Re: F-24 WITH 220 CONT?

[mjgross@comwares.net]

'HAS ANY DONE THIS,IF SO I NEED SOME HELP MIKE'

[Jamie S. Treat]

'Mike,

Yes it has been done a few times. Dan Wine, Denver, Co. 303-465-2825.
Dan has sold his, now in Kansas. Also Marvin Wahl of Denver, 303-935-
9934. Marvin I believe provided 337 action to John Berendt for the
file and also the write up in the Fairchild Flyer a few issues back.

For the engine mount, contact Serv-Aero Engr. Inc. P.O. Box 96 Dos
Palos, CA 93620

Mike Redpath is looking at installing a 220 Cont on his Ranger
powered 24. The big thing is the loss in usefull load. You end up
with a legal single place airplane. Mike is considering going for the
increase gross weight to the Military Load of 2850lbs.

I don't thing the 220 is the way to go. The plus is availabilty of
parts for the 220 and of course the round engine look. The neg is the
loss of useful load and higher fuel burn. The larger frontal area
will bleed off some airspeed.

I like the idea of installing the LOM 252HP, supercharged, injected
inverted six. At this time the LOM is half way thru the TC process.
This will make it easier for one time field approve or STC process
once the engine is TC approved. The experimental ticket is not the
right way to go.

Hopefully in the near distant future the TC holder for the Warner
engine will be back in production, that is being worked as I write
this.

Jamie S. Treat
AR&R'

[crazypilot24@yahoo.com]

'

--- In fairchildclub@y..., "Jamie S. Treat" wrote:

Hi Jamie,

I'm a guy with little Fairchild background. My wife, Bonny, and I
have N81318; F24-W-46. Fortunately we don't have an engine crisis
(yet). Still your remark about the possibility of a Warner series
being back in production is exciting.

I don't know the reason the useful load is diminished with the
Cont. 220. Is it just that it's a whole lot heavier insallation
than the W-165? Seems like it would be offset (at least some?) by
the increased power output. OK; wing loading, structural limits,
V speeds, gear strength for landing, etc... Are these the kind of
issues you get into, or is it still just simply not getting
around certified GW?

Aside from filling out forms, what is involved in certifying an
aircraft simular to a mil type (F24-46-W165/UC-61K) to the
military GW?

The LOM engine sounds like the high class $ range, but intriguing
none the less. Get off the ground fast, huh? S'pose it would fit
inside a round cowl? :')

Thanks,
Steve Borders
Iowa City

*****************************************************************
>
> Mike Redpath is looking at installing a 220 Cont on his Ranger
> powered 24. The big thing is the loss in usefull load. You end up
> with a legal single place airplane. Mike is considering going for
> the increase gross weight to the Military Load of 2850lbs.
>
> I don't think the 220 is the way to go. The plus is availabilty of
> parts for the 220 and of course the round engine look. The neg is
> the loss of useful load and higher fuel burn. The larger frontal
> area will bleed off some airspeed.
>
> I like the idea of installing the LOM 252HP, supercharged, injected
> inverted six. At this time the LOM is half way thru the TC process.
> This will make it easier for one time field approve or STC process
> once the engine is TC approved. The experimental ticket is not the
> right way to go.
>
> Hopefully in the near distant future the TC holder for the Warner
> engine will be back in production, that is being worked as I write
> this.
>
> Jamie S. Treat
> AR&R

'

[jstreat360@aol.com]

'Steve,

The 220 is about 200lbs plus the weight of the Constant Speed Prop. The Warner 165 and 185 are just about the same weight. Then add the extra weight for the Cowl. That is why some guys leave it off. The Shakey Jake install makes it a two place airplane where the 220 makes it a single seat. The best combo is the 1939 short nose with long range tanks with the 200hp Ranger. Fast and climbs like hell.

The FAA does not like to increase gross weight due to the structural loads and also being an old airplane that is out of prod. Mike Redpath is going to attempt a increase Gross weight by restricting the aircraft in flight loads, close to Normal vs Utlity.

As for paperwork, lots of forms, eng data.

As for the LOM, Carter is close to TC approval for the engine. 16 mths away. The engine cost is very good. $14000 for a brand new engine with a TBO of 2000hrs. Choice of props, constant speed or fixed. As for retrofit to a F-24. Either model 24W or 24R. Mod the existing Ranger mount, or manuf new mounts. What I am looking at is using the LOM mounts, with a new manufactured Ranger/LOM mount. John Brenedt has the Ranger mount Jig, I will be getting that and add mod for the LOM mount attach fittings. As for cowling, the Ranger cowl will be the choice. That leads to another problem, the Ranger cowlings are drying up due to Warner powered models being converted to Rangers. I can't find the org dies for the Long Nose models. We had a lead but it was a dead end.

I got to fly the Warner 165 a few weeks ago. Did not like the rough running around 1200rpm, no snarl, no torque like the Ranger. Very smooth and quiet in the air. Have not had the chance to fly the 185 Warner. John Duncan knows about the rough spot, I suspect an induction swirling effect.

John Duncan owns the TC for the Warner Engines, John lives in the Colorado Springs area. Has engineer working on the drawings for updates in prep for prod Cert effort with the FAA. Lots of work to do. We are looking for a land for the Factory site at this time.
John has about 1/2 of the Tooling for the engines. He also has enough new parts to build up 4 new 185 models.
If you get tight for some parts let me know. I talk with John on a weekly basis. Hard to get a hold of him, flys for UPS.

Any more questions, drop a line.

Jamie'

[dcasali]

'The weight of a Warner 145 is a bit over 300 lbs. The 165 should be
similar.

I went hunting a Continental 220 in the FAA TC database. I presume it is
a model R 670 dash something, which is a 225 hp radial. The type
certificate gives the dry wt of that engine (this is minus prop, of
course) as 425 lbs. That's where the useful load goes.

There was an article on a 220 conversion in the Fairchild Flyer; I'll
try to dig it up and post it.

Dan

jstreat360@aol.com wrote:

> Steve,
>
> The 220 is about 200lbs plus the weight of the Constant Speed Prop.
> The Warner 165 and 185 are just about the same weight. Then add the
> extra weight for the Cowl. That is why some guys leave it off.

-- Dan Casali, Publisher
Lost River Press
Box 1286 Ketchum, ID 83340
208.726.5120


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