Fairchild Club Forum

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 22:06, 'Bart R.J. Decock' c47fleetmaster@yahoo.co.uk [fairchildclub] wrote:
 
The Vedeneyev M14P turns counterclockwise.

This might impact stability along the longitudinal axis.

Bart

De : lowea1@comcast.net [fairchildclub]
Envoyé le :02 November 2019 19:42
À : fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Objet :RE: [fairchildclub] W-670 conversion for F-24?

 
Mark D. -- Hell yes, it has been done. The F24 has also been STC’d for the 245 Jacobs. These conversions look a bit clunky, as the engines are quite a bit larger in diameter than the Warner, and the cowls don’t match the profile of the fuselage very well. The Continental is 6 inches larger in diameter than the Warner and weighs 150 pounds more. The Jacobs R-755 is 7 inches larger in diameter than the Warner and weighs about 200 pounds more.

I always thought the best engine upgrade for the F-24 would be the engine of the Nanchang CJ-6: the Housai HS-6 of 285 hp, a Chinese version of the Russion Ivchenko I-14 which had versions of 220 to 260 hp. Any version of these would be great. They are very close to the same diameter as the Warner 165 and 185. Think of it as sort of like a 9 cylinder Warner – per cylinder displacements are very similar. Displacement is 618 cubic inches. It is plentiful and reliable, arguably more modern, certainly more recent in manufacture, and relatively inexpensive, as are the parts, as they are, after all, military surplus, which correlates to “manufactured in relatively large numbers as spares”. It only weighs about 100 pounds more than the Warner. Remember, the Ranger is about 40 pounds heavier than the 165 Warner and the CG of the Ranger is quite a bit further forward. They put the battery in the back on Ranger-powered F24’s, and I doubt much more than that would be required to put the CG in the right place with a HS-6.

The furthest and most recent developments of this engine, the Vedeneyev M14P and M14PF make 360 and 400 hp respectively and are found in the newest and hottest akro airplanes from the eastern bloc. These engines have also been built into some amazing homebuilts and airshow airplanes by individuals in the US. These engines are currently manufactured. They have centrifugal supercharges as well as planetary prop speed reduction boxes, so they’re too long to fit nicely on an F24, and they produce more power than anyone in an F24 could practically use anyway. (I have seen one on a Stearman – tiny-looking and Uuuugly!!!, but it makes a great performer.) I mention the Vedeneyev only to show this engine family if far from dead, and there are plenty of parts and folks to work on them. Plenty of propellers are available also. The HS-6 is also common in the US as the CJ-6 has been a popular entry-level warbird over the last ten or fifteen years, ever since the Chinese air force obsoleted them and flushed them from their trainer inventory.

I know for many enthusiasts of the F24, engine swaps are sacrilege. I wrestle with this myself, as I own N28522, a Warner-powered 24; I like it, but it is a fairly wimpy performer. Since it is fairly original I will not re-engine it, but I often dream about the performance of an F24 with an HS-6. I think it would be a real sleeper hot-rod. With Warner parts being relatively hard to find, let alone people to overhaul them, If I was “bringing back” a derelict F24, I’d have a tough time not using an HS-6. It would require some engineering, but you could probably refer the FAA to those conversions to the R or W670 Continental or the R-755 Jake and show how much better suited to the F24 the HS-6 really is from a weight and size standpoint. Remember, if you put more area up front (cowl size) you affect long and lat stability. The HS-6 would affect stability not nearly as much as the Continental or the Jake do. Greater power itself is often a stability detriment, but I don’t think so with the F24, if you can keep the CG and the shape of the fuselage very closely the same. Nonetheless, with the attitude of the FAA today, you might wind up in the Experimental category. You’d have to investigate it completely before you commit to such a conversion, of course, and be certain you agreed with whatever certification you’d be able to obtain. Either way, it would be a great performing ship, and retain the original great look of the F24W. Even hide-bound traditionalists (like me!) can hardly argue with that.. Up to a point, all else the same, excess power is your friend in safety.

Cheers!

Tony

From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 8:51 AM
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] W-670 conversion for F-24?

Hopefully better climb.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 2, 2019, at 8:44 AM, 'Airy-H. Millet' flyingairy@hotmail.com [fairchildclub] wrote:

?

should be too much for a F24...200HP is already enough, having bigger will only provide shorter range...heavier aircraft...

(unless you modify deeply an aircraft to reduce the drag, having bigger engine give only bigger drag)...

My 2 cts,

Airy

_____

De : fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com de la part de nlulwrx6pjcvvramiyoa7xvvskvjg23ascextpsa@yahoo.com [fairchildclub]
Envoyé : vendredi 1 novembre 2019 18:58
À : fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Objet : [fairchildclub] W-670 conversion for F-24?

HI All

Is there any info on this / has it been done?

Thanks - Mark D

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

Posted by:

Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (7) VISIT YOUR GROUP

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

3. 11. 2019 v 10:36, Francis Cox frankjcox44@gmail.com [fairchildclub] :

To follow up on Bart's point - the F24 fin is offset to compensate for a clockwise rotating engine.Frank Cox

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 22:06, 'Bart R.J. Decock' c47fleetmaster@yahoo.co.uk [fairchildclub] wrote:
 The Vedeneyev M14P turns counterclockwise. 

This might impact stability along the longitudinal axis.

Bart

De : lowea1@comcast.net [fairchildclub]
Envoyé le :02 November 2019 19:42
À : fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Objet :RE: [fairchildclub] W-670 conversion for F-24?

  
Mark D. -- Hell yes, it has been done. The F24 has also been STC’d for the 245 Jacobs. These conversions look a bit clunky, as the engines are quite a bit larger in diameter than the Warner, and the cowls don’t match the profile of the fuselage very well. The Continental is 6 inches larger in diameter than the Warner and weighs 150 pounds more. The Jacobs R-755 is 7 inches larger in diameter than the Warner and weighs about 200 pounds more.

I always thought the best engine upgrade for the F-24 would be the engine of the Nanchang CJ-6: the Housai HS-6 of 285 hp, a Chinese version of the Russion Ivchenko I-14 which had versions of 220 to 260 hp. Any version of these would be great. They are very close to the same diameter as the Warner 165 and 185. Think of it as sort of like a 9 cylinder Warner – per cylinder displacements are very similar. Displacement is 618 cubic inches. It is plentiful and reliable, arguably more modern, certainly more recent in manufacture, and relatively inexpensive, as are the parts, as they are, after all, military surplus, which correlates to “manufactured in relatively large numbers as spares”. It only weighs about 100 pounds more than the Warner. Remember, the Ranger is about 40 pounds heavier than the 165 Warner and the CG of the Ranger is quite a bit further forward. They put the battery in the back on Ranger-powered F24’s, and I doubt much more than that would be required to put the CG in the right place with a HS-6.

The furthest and most recent developments of this engine, the Vedeneyev M14P and M14PF make 360 and 400 hp respectively and are found in the newest and hottest akro airplanes from the eastern bloc. These engines have also been built into some amazing homebuilts and airshow airplanes by individuals in the US. These engines are currently manufactured. They have centrifugal supercharges as well as planetary prop speed reduction boxes, so they’re too long to fit nicely on an F24, and they produce more power than anyone in an F24 could practically use anyway. (I have seen one on a Stearman – tiny-looking and Uuuugly!!!, but it makes a great performer.) I mention the Vedeneyev only to show this engine family if far from dead, and there are plenty of parts and folks to work on them. Plenty of propellers are available also. The HS-6 is also common in the US as the CJ-6 has been a popular entry-level warbird over the last ten or fifteen years, ever since the Chinese air force obsoleted them and flushed them from their trainer inventory.

I know for many enthusiasts of the F24, engine swaps are sacrilege. I wrestle with this myself, as I own N28522, a Warner-powered 24; I like it, but it is a fairly wimpy performer. Since it is fairly original I will not re-engine it, but I often dream about the performance of an F24 with an HS-6. I think it would be a real sleeper hot-rod. With Warner parts being relatively hard to find, let alone people to overhaul them, If I was “bringing back” a derelict F24, I’d have a tough time not using an HS-6. It would require some engineering, but you could probably refer the FAA to those conversions to the R or W670 Continental or the R-755 Jake and show how much better suited to the F24 the HS-6 really is from a weight and size standpoint. Remember, if you put more area up front (cowl size) you affect long and lat stability. The HS-6 would affect stability not nearly as much as the Continental or the Jake do. Greater power itself is often a stability detriment, but I don’t think so with the F24, if you can keep the CG and the shape of the fuselage very closely the same. Nonetheless, with the attitude of the FAA today, you might wind up in the Experimental category. You’d have to investigate it completely before you commit to such a conversion, of course, and be certain you agreed with whatever certification you’d be able to obtain. Either way, it would be a great performing ship, and retain the original great look of the F24W. Even hide-bound traditionalists (like me!) can hardly argue with that.. Up to a point, all else the same, excess power is your friend in safety.

Cheers!

Tony

From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com  
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 8:51 AM
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] W-670 conversion for F-24?

Hopefully better climb. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 2, 2019, at 8:44 AM, 'Airy-H. Millet' flyingairy@hotmail.com [fairchildclub] wrote:

? 

should be too much for a F24...200HP is already enough, having bigger will only provide shorter range...heavier aircraft...

(unless you modify deeply an aircraft to reduce the drag, having bigger engine give only bigger drag)...

My 2 cts,

Airy

_____ 

De : fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com  de la part de nlulwrx6pjcvvramiyoa7xvvskvjg23ascextpsa@yahoo.com[fairchildclub]
Envoyé : vendredi 1 novembre 2019 18:58
À : fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com 
Objet : [fairchildclub] W-670 conversion for F-24? 

HI All

Is there any info on this / has it been done?

Thanks - Mark D

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

Posted by:  

Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (7) VISIT YOUR GROUP 

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

3. 11. 2019 v 10:36, Francis Cox frankjcox44@gmail.com [fairchildclub] :








To follow up on Bart's point - the F24 fin is offset to compensate for a clockwise rotating engine.
Frank Cox




On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 22:06, 'Bart R.J. Decock' c47fleetmaster@yahoo.co.uk [fairchildclub]
wrote:



 



The Vedeneyev M14P turns counterclockwise. 

This might impact stability along the longitudinal axis.

Bart

De : lowea1@comcast.net [fairchildclub]
Envoyé le :02 November 2019 19:42
À : fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Objet :RE: [fairchildclub] W-670 conversion for F-24?

  
Mark D. -- Hell yes, it has been done. The F24 has also been STC’d for the 245 Jacobs. These conversions look a bit clunky, as the engines are quite a bit larger in diameter than the Warner, and the cowls don’t match the profile of the fuselage very well. The
Continental is 6 inches larger in diameter than the Warner and weighs 150 pounds more. The Jacobs R-755 is 7 inches larger in diameter than the Warner and weighs about 200 pounds more.

I always thought the best engine upgrade for the F-24 would be the engine of the Nanchang CJ-6: the Housai HS-6 of 285 hp, a Chinese version of the Russion Ivchenko I-14 which had versions of 220 to 260 hp. Any version of these would be great. They are very
close to the same diameter as the Warner 165 and 185. Think of it as sort of like a 9 cylinder Warner – per cylinder displacements are very similar. Displacement is 618 cubic inches. It is plentiful and reliable, arguably more modern, certainly more recent
in manufacture, and relatively inexpensive, as are the parts, as they are, after all, military surplus, which correlates to “manufactured in relatively large numbers as spares”. It only weighs about 100 pounds more than the Warner. Remember, the Ranger is
about 40 pounds heavier than the 165 Warner and the CG of the Ranger is quite a bit further forward. They put the battery in the back on Ranger-powered F24’s, and I doubt much more than that would be required to put the CG in the right place with a HS-6.

The furthest and most recent developments of this engine, the Vedeneyev M14P and M14PF make 360 and 400 hp respectively and are found in the newest and hottest akro airplanes from the eastern bloc. These engines have also been built into some amazing homebuilts
and airshow airplanes by individuals in the US. These engines are currently manufactured. They have centrifugal supercharges as well as planetary prop speed reduction boxes, so they’re too long to fit nicely on an F24, and they produce more power than anyone
in an F24 could practically use anyway. (I have seen one on a Stearman – tiny-looking and Uuuugly!!!, but it makes a great performer.) I mention the Vedeneyev only to show this engine family if far from dead, and there are plenty of parts and folks to work
on them. Plenty of propellers are available also. The HS-6 is also common in the US as the CJ-6 has been a popular entry-level warbird over the last ten or fifteen years, ever since the Chinese air force obsoleted them and flushed them from their trainer inventory.

I know for many enthusiasts of the F24, engine swaps are sacrilege. I wrestle with this myself, as I own N28522, a Warner-powered 24; I like it, but it is a fairly wimpy performer. Since it is fairly original I will not re-engine it, but I often dream about
the performance of an F24 with an HS-6. I think it would be a real sleeper hot-rod. With Warner parts being relatively hard to find, let alone people to overhaul them, If I was “bringing back” a derelict F24, I’d have a tough time not using an HS-6. It would
require some engineering, but you could probably refer the FAA to those conversions to the R or W670 Continental or the R-755 Jake and show how much better suited to the F24 the HS-6 really is from a weight and size standpoint. Remember, if you put more area
up front (cowl size) you affect long and lat stability. The HS-6 would affect stability not nearly as much as the Continental or the Jake do. Greater power itself is often a stability detriment, but I don’t think so with the F24, if you can keep the CG and
the shape of the fuselage very closely the same. Nonetheless, with the attitude of the FAA today, you might wind up in the Experimental category. You’d have to investigate it completely before you commit to such a conversion, of course, and be certain you
agreed with whatever certification you’d be able to obtain. Either way, it would be a great performing ship, and retain the original great look of the F24W. Even hide-bound traditionalists (like me!) can hardly argue with that.. Up to a point, all else the
same, excess power is your friend in safety.

Cheers!

Tony

From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com  
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 8:51 AM
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] W-670 conversion for F-24?

Hopefully better climb.. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 2, 2019, at 8:44 AM, 'Airy-H. Millet' flyingairy@hotmail.com [fairchildclub]
wrote:

? 

should be too much for a F24...200HP is already enough, having bigger will only provide shorter range...heavier aircraft...

(unless you modify deeply an aircraft to reduce the drag, having bigger engine give only bigger drag)...

My 2 cts,

Airy

_____ 

De : fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com 
de la part de nlulwrx6pjcvvramiyoa7xvvskvjg23ascextpsa@yahoo.com[fairchildclub]

Envoyé : vendredi 1 novembre 2019 18:58
À : fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com 
Objet : [fairchildclub] W-670 conversion for F-24? 

HI All

Is there any info on this / has it been done?

Thanks - Mark D

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

Posted by:  

Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (7) VISIT YOUR GROUP 

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

4. 11. 2019 v 14:20, 'Airy-H. Millet' flyingairy@hotmail.com [fairchildclub] :

I am not sure that would be a "good" replacement... (even the smaller engine when retrofited on an old Bücker give a lot af difference in flying abilities, and especially in landings attitude where it comes tricky....).
Knowing this engine on Zlin 526....It turns a lot faster (inducing aerodynamical effects that aren't previously induced on a F24), and by the way if I remember rightly, it turn the way ...so fin adjustement should be modified a lot.
Replacing a 1800/1900rpm at cruise speed engine with a 2750rpmn one is not something that easy!
This engine is then a lot more "nervous" than the Ranger of course, and should be probably around the same weight ...
As soon as it is possible to overhaule Rangers I will always recommend to keep the plane flying as it was designed to since production lines.
if people wants to travel fast, climb fast, travel far with reliability...please buy new cessnas or mooney, or else...but keep parimonial things as they are....future generations should be thanksfull to preserve such patrimonial capital!
Airy
De : fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com  de la part de Ji?í Horák jerry.fly@seznam.cz [fairchildclub]
Envoyé : dimanche 3 novembre 2019 19:28
À : fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com 
Objet : Re: [fairchildclub] W-670 conversion for F-24?  
Gents,
only the replacement - if ever - I would consider is a LOM M 337 engine. It is a similar proved design with 210 BHP. It is very reliable engine and I've flown most marks of Zlin's powered by this engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avia_M_337

But original is an original, so I stick to Ranger
Cheers,
Jiri
UC 61K - RAF KK 502






3. 11. 2019 v 10:36, Francis Cox frankjcox44@gmail.com [fairchildclub] :

To follow up on Bart's point - the F24 fin is offset to compensate for a clockwise rotating engine.Frank Cox

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 22:06, 'Bart R.J. Decock' c47fleetmaster@yahoo.co.uk [fairchildclub] wrote:
 The Vedeneyev M14P turns counterclockwise. 

This might impact stability along the longitudinal axis.

Bart

De : lowea1@comcast.net [fairchildclub]
Envoyé le :02 November 2019 19:42
À : fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Objet :RE: [fairchildclub] W-670 conversion for F-24?

  
Mark D. -- Hell yes, it has been done. The F24 has also been STC’d for the 245 Jacobs. These conversions look a bit clunky, as the engines are quite a bit larger in diameter than the Warner, and the cowls don’t match the profile of the fuselage very well. The Continental is 6 inches larger in diameter than the Warner and weighs 150 pounds more. The Jacobs R-755 is 7 inches larger in diameter than the Warner and weighs about 200 pounds more.

I always thought the best engine upgrade for the F-24 would be the engine of the Nanchang CJ-6: the Housai HS-6 of 285 hp, a Chinese version of the Russion Ivchenko I-14 which had versions of 220 to 260 hp. Any version of these would be great. They are very close to the same diameter as the Warner 165 and 185. Think of it as sort of like a 9 cylinder Warner – per cylinder displacements are very similar. Displacement is 618 cubic inches. It is plentiful and reliable, arguably more modern, certainly more recent in manufacture, and relatively inexpensive, as are the parts, as they are, after all, military surplus, which correlates to “manufactured in relatively large numbers as spares”. It only weighs about 100 pounds more than the Warner. Remember, the Ranger is about 40 pounds heavier than the 165 Warner and the CG of the Ranger is quite a bit further forward. They put the battery in the back on Ranger-powered F24’s, and I doubt much more than that would be required to put the CG in the right place with a HS-6.

The furthest and most recent developments of this engine, the Vedeneyev M14P and M14PF make 360 and 400 hp respectively and are found in the newest and hottest akro airplanes from the eastern bloc. These engines have also been built into some amazing homebuilts and airshow airplanes by individuals in the US. These engines are currently manufactured. They have centrifugal supercharges as well as planetary prop speed reduction boxes, so they’re too long to fit nicely on an F24, and they produce more power than anyone in an F24 could practically use anyway. (I have seen one on a Stearman – tiny-looking and Uuuugly!!!, but it makes a great performer.) I mention the Vedeneyev only to show this engine family if far from dead, and there are plenty of parts and folks to work on them. Plenty of propellers are available also. The HS-6 is also common in the US as the CJ-6 has been a popular entry-level warbird over the last ten or fifteen years, ever since the Chinese air force obsoleted them and flushed them from their trainer inventory.

I know for many enthusiasts of the F24, engine swaps are sacrilege. I wrestle with this myself, as I own N28522, a Warner-powered 24; I like it, but it is a fairly wimpy performer. Since it is fairly original I will not re-engine it, but I often dream about the performance of an F24 with an HS-6. I think it would be a real sleeper hot-rod. With Warner parts being relatively hard to find, let alone people to overhaul them, If I was “bringing back” a derelict F24, I’d have a tough time not using an HS-6. It would require some engineering, but you could probably refer the FAA to those conversions to the R or W670 Continental or the R-755 Jake and show how much better suited to the F24 the HS-6 really is from a weight and size standpoint. Remember, if you put more area up front (cowl size) you affect long and lat stability. The HS-6 would affect stability not nearly as much as the Continental or the Jake do. Greater power itself is often a stability detriment, but I don’t think so with the F24, if you can keep the CG and the shape of the fuselage very closely the same. Nonetheless, with the attitude of the FAA today, you might wind up in the Experimental category. You’d have to investigate it completely before you commit to such a conversion, of course, and be certain you agreed with whatever certification you’d be able to obtain. Either way, it would be a great performing ship, and retain the original great look of the F24W. Even hide-bound traditionalists (like me!) can hardly argue with that.. Up to a point, all else the same, excess power is your friend in safety.

Cheers!

Tony

From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com  
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 8:51 AM
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] W-670 conversion for F-24?

Hopefully better climb.. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 2, 2019, at 8:44 AM, 'Airy-H. Millet' flyingairy@hotmail.com [fairchildclub] wrote:

? 

should be too much for a F24...200HP is already enough, having bigger will only provide shorter range...heavier aircraft...

(unless you modify deeply an aircraft to reduce the drag, having bigger engine give only bigger drag)...

My 2 cts,

Airy

_____ 

De : fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com  de la part de nlulwrx6pjcvvramiyoa7xvvskvjg23ascextpsa@yahoo.com[fairchildclub]
Envoyé : vendredi 1 novembre 2019 18:58
À : fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com 
Objet : [fairchildclub] W-670 conversion for F-24? 

HI All

Is there any info on this / has it been done?

Thanks - Mark D

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

Posted by:  

Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (7) VISIT YOUR GROUP 

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