Cruisair - Lycoming Engine Mount Drawing

blimpy

blimpy

New member
I recently was sent a pdf of an old drawing used in an approved installation of a 150 hp Lycoming in a
cruisair jr.

This from the owner of the much modified jr hangered at Santa Paula.
Not sure how useful it is, but glad to share it.

Since I was once quoted a price of $20K+ for development of such a drawing
by one of those gold plated "restoration" companies.. I figure it's worth something.

Since you can buy the whole airplane with the conversion done :for not much more than that...
I said "thanks" and promptly forgot it. :mrgreen:

larry r :?:
 
Years ago I sent Larry L drawings, and most of a 23 page STC to put a 180 Lyc in a Cruisair. It actually showed a company that made the motor mount. Larry eventually came to his senses, and is building up a Franklin 165, that you dont have to kiss anybodies backside to install. Unless you have many years, and mega bucks, I dont think a Lyc is a viable option. ___Just my opinion_____Grant.
 
This reminds me of the Character in Colorado that had a Franklin dealership, that wanted me to loan him my Cruisair, and my 220 Franklin, and he would work up an STC. He just would not give me any idea of how much it would cost me. Having not just fallen off of the turnip truck, I said no thanks, and moved on. He later went bankrupt. I suspect that I would have had a $100K Cruisair, or he would have had it on a lien sale, since I could not afford it. _______Grant.
 
When I was looking at installing an O360 in my Cruisair, as Grant said- I soon came to my senses.
I has an almost new O-360A1A that I "stole" for $20K along with an RV6A that I had to cut the wings and tail off to ensure that it wouldn't fly (another story for another time)
I took the 337s that Grant sent me, along with two or three one time STC's and at least 3 field approvals to the local FSDO. They just didn't want to touch it and sent me to the ACO in Seattle. He told me that I needed to go to a DER. Went to a DER who told me that it might cost up to $5K for him to do the work. When I got up off the floor, we talked some more, and he nicely told me that since I was an engineer, he would give me the approval he did for another project that I could use as a template, and he would review my work and charge me less.
At that time, Ozzie was selling his O-360 powered Cruisair for $28k. Didn't take me long to realize that after $20k in the engine, another $5-7 K for a prop, the DER cost, I would just throw my plane in for free and still lose money...or my kids (survivors) would. To paraphrase Doc, this would not be an investment, but an experience and not one I needed. So...I am working with Terry H on building up a 165. Seems my 150 is aware of that too, because it is running incredibly sweet now!
 
hey.. I'm not advocating anything ( beyond free beer and wahines )

one member asked for the drawings, which I had buried on my lap top,
and he will get them in a plain brown wrapper . :lol:

it is so weird... that these conversions were once done routinely in So.Cal
with the engine mount in the drawing I have.

Nothing has changed - not the airframe - not the engine

Several examples have been flying for a quarter century or more... and now somehow this is
a questionable endeavor.

Like you-all said.. ifyou want one, you buy an existing conversion
or embrace your Franklin. Which come to think of it, isn't hard to do.

:?: :roll: :shock:
 
There is nothing questionable about putting a different engine into a Cruisair, there is only the FAA to deal with, and they are only second to our congress at being useless. I have in my parts pile a Cruisair that was engineered to take a TISO540, and the records showed it, but it was dropped from the registry. It also had 40 gallon aux wing tanks which I have, but none of the engineering shows ,since it was dropped from the registry. With those mods, it probably would have had zero useful load, but it would have made a real rocket ship. This was engineered by a man that did many STCs for 747s and other big iron, so it was probably done very well. I hate to go off on a political rant, but the FAA seems to be bought by the highest bidder(airlines), just like so much of our government. This is nothing new, it has been going on for decades. Enough of my thoughts, ____Grant.
 
I promise to go away soon. WHY DO I OWN A BELLANCA? GREAT Joy and Contentment!!! My 14-13 was issued an EXPERIMENTAL airworthiness certificate in1978. Experimental aircraft are exempt from an annual inspection per 14 CFR part 91.401. Major modifications require an entry in the log book, return to phase 1 testing for a few hours, and notifying FISDO (they can inspect if they desire). NO 337. My 14-13 will do 165 mph + in level flight while burning <9gph. I plan to be at Blakesburg with both the 14-19 [standard category] and the 14-13. Would be honored to take any 14-13 owner for a flight. I will go away shortly,my membership expires soon. flyar11 (a.k.a. D B Cooper)
 
NO, I already have a anchor for my boat. 0-360 A 1 D. BUT IT IS NOT THE ENGINE, It was only 6 mph slower with the 150 Franklin. Sherman Oxford has flown in it. I think Lynn Ford took a picture at Blakesburg last year. Very modernized aerodynamic features IAW data from Hoerner and Bruhn. Should not be viewed by worshipers of the ALI-BABA Temple of The triple tail . Should you be a fellow conspiritor and heretic I would find a way to send you a pic. Rather take you for a flight. flyar11 (aka D B Cooper)
 
Hi D B,
Greeting again from a fellow heretic. I found a picture of your 14-13 on the net after you posted some time ago. I am envious. You did it; I only thought about it. Actually, I did some minor alterations, enough to annoy the temple priests and a structural STC to lower the rear floor. But no carbon fiber wings, low drag empennage, ball bearing turbocharger or composite Aeromatic. I have read Hoerner up, down and sideways though, and caught on quickly to the underlying principles, all to make a better Bellanca. I'll have to see what Bruhn has to say. I applaud your efforts. My kind of stuff.
ron
 
RONM, not sure what you saw on internet as I never post anything there (however, my criminal friends sometimes do so). If you will send me your mailing address I will send you some food for thought. My e-mail is timandleliaar11@aol.com. flyar11 (aka D B Cooper)
 
Flyar, I hope you ment to say 6 MPH faster than the Franklin????? RONM, shoot me an Email. I might have something to interest you. <gjordan14132@yahoo.com> Heretics Unite!_____Grant.
 
Grant, I thought that was what I said (the aircraft "was only 6 mph slower with the 150 Franklin") My use of the common language is often imperfect. If you would send me a mail address to the e-mail address above I will eventually send you a couple of things you may find interesting. Or you could file them with your Gary Larsen "Far Side" collection. flyar11 ( aka DB Cooper)
 
AH YES, I read too fast, and think too slow. Eyes and brain are not always coordinated. Flyar, I would love to see your ideas in print. Paper is safer, since the internet is forever. G. Jordan, PO box 269, Cobb, Calif. 95426. I also have lots of ideas on how to improve our planes, but the FAA, and my limited budget make them unrealistic. I hope to hear from you. _____Grant.
 
Grant,Iwant to be very clear on the point that mods/changes to the configuration on an Experimental aircraft are viewed by the FAA in an entirely different fashion with vastly different requirements when campared to changes to an aircraft with Standard Category A W Cert. The reason I am sending you info via mail is twofold. First, I am sending some full size templates that I have neither the equipment nor skills to send e-mail. Secondly, we are talking about an Experimental aircraft here, not appropriate on this forum which is dedicated to the preservation (not modification). I graduated from Embry-Riddle Aero U with a masters degree in the mid 80's and have been working with, around, under, and thru the FAA before and since. Could be wrong but I think I have a good understanding of requirements and where lines are drawn in specific areas. I own a 14-19 (with partner) in Standard category. Impecable maintenance and records as required. The Experimental 14-13 is an entirely different animal. FAA views it more as an "experiment" and less as an aircraft. Yes, it is frustrating to look at the 14-19 and see where an intuitively obvious change would improve the aerodynamics while knowing that changing a Standard aircraft is impractical (impossible with my budget). On the 14-13 I can see a need on Friday and have it done by Monday morning. Legally. flyar11 ( aka DB Cooper)
 
Flyar, I am aware and envious of the experimental category, and if it were not impossible in this day and age, I would gladly switch over to that category. Most of the ideas that I have about Cruisairs have already been done and approved over the years, but the Feds now almost always say to get a DER. I really dont have many innovative ideas, but I have researched almost 4 dozen Cruisair records from Oklahoma City and found many (in my opinion) interesting improvements or changes that would not have a chance of being approved now without lots of bucks to a DER, since nobody at the FAA seems to want to make a decision unless there is somebody else to blame if it goes wrong. One of the other things that bothers me, is that almost all of the holders of multiple STCs for Cruisairs are long since dead, and there seems to be no way to revive those STCs. Several years back a friend and I were going to do a top on a 150 Franklin. All of our valves were out of spec, so we purchased some unapproved valves that I believe were originally made for the Franklin dealership that went belly up. Our IA applied to the Feds under the replacement parts for antique engines(I forget the actual title). After a year of getting no decision, we sent 2 of the valves, along with 2 original Eaton valves, to a testing company in Southern Calif that the Feds use for testing. They came back as better than the originals and the Feds still would not make a decision. Our IA gave up after 2 years and many phone calls, and the engine sits in the back of the hanger. Sorry about the rant, but I find it difficult to deal with this sort of thing. _____Grant.
 
I think that engine is in the flying flag.
At least that's what tom said when he was trying to sell it to me.
 
Grant, I think you are refering to placing a aircraft in Experimental Amateur Built being not possible and not Experimental Exihibition, Show Compliance, or R and D which is commonly done. Yes, about 10 years ago the FAA adopted the policy that if an aircraft was ever produced by a commercial company and given a standard airworthiness certificate it can not be issued a EAB airworthiness cert. I believe that was a long overdue change that was necessary. Many aircraft were given EAB certs that clearly did not meet the purpose and intent of 21.191g which created the EAB class for aircfaft "the major portion of which were constructed SOlELY for education and recreation." One company was taking light twins and re-engineing them with Chevy V-8 conversions then recerting as EAB and selling them. Others were merely changing the engine and recerting as a XXXX clone. Now you have to go exihibition, show compliance or R and D. Not so bad as the major difference from my point of view is a couple of extra operating limitations that the EAB does not have such as notify (not get permission) FSDO of flights more than 250 miles from home base. And can not carry passengers while performing airshow routine (not a factor for me since I only exhibit and never perform). I am aware of two formerly commercially produced aircraft in this area that are being moded and will recieve an experimental exhibition AW Cert. This is FAA Southwest Region, may be different in other regions, or may be different when the inspection happens. FAA has been withdrawing authority from the field and centralizing the decision making for a while now. I look at it this way, the guy I talk to in the field has his hands tied, authority withdrawn, and his job at risk. He can only implement policy. The answer to any request that he make a decision is "NO". Poor consequences would probably result from asking him to do anything but implement policy which puts me in the position of having to know what the policy is. Enough about the FAA. YES, I fully believe the future of the 14-13 (if it indeed has a future) lies in captilizing on its performance potential. I will play whatever game necessary to do that. I learned in high school that to merely touch an opponent in basketball is a foul but in football you can tackel him and toss him to the ground. I am playing EXPERIMENTAL with the FAA because the rules allow me to go 30mph faster while using less fuel. flyar11 (aka D B Cooper)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top