"A"s and aircraft

[rotorwrench]

In those early days of aviation, the "home builders" would try anything that they could afford. Including the A Ford and of course the venerable Model T. The Curtiss Wright OX-5 V engines and J-5 radial engines were expensive. The Spirit of St Louis cost a small fortune to build at Ryan's little plant in 1926/27 and it had a J-5C. From what I've heard a washing machine would be about as easy and comfortable to fly and the Ryan NYP was. Pietenols probably fly better for there size and weight

 

[Patrick L.]

The aero engines of old certainly were expensive, just as they are today.. That's why old motorcycle racer and engine builder Glenn Curtiss started selling his engines to the aero folks,, he could sell them for more money.. The later engines like the Curtiss OX-5 and OX-6 were 8 cylinder water cooled and pretty large and heavy for a lot of aircraft of the day,but, were quite reliable.. Some of the smaller engines like the Lowrance A-3 twins were smaller and lighter,but, not too reliable, and still expensive..
I'm still not so sure I'd strap my fanny in anything thats supposed to fly that has a Model A engine in it,, I guess I'm too used to getting where I'm going.. I've landed in hay lots a few times in the past and would rather not to have to do it anymore..
A friend tried to test fly a newly built Curtiss replica and had to land in a corn lot.. This was 2 months ago and he is still in the hospital,, some of the bamboo went thru him and really tore him up..He made as good as a landing as anyone could have..

 

[Larry Brumfield]

Brent, wait until your kids are grown and out of the house.

 

[Bill Stipe]

Gar I bought some plans from Don I believe that is Bernards son, I got the itch to build a Pietenpol after grinding a special cam and dyno testing and engine for a customer. the engine came to me because they could not get enough HP to get off the ground. I also thought of building a hot touring engine full pressure like Brent Terry mentioned for and air plane. Cindy my other half was not too thrilled with me on that idea so I sort of cooled it on that for a while.
Bill Stipe

 

[Mike V. Florida]

...the engine came to me because they could not get enough HP to get off the ground.

I would think there were other problems with the plane that it needed the extra horsepower since T engines were also used. Maybe it was the steel frame version not the wood frame now that I think about it. I would think the steel frame would be heavier.

Anyway good luck with it.

 

[Patrick L.]

Some of these old engines barely had enough power to get some planes aloft,, the Continental A40 comes to mind.. They were used in the J2's and would barely pull them along..

 

[Bruce of MN]

"inverted the engine"

Locating the oil pump pickup would be a challenge.

I have seen cutaway views of the inverted Bf-109 V12 engine, but can't figure out how the oil suction works after being familiar with conventional car oil pan engines. They were dry sump. I think, so easier to imagine. But a converted A engine must have a lot of compromises.

 

[Bill Stipe]

The big problem with this engine was that the cam installed was reground with only .280 lift and had a lot of duration. The original stock cam is a very good cam for low end torque and would have been better then this cam. we were shooting for max torque around 1800 to 2000 because of the prop he was using.
I still would like to build a plane but have absolutely no experiance flying! So I would have to take lessons first and see if I can pass the test!

Bill

 

[rotorwrench]

For an inverted engine a fellow can check out the old Ranger in-line 6 cylinder jobs like was used on several WWII era trainers. It would give ideas for necessary mods.

Kerby

 

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

The big problem with this engine was that the cam installed was reground with only .280 lift and had a lot of duration. The original stock cam is a very good cam for low end torque and would have been better then this cam. we were shooting for max torque around 1800 to 2000 because of the prop he was using.
I still would like to build a plane but have absolutely no experiance flying! So I would have to take lessons first and see if I can pass the test!

Bill

Bill, like we have discussed many times, --both in person and on the phone, if either of us lived next to the other one, life would be DANGEROUS towards us and those around us!!

 

[Kevin in NJ]

I have an old Airplane magazine I saved because of this article.
If anyone interested email my comcast account and I can email you a larger image of the 3 pages.

 

[Aerocraft]

The "inverted" engines have a tray or some other oil trap inside the engine which is used to collect the oil flying around inside the crankcase. In all cases I know of (with the exception of some of the old radials and rotary engines that do not attempt to reuse the oil) the engines have a second oil pump which is used to scavenge the oil and return it to an external tank. Commonly called "dry sumps". The converted Ford "Funk" engine did just that.

For Bill and Brent, just do it! Wouldn't it be neat just to have one hanging in your shop waiting for the day that you are flight ready. You very well may have customers who are pilots, maybe even with instructor ratings, and a deal could be made. With Bill's machine shop and Brent's wood shop, you two should strike a deal and make two at once!

As you can imagine, weight is a serious issue when building a airplane with a low horsepower engine. I have seen 250 pound pilots wedge themselves into their Pietenpol that has a hand rubbed finish and all sort of added items. Then they wonder why the airplane struggles to fly. I weigh 210 and cannot take passengers in the airplane since I move the center of gravity back to the rearward recommended limit. My daughter, at 140, could carry just about anyone that was able to squeeze in. Gar Williams

 

[Bill Stipe]

Gar has anyone layed the engine sideways with the ports facing up? I was thinking about the dry sump when it first received my plans. Also the radiator sitting on top right in front of your view could maybe be moved to the side?
What do you think? Brent I will be moving to the Tennessee Plateau just as soon as I can, I am pretty sick of the cold weather and tax!!
Bill

 

[Aerocraft]

Bill: Not to my knowledge.

Having the radiator blocking you forward vision is really not uncomfortable. It is probably four feet in front of the pilot and restricts only a small angle of your forward vision.

One of the original Pietenpol built single place "Scouts" had it's radiator installed below the engine as you can (barely) see in the picture. It was a welcome change for me to fly with the "normal" forward visibility.

Hope you enjoy the TN winters! Gar Williams