Rotec radial

[jasonlax]

Hello everyone,

I currently have a Pitts S1C for sale, in hopes to upgrade to a C170. I'm interested in buying a project (possibly) and investing in a Rotec 3600. Does anyone know if this engine has been tried on the C170? Any comments or known projects for sale would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Jason

[lowNslow]

The Rotec is not a certified engine so I doubt the FAA is going to sign off on installing one on a certified aircraft. You would be investing a lot time and money for 5 extra horsepower and an engine with questionable reliability and support down the road. You could end up with a cool looking mini 195 though.

[blueldr]

If you were even to install any uncertified engine in a C-170, It could only be "licensed" for "development" use and you would be limited to flight within a relatively short radius of a specified airport. There would be no way to extricate the airplane from this limitation as long as the engine was uncertified, and I doubt that you would ever take on the responsibility, not to mention the cost, to try to certify an aircraft engine with the FAA.
Essestially, there is no way to change a certified airplane into an "experimental" catagory and use it in the practically unrestricted manner of a homebuilt.

[hilltop170]

That's too bad because the Rotec installation would be a really cool project and it would make a great looking 170.

[170C]

We had one of our EAA members here at Pecan Plantation install one of the radials on his Kitfox. It sure was a good looking setup and sounded cool. Unfortunately he had an engine failure and met up with a pecan tree on the golf course which resulted in his replacing the radial with something else and then selling the project.

[jasonlax]

BL,

I was under the impression I could go experimental category with it (easily). I just finished reading about some of the complications with that. Does anyone have any experience with going to experimental category for R&D purposes, restrictions, etc.? Also, say I was able to conduct the testing, how difficult would it be to obtain the STC?

Next; could I "scrap" the airframe, cancel the registration, then go experimental after reassembly?

Thanks for the discussion.

Jason

[jasonlax]

Do you happen to know if that engine failure was component related, fuel starvation, or what? I haven't really heard much first hand info on the Rotec engines. I hope your buddy wasn't hurt!

Jason

[170C]

Fellow EAA member managed to avoid injury. Minor cuts on right hand where it contacted the knobs on the transponder and a few bruises where the shoulder harness went across both shoulders (another case for having shoulder harnesses). Without the shoulder harness it is likely he would have incurred injuries. The pecan tree stood its ground! While this isn't official by any means, it appears that there was a boost pump used in the installation and it is "thought" that when the engine first displayed symptoms of losing power the boost pump may have been switched on (thinking it might have been fuel starvation) and that "may" have flooded the engine. Of course as most of these things happen, there wasn't much time to look for what may have been causing the problem. I think the aircraft was on downwind when the engine failed.

[GAHorn]

BL,

I was under the impression I could go experimental category with it (easily). I just finished reading about some of the complications with that. Does anyone have any experience with going to experimental category for R&D purposes, restrictions, etc.? .....

Jason

You best answers will come straight from FAA. (But in a nutshell.... No, it doesn't work so simply.)

But consider this, if the people who mfr the engine thought this would be profitable.....
they'd have already been working on it. THEY are the ones who would stand to benefit.
The chances that you could do it profitably our economically are nil.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

BL,

I was under the impression I could go experimental category with it (easily). I just finished reading about some of the complications with that. Does anyone have any experience with going to experimental category for R&D purposes, restrictions, etc.? Also, say I was able to conduct the testing, how difficult would it be to obtain the STC?

Next; could I "scrap" the airframe, cancel the registration, then go experimental after reassembly?

Thanks for the discussion.

Jason

Jason there are several categories of experimental. You will never be able to register the 170 in Experimental Home Built which is the least restrictive and the one most are familier with. In order to qualify for that category you must prove you built 51% of the airplane so destroying a perfectly good airframe to use 49% of the parts would be your only option. As you would be destroying a good airframe or using valuable parts for an airframe that won't have the value of the certified airframe, this is not done often with metal type aircraft.

Moving a plane into R&D is just a matter of paperwork. You will be given a restrictive flight area and flight will only be allowed for testing. The airframe can not stay in this category for ever.

After you test the heck out of your airframe engine combo the Feds may allow you to register it in Experimental Exibition. In this category you are given an flight area and you must tell the Feds every place you intend to fly your airplane to "Exibit". I have a friend with an aircraft in this category. What he does is sends a list of every possible place and time he could ever want to exhibit his airplane. He then flys pretty much where he wants in the 300 mile radius he is allowed and claims to be flying to or from one of the destinations he listed. There aren't enough Feds to track him but if something should happen they will probably nail him. He has adopted the I don't care they have to catch me attitude. There are other examples like my friend that I know of or have heard of. The fact is most folks flying my aircraft like my friend are not really following the rules.

Good luck getting getting an STC for a certified engine let alone an experimental engine.

[jasonlax]

Rules, regulations, FEDS... who needs em.

Thanks for your responses. I'm still certain I want a 170, guess I'll just have to forget about the radial.

Jason

[Poncho73]

Rules, regulations, FEDS... who needs em.

Thanks for your responses. I'm still certain I want a 170, guess I'll just have to forget about the radial.

Jason

Spend a couple bucks more and get a 195, it has a beauty 7 cylinder radial.

[bagarre]

Ahh, the Cessna 195.

The beauty of a 170, the Capacity of a 180 and the Fuel Burn of a 337.

But, I'd love to be able to afford one.

[Poncho73]

Ahh, the Cessna 195.

The beauty of a 170, the Capacity of a 180 and the Fuel Burn of a 337.

But, I'd love to be able to afford one.

Yep, that was my dads taken 20 years ago, if I recall the fuel wasn't to bad - matched the 185's. Pretty efficient if your splitting the fuel and oil bill 4 ways.

[blueldr]

To really appreciate the Cessna 195, you should be able to have one to admire and also have a C-170 to fly.
Most of our members have no experience operating radial engines. They really have no appreciation for the cost of fifty weight engine lubricating oil sold in five gallon buckets.