Re: Other powerplants for the F24

[Richard E Russell]

'I have read and watched with interest the recent postings regarding
other powerplants for the F24.

WE have a W670 (Continenatal 220) on N81229 that was istalled in the
early 1970's. We also discarded the Hayes brakes and wheels about 3
years ago for the more effective Cleveland brakes and have had NO
issue with nose overs as some suggest, nor have we noticed any issues
with the weight of the engine. Brakes are normally only required for
taxiing provided the PIC has used the proper approach and landing
speeds. The alleged nose over of the aircraft could ONLY occur should
one not use the proper application of brake on any tailwheel
aitrplane and our 195 is probably the most susceptible of any I have
flown. Our F24 has had none of these issues-!

For the nay sayers, I highly recommend that you check with Don
Sanders of Sanders Airmotive who rebuilds Lycoming, P&W, and
Continental engines. He also owns a fresh rebuilt F24 with a W670. He
is currently doing a W670 for me to install on our Meyers OTW that
was previously powered by a Kinner 160 that weighs only aprox 40#
less than the W670.

We have gone to engines other than the Warner and Ranger due to
limited parts avaiability and mechanics or shops that know how to
work on them. I want to feel that I can safely fly most anywhere with
the airplanes and have trust in the fact if I do break I can locate
parts or a mechanic to fly again.

The Kinner I sold last year had the LAST known new master rod,
crankshaft and connecting rods in existence-! I can only surmise that
the F24 owner of 81229 in 1970 made a change from the Ranger or
Warner to the Continental due to the same issues.

Weight and balance has been a NON issue although I have had 2
passengers on occasion in our F24, but then, a Cessna 172 is truly
not a 4-place airplane at Denver or St Geroge Utah in the summer
either. The PIC should exercise the same judgment for aircraft
loading, weight and balance regardless of the empty weight or power
plant installed on the aircraft.

I hope this enlightens and reduces the concerns of those that have
concerns about other engines for the F24 from one who owns and flys
one with the W670 Continental. The Cleveland brakes were a welcome
change from the Hayes so that we can at least taxi the airplane
better than with the Hayes.

Dick Russell, ATP (CE650, CE560XL), CFII/MEI, AMEL, ASEL, ASES,
Commercial Helo-CFI and Glider & co-owner of F24 N81229

www.Russellaire.com'

[jamessp]

'SO WHAT IS THE INSTALLED WEIGHT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 165 WARNER, THE
RANGER, AND THE 670 CONT? HOW MUCH PENALTY IS THERE FOR THE HEAVIER
CONTINENTAL? AND I ASSUME THE WEIGHT BEING COMPACTED CLOSER TO THE CG
WITH THE RADIALS AS COMPARED TO THE RANGER WOULD COME INTO PLAY?

JAMES



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]'

[Curt Kinchen]

'Per the TCDS for the Ranger vs W-670, it's just under 100lbs. The PT-
23 gross weight is 100lbs higher than the PT-19, I'm assuming to
account for engine weight. The Warner is about 25-30 lbs lighter than
the Ranger.

--- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "jamessp" wrote:
>
>
>
> SO WHAT IS THE INSTALLED WEIGHT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 165 WARNER, THE
> RANGER, AND THE 670 CONT? HOW MUCH PENALTY IS THERE FOR THE HEAVIER
> CONTINENTAL? AND I ASSUME THE WEIGHT BEING COMPACTED CLOSER TO THE CG
> WITH THE RADIALS AS COMPARED TO THE RANGER WOULD COME INTO PLAY?
>
> JAMES
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

'