Re: Russian or Chinese Radial on F24W?

lowea1@comcast.net · Post by **lowea1@comcast.net** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:29 pm

'Anybody out there have any info on putting one of the Russian or Chinese radials, Vedeneyev AI-14 or M14P, or Housai HS-6A, on at F24W? I wonder if I should give up on my Warner 165, and what the consequences might be if I went to one of these more modern and plentiful radials. Aybody out there done this yet? Thanks. Tony Lowe

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

jhed9253@aol.com · Post by **jhed9253@aol.com** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:41 pm

'Why?

-----Original Message-----
From: lowea1
To: Fairchild Club
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 6:29 pm
Subject: [fairchildclub] Russian or Chinese Radial on F24W?

Anybody out there have any info on putting one of the Russian or Chinese radials, Vedeneyev AI-14 or M14P, or Housai HS-6A, on at F24W? I wonder if I should give up on my Warner 165, and what the consequences might be if I went to one of these more modern and plentiful radials. Aybody out there done this yet? Thanks. Tony Lowe

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

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

docarnie · Post by **docarnie** » Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:53 pm

'I can think of a couple of very good reasons not to switch to the M14P engine:

1. M14P is 360 hp ("stock") vs. 165 hp Warner

2. counter clock wise rotation: all of the built-in aerodynamics for a Warner engine are compounded.

3. your airplane becomes an experimental a/c.

4. Weight: M14p: 472 vs Warner 165: 292

5. etc.

6. Why?

Arnie
PT-19

--- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> Anybody out there have any info on putting one of the Russian or Chinese radials, Vedeneyev AI-14 or M14P, or Housai HS-6A, on at F24W? I wonder if I should give up on my Warner 165, and what the consequences might be if I went to one of these more modern and plentiful radials. Aybody out there done this yet? Thanks. Tony Lowe
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

'

burnmcc@aol.com · Post by **burnmcc@aol.com** » Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:59 pm

'It does seem that the Russian/Chinese radials are a bit big for the F-24. However, the WHY? questions are answerable. Perhaps the parts supply is still OK for the 165, not so much for the 145. Perhaps the 165 as well in time. I was wondering about the Rotec radial, just how do-able that might be.

In time it will become harder and harder to Keep the Antiques Flying, as they say. Nothing wrong with a little speculation here.

Bill McClure

-----Original Message-----
From: docarnie
To: fairchildclub
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 2:53 pm
Subject: [fairchildclub] Re: Russian or Chinese Radial on F24W?

I can think of a couple of very good reasons not to switch to the M14P engine:

1. M14P is 360 hp ("stock") vs. 165 hp Warner

2. counter clock wise rotation: all of the built-in aerodynamics for a Warner engine are compounded.

3. your airplane becomes an experimental a/c.

4. Weight: M14p: 472 vs Warner 165: 292

5. etc.

6. Why?

Arnie
PT-19

--- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> Anybody out there have any info on putting one of the Russian or Chinese radials, Vedeneyev AI-14 or M14P, or Housai HS-6A, on at F24W? I wonder if I should give up on my Warner 165, and what the consequences might be if I went to one of these more modern and plentiful radials. Aybody out there done this yet? Thanks. Tony Lowe
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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

'

Patricia Banks · Post by **Patricia Banks** » Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:34 pm

'Tony,
I'm all for keeping the classics as original as possible but there are times when parts availability and economics make that very difficult. You are facing a problem that will eventually be the demise of many Warner powered 24s. I own one of the few flying Jacobs 755B2 powered F-24s around. Once upon a time, the Continental and Jacobs engines were pretty common on the F-24. This was before the resurgence of the airplane as a desirable classic, rather than an economical bush plane and work horse. I believe that there are a few owners in the group that are working on reviving the Jacobs installation. Its by far the most practical conversion, especially since it was once an STC, and the data is available to reconstruct the conversion. An M-14 would not be viable in my opinion. As mentioned by others, too heavy, wrong rotation, experimental, high cost, parts availability, etc. Even the Jake conversion has limitations due to gross weight and CG
issues. Its not for everyone, but I really like my Jake powered 24, it has incredible short field and climb performance, its unique, parts are readily available, and its just a blast to fly.
New Jake and Continental engines and parts can be purchased from Air Repair Inc. and Radial Engines Limited. I think the group will first encourage you to stick with the Warner for originality, and they will work to support your needs. If you are dead set on a conversion, consider the wheels that have already been invented with the Jake and Continental conversions. You might even find a project or flying converted 24 for a good price. You would have a ton of money invested in doing a conversion from scratch.
Just another opinion for what its worth ...
If you google N4263S, or look in the Fairchild group photo archive, you can see what a Jake powered 24 looks like. I think the bigger Jake greatly improves the proportions of the plane.

Matt

--- On Tue, 12/25/12, lowea1@comcast.net wrote:

From: lowea1@comcast.net
Subject: [fairchildclub] Russian or Chinese Radial on F24W?
To: "Fairchild Club"
Date: Tuesday, December 25, 2012, 9:29 PM

Anybody out there have any info on putting one of the Russian or Chinese radials, Vedeneyev AI-14 or M14P, or Housai HS-6A, on at F24W? I wonder if I should give up on my Warner 165, and what the consequences might be if I went to one of these more modern and plentiful radials. Aybody out there done this yet? Thanks. Tony Lowe

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

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

'

David Keen · Post by **David Keen** » Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:24 am

'Tony,
I have been working with Serv Aero and have been provided the engine mount drawing for the Jacobs 755. I will Be installing a 755 on my aircraft N28523. Currently working a field approval for the supporting engine change. I can help if you need it.
David

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 26, 2012, at 9:34 PM, Patricia Banks wrote:

> Tony,
> I'm all for keeping the classics as original as possible but there are times when parts availability and economics make that very difficult. You are facing a problem that will eventually be the demise of many Warner powered 24s. I own one of the few flying Jacobs 755B2 powered F-24s around. Once upon a time, the Continental and Jacobs engines were pretty common on the F-24. This was before the resurgence of the airplane as a desirable classic, rather than an economical bush plane and work horse. I believe that there are a few owners in the group that are working on reviving the Jacobs installation. Its by far the most practical conversion, especially since it was once an STC, and the data is available to reconstruct the conversion. An M-14 would not be viable in my opinion. As mentioned by others, too heavy, wrong rotation, experimental, high cost, parts availability, etc. Even the Jake conversion has limitations due to gross weight and CG
> issues. Its not for everyone, but I really like my Jake powered 24, it has incredible short field and climb performance, its unique, parts are readily available, and its just a blast to fly.
> New Jake and Continental engines and parts can be purchased from Air Repair Inc. and Radial Engines Limited. I think the group will first encourage you to stick with the Warner for originality, and they will work to support your needs. If you are dead set on a conversion, consider the wheels that have already been invented with the Jake and Continental conversions. You might even find a project or flying converted 24 for a good price. You would have a ton of money invested in doing a conversion from scratch.
> Just another opinion for what its worth ...
> If you google N4263S, or look in the Fairchild group photo archive, you can see what a Jake powered 24 looks like. I think the bigger Jake greatly improves the proportions of the plane.
>
> Matt
>
>
> --- On Tue, 12/25/12, lowea1@comcast.net wrote:
>
> From: lowea1@comcast.net
> Subject: [fairchildclub] Russian or Chinese Radial on F24W?
> To: "Fairchild Club"
> Date: Tuesday, December 25, 2012, 9:29 PM
>
> Anybody out there have any info on putting one of the Russian or Chinese radials, Vedeneyev AI-14 or M14P, or Housai HS-6A, on at F24W? I wonder if I should give up on my Warner 165, and what the consequences might be if I went to one of these more modern and plentiful radials. Aybody out there done this yet? Thanks. Tony Lowe
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

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

'

mga1501 · Post by **mga1501** » Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:50 am

'The 500 cubic inch Warner 165 is 37.3 inches in diameter, and 30.5 in. long, and weighs 333 lb dry, according to my manual. The Ivchenko AI-14 and its license-built Chinese cousin, the Housai HS6, are 38.7 in. dia. and 36.4in. long, and weigh 441 lb dry. They make 220 hp normally and 260 hp TO max. The follow on to the AI-14, the Vedeneyev M14P is dimensionally the same externally (maybe a bit longer?) to the AI-14, but weighs in at 472 lb dry. Of course there are versions of that going up to 400 hp. I'd stick with the 220/260 hp AI-14 -- it makes enough power to liven up an F-24 but not tear it apart.

For comparison, the Jacobs R-755, the Continental W670, and the Lycoming R680 are all much larger in diameter and heavier -- diameters of 44, 42.5, and 43.5 inches and dry weights of 505, 450, and 515 lb respectively.

The above-mentioned Russo/Chinese/Czech engines are much newer and more plentiful. Their size is not as likely to destroy the aesthetics of aircraft designed for Warners. With the AI-14, cruise should be improved by about 10 percent, and climb by about 100 percent, which would be nice. Their cylinder displacements are very similar to the Warner -- think of them as engines of the same displacement class with 9 cylinders instead of 7.

--- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, David Keen wrote:
>
> Tony,
> I have been working with Serv Aero and have been provided the engine mount drawing for the Jacobs 755. I will Be installing a 755 on my aircraft N28523. Currently working a field approval for the supporting engine change. I can help if you need it.
> David
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 26, 2012, at 9:34 PM, Patricia Banks wrote:
>
> > Tony,
> > I'm all for keeping the classics as original as possible but there are times when parts availability and economics make that very difficult. You are facing a problem that will eventually be the demise of many Warner powered 24s. I own one of the few flying Jacobs 755B2 powered F-24s around. Once upon a time, the Continental and Jacobs engines were pretty common on the F-24. This was before the resurgence of the airplane as a desirable classic, rather than an economical bush plane and work horse. I believe that there are a few owners in the group that are working on reviving the Jacobs installation. Its by far the most practical conversion, especially since it was once an STC, and the data is available to reconstruct the conversion. An M-14 would not be viable in my opinion. As mentioned by others, too heavy, wrong rotation, experimental, high cost, parts availability, etc. Even the Jake conversion has limitations due to gross weight and CG
> > issues. Its not for everyone, but I really like my Jake powered 24, it has incredible short field and climb performance, its unique, parts are readily available, and its just a blast to fly.
> > New Jake and Continental engines and parts can be purchased from Air Repair Inc. and Radial Engines Limited. I think the group will first encourage you to stick with the Warner for originality, and they will work to support your needs. If you are dead set on a conversion, consider the wheels that have already been invented with the Jake and Continental conversions. You might even find a project or flying converted 24 for a good price. You would have a ton of money invested in doing a conversion from scratch.
> > Just another opinion for what its worth ...
> > If you google N4263S, or look in the Fairchild group photo archive, you can see what a Jake powered 24 looks like. I think the bigger Jake greatly improves the proportions of the plane.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 12/25/12, lowea1@... wrote:
> >
> > From: lowea1@...
> > Subject: [fairchildclub] Russian or Chinese Radial on F24W?
> > To: "Fairchild Club"
> > Date: Tuesday, December 25, 2012, 9:29 PM
> >
> > Anybody out there have any info on putting one of the Russian or Chinese radials, Vedeneyev AI-14 or M14P, or Housai HS-6A, on at F24W? I wonder if I should give up on my Warner 165, and what the consequences might be if I went to one of these more modern and plentiful radials. Aybody out there done this yet? Thanks. Tony Lowe
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

'

Jonathan Katz · Post by **Jonathan Katz** » Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:54 am

'At one point I remember the Cessna 190/195 guys talking about this, too, specifically for the same reasons (more parts availability, etc.) The hurdle here is the FAA. If a shop was to open up to specialize in these conversions (build mounts, test them, etc) they could make a small fortune as they could standardize and provide an STC.

On Dec 27, 2012, at 10:50 AM, "mga1501" wrote:

> The 500 cubic inch Warner 165 is 37.3 inches in diameter, and 30.5 in. long, and weighs 333 lb dry, according to my manual. The Ivchenko AI-14 and its license-built Chinese cousin, the Housai HS6, are 38.7 in. dia. and 36.4in. long, and weigh 441 lb dry. They make 220 hp normally and 260 hp TO max. The follow on to the AI-14, the Vedeneyev M14P is dimensionally the same externally (maybe a bit longer?) to the AI-14, but weighs in at 472 lb dry. Of course there are versions of that going up to 400 hp. I'd stick with the 220/260 hp AI-14 -- it makes enough power to liven up an F-24 but not tear it apart.
>
> For comparison, the Jacobs R-755, the Continental W670, and the Lycoming R680 are all much larger in diameter and heavier -- diameters of 44, 42.5, and 43.5 inches and dry weights of 505, 450, and 515 lb respectively.
>
> The above-mentioned Russo/Chinese/Czech engines are much newer and more plentiful. Their size is not as likely to destroy the aesthetics of aircraft designed for Warners. With the AI-14, cruise should be improved by about 10 percent, and climb by about 100 percent, which would be nice. Their cylinder displacements are very similar to the Warner -- think of them as engines of the same displacement class with 9 cylinders instead of 7.
>
>
> --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, David Keen wrote:
>>
>> Tony,
>> I have been working with Serv Aero and have been provided the engine mount drawing for the Jacobs 755. I will Be installing a 755 on my aircraft N28523. Currently working a field approval for the supporting engine change. I can help if you need it.
>> David

'

David Keen · Post by **David Keen** » Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:07 pm

'Trying to certify a non TC engine would be cost prohibitive.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 27, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Jonathan Katz wrote:

> At

'

Michael Denest · Post by **Michael Denest** » Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:10 pm

'Ditto. The engineering and FAA conformity requirements would not make it worth the effort for one or two airplanes. Installing a Ranger would be easy. It's already approved; all you need is a FAA Form 337 Major Alteration using the Type Certificate Data Sheet as approved data.

On Dec 27, 2012, at 13:07, David Keen wrote:

> Trying to certify a non TC engine would be cost prohibitive.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 27, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Jonathan Katz wrote:
>
> > At
>

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

'