything one would include in their Corvair with the expectation of trouble free reliable performance, but evidently the new arrival to village saw this and still thought that some of these ideas were better than what the Sherpas of the flying Corvair world are doing. In 25 years of homebuiling, I have met countless people who held the same perspective, yet I can’t think of any who built a reliable plane.

.

There is a mindset that wants to believe that there are countless ‘un discovered’ improvements to any system developed over 25 years that can be revealed by an amateur who looks at it for a week, particularly if that amateur is going to apply high tech in the form of electronics. The root interest is almost always the promise of saving money, or not having to put in some type of work.  It doesn’t matter that they have thought this most of their life but can’t cite 2 example cases of it being true.  If any new arrival thinks that a guy with rusty old lifters in an engine he thinks he will fly with his kids, has discovered something about Corvair powered flight that I don’t know, he is working with a mindset that is common to many people who have not, and will likely never build and fly a plane. People can send me hate mail over that, but they can’t send evidence refuting it.

.

—————————————————————————-

.

It is important to me that Homebuilding find better ways of binging new people in, not just as a spectator/ EAA member but as real, active builders with an effective plan for success, which I define as finishing a good, reliable plane and really learning skills, traditions and ethics of aviation. That is transformative in a persons life, most other aviation experiences pale in comparison.

.

So, How do we get more people into a position where they have a fair chance at success in homebuilding? First, you have to be honest with them. You have to tell then that the odds are against them going in, so before they look at anything else about it, they should me most interested in one single thing: Understanding the different approaches between the 20% who make it and the 80% who don’t. If they are focused on anything else, but have not even considered this, they are almost certainly in the 80%.

.
In reality the new builders don’t divide into neat groups of reasonable and unreasonable. This division and the percentages actually exist inside each new builder, and I believe that you can appeal to the reasonable side of each builder by articulately explaining why he might want to invest the real effort in transforming is abilities and knowledge, and how merely finding a short cut to a finished plane is not synonymous with this. You will not reach all people, and some will take time, but after decades of hands on teach in writing, I still think it is worth the effort. -ww.