system

For the Trivia Buffs; What other aircraft used the Alvis engine?
Only one built; The DHC2 Mark 2 had the Alvis engine.
Lighter than the Pratt 985, with 100 more horsepower; the aircraft had better performance; likely even better than the first Turbo Beavers, and with less fuel consumed.
When the British Army decided to buy Beavers, they were going to use the Alvis engine; ultimately, it was going to cost more, so they went with the Pratt.
The only Mark 2 Beaver was owned by a DeHavilland exec. Not sure where it is now, but it was pristine.

Bent_Esbensen

Thanks for an interesting article. There are quite a few E-113 equipped Aeroncas flying. Here’s one: https://youtu.be/ghBDnVH95-0

system

Just too keep your article going… Engine manufacture (213) is going to fly their second aircraft on May 28th, 2020.:
https://www.magnix.aero/ecaravan/

Joel_Ludwigson

I fly a Mooney 201 with a Lycoming IO-360 engine. When I bought a new engine in 2008 I could not believe the number of ‘different’ IO-360s that they built. And of course the one I needed was more expensive than many of the others. I just looked at the Lycoming website a few minutes ago and they make 108 IO-360 variants. Those are just IO-360s and do not include the HIO or AIO or any other variants. OK, I buy that they may only have different accessory sections, but why?

I also blame airframe manufacturers. Why do they NEED a separate variant? The Piper Arrow has an IO-360. Why the bleep didn’t Mooney choose that engine when designing the E, F or J models? And why didn’t Lycoming tell Mooney that a different variant would be cheaper for them now and their customers in the future? The fewer the variants the less expensive the engine will be. I would think that would be a motivation for both parties.

I can’t believe that there needs to be more than 1 or 2 variants of this very popular 200 HP engine. I feel better now…

2 replies

system

Like Joel, I am amazed at the number of IO-360 engine variants that Lycoming has produced. I can see why, over the history of aviation, there are many obscure engine builders that have faded into the past. Look into automobiles and you will see a similar history. But why on earth, do Lycoming and Continental persist in making a zillion different versions of the same thing? If nothing else, the paperwork burden needed to keep the FAA happy must be horrendous. It does seem that they are willing to let the airframe builders dictate to them how an engine must be modified to fit their designs, rather than the other way around. Add to the Lycoming misery the sad tale of the -D mag engines and it would be comical if it weren’t so frustrating - and costly to owners.

Long ago, auto manufacturers learned to make part commonality a key to cost containment. Remember the Chevy 350 engines that turned up in Oldsmobile cars? That one prompted a lawsuit, in spite of the fact that the Chevy engine was better than the Olds version. Part of aviation’s willingness to perpetuate this mess may have come from the fact that the engine builders were the sole source of replacement parts. Why worry about the wide variety of engines if you can charge what you want for new parts. At least that has changed a little with regard to replacement cylinders. When Continental began producing cylinders for many Lycoming engines, the Lyc versions magically got cheaper. Unfortunately, Lycoming still has the lock on their angle-valve cylinders for the 200 hp IO-360 in my Cardinal. So those precious items are still (almost) worth their weight in gold.

1 reply

system

I agree about the baffling number of engine variants for a common type, like the xO-360s. Many of them are basically just slight revision changes (lighter crankshaft, different harmonic balancers, etc), and I guess the FAA considered those changes “significant” enough to warrant a new model? It can’t be that all of the variants are from airframe demands, can they?
Ugh, and the -D models. I don’t know how those ever got approved. My club went so far as to get a -337 to change out a -D model engine for the non-D model (it weighs slightly more, but is otherwise the exact same engine) in one of our aircraft.

system

“I also blame airframe manufacturers. Why do they NEED a separate variant? The Piper Arrow has an IO-360. Why the bleep didn’t Mooney choose that engine when designing the E, F or J models?”

I can’t speak to all of the differences, but in the case of the IO-360 I know of the reason for at least ONE difference. The Cardinal RG and some Mooneys both use a near-identical engine, the IO-360AxB6. On the Cardinal RG the ‘x’ is a ‘1’, and on the Mooney it’s a ‘3’. That digit refers to the location of the prop-indexing bushing on the crankshaft flange. Not a different crankshaft, just a different location for that pressed-in bushing. Which, in turn, changes how the prop is ‘clocked’ to the crankshaft.

Which apparently is a significant enough difference. Mooney and Cessna must’ve found during development of their retracs that some prop positions undesireable vibrations, and had the crankshaft indexed accordingly. Same engine, yes, but mounted in a different airframe produces a different result.

system

Paul, a very interesting article. As an owner of a first gen Bonanza powered with an Continental E series 225hp E-225-8, I too wanted to know why so many variants of what appears to be the same engine.

What I have learned is each series of engines address slight internal dynamics that result from seemingly minor changes. These changes come from accessory availability, accessory improvements, and HP increases. Accessories include prop, generator/alternator, vacuum pump, magneto, etc. Some changes result from improvements, manufacture tolerance change, manufacturer’s going out of business or bought out by different companies changing parts availability, etc. When something changes, internal dynamics can change leading to new vibration dynamics/harmonics.

E-series Continentals are all 470 CID. The range in HP from 165-225HP. Not all the crankshafts are the same or interchangeable because of crank balance changes due to RPM changes and limitations. My E-225-8 makes 225HP because it’s max RPM is 2650. The 205HP version has a max RPM of 2600. The 185HP version has a max RPM of 2300. However, depending on which electric Beech prop blades are installed, 84" or 88",or Hartzell hydraulic propeller changed the internal vibration dynamics because of the max RPM differences. Within the first generation Bonanzas (1947-1956) there were four different prop combinations offered ranging from two electric wooden versions, one aluminum version with two different blade lengths, and eventually one hydraulic. The one minute take off RPM restriction on all E-series engines resulted from harmonic issues if the engines were to continuously run at max RPM. They are within an acceptable range for one minute. But they can exceed the acceptable harmonic range after one minute. But my E-225-8 will run all day at max cruise 75%/2300RPM(185HP) while the E-185 rated max RPM is 2300(185HP) with max cruising RPM at 2050/75%. Hence slightly different crankshafts. All E-series engines are dry sump engines requiring a separate oil tank. 0-470’s have the oil sump attached to the bottom of the engine ( wet sump). So, while an E-series engine is 470 CID and the 0-470 is 470 CID they are quite a bit different with little parts interchangeability. E-series engines were standard engines for first gen Bonanzas and Navions.

Another consideration is FAA requirements for maintenance documentation plus procedures that have to be adhered to for airworthiness legalities. Did the Beechcraft and the FAA ever anticipate that these airplanes would be actively flying 70+ years later? I don’t believe that was planned for. Even the most minor engine or accessory design change has to be thoroughly tested to prove its airworthiness, plus the results of those tests led to specific maintenance requirements. All of these changes and/or improvements have maintenance documentation that legally must be adhered to. So, everything has to be preserved and accessible for ongoing maintenance. We are now up to 212 preserved different engines plus all the variations.

This might help to illuminate the expensive maintenance documentation a local shop, A&P, or Part 145 Repair Station has to have available to do work on any given airplane, engine, and prop combo. Now add to that, the special tools required in many cases. Finally, preserving and transferring the maintenance knowledge to a newer generation of maintenance personnel is another cost an aircraft owner has to take into consideration as well. I can’t take my Beech electric prop to any prop shop for its 250/500 hour lube requirements. Since the average GA airplane is 50 years old, just about any airplane falls into the vintage category, with specialized service and maintenance requirements that have to be documented with staff having knowledge on that specific type, model, and engine.

As an A&P formerly employed at a Part 145 Repair Station, I had the experience of removing and installing a Continental TSIOL-550-A Voyager engine on a RAM converted Cessna 414A. I got this task because I was the only one who initially recognized it was liquid cooled because to missing air inlets on the cowl. The sales person who bid the job did not know this was a liquid cooled 350HP engine that RAM had installed on about 37 400 series Cessnas back in the late 80’s and early 90’s. To him 550’s are 550’s. When the airplane arrived, RAM estimated this was one of possibly six airplanes left flying with this complex, turbocharged, liquid cooled engine still installed. RAM was strongly encouraging the new owner to not overhaul and install this liquid cooled engine and offered a really attractive alternative for conversion back to air-cooled engines. However circumstances were such that the engine was overhauled and eventually installed. That was one very expensive engine that makes up one of the more obscure versions of the Continental 550 series of engines. I learned the soon to be lost art of “burping” a liquid cooled, big inch Continental aircraft engine. This is no Rotax.

There is no way to make aviation “standardized” including economy of scale. Unless, we all want to fly the same kind of airplane, with the same engine, with the same avionics, for the same mission profile. Assembled, flying airplanes, with their assorted engines, and avionics will always be a “customized”, one-off aerial conveyances after a very short time in service. In reality, no two are exactly alike. And they never stay the same over time.

system

“In reality, no two are the exactly alike. And they never stay the same over time.” True words.

I have always maintained that, when you buy an airplane, any airplane, it comes to you in kit form. And, you never really finish assembling it.

system

Can you imagine the Outboard Marine engine people making 200 different engines. In the small town I live in students are trained in a C150 which is a few years older than the one I trained in 1965.

redfrog

There was an Oct 12 2022 announcement of the “22-03 VIS Charting Notice”, which says “areas outside of the U.S. shall be skeletonized”, which took place on the December 29 charts.

Curious if there is rationale or was a discussion about it though. In a way, it makes sense, as it removes the liability or work burden from the US for non-US charts.

1 reply

cutlermaine

As a resident and pilot based in eastern Maine, practically at the border with Canada, this is big step backwards. I mean, the FAA always has provided detailed chart data for Canadian border airspace before - what’s changed?

3 replies

lstencel

Beancounters 1 Pilot users 0 The End

pilotmww

I agree. There are plenty of examples along the Canadian border where US ATC handles traffic in Canadian airspace (Detroit area, Windsor airport) and NAV Canada handles traffic in US airspace (Bellingham WA).

cutlermaine

I, for one, am going to reach out to the FAA and express my opposition to this change. Did they provide any sort of public comment period or opportunity for pilots such as myself to provide feedback on the stripping out of valuable aeronautical information from sectionals? I don’t know the answer to that but I aim to find out. Suddenly, my paper charts and digital charts (via Foreflight) are critically less useful in the cockpit when I’m flying near or over the border. There is a safety of flight issue here. I hope that other pilots in border areas will join me in raising some hell and reversing this ill advised decision.

rniles

Thanks, Red. I added a link. Useful information.

mach0017

This raises the question - do Canadian charts show data below the US border (presuming that Canada produces the equivalent of US Sectional Charts)? After this move, will the Canadians reciprocate with their chart data?
For every action there is a reaction.

2 replies

Rich_R

Update cycles out of sync across border after change from 6 mos to 28 day and there was concern about data integrity shown in US chart/databases?

Not saying it’s the best way to address, but could see the logic in a concern for relaying out of date info if not coordinated across border.

VTPilot

“Skeletonized” is an understatement, judging from the Montreal sectional. Topography, roads, and cities, towns and (sometime very small) villages are indicated, along with only the bigger airports, which themselves are indicated by circles, name and identifier (no runway length, AWOS or CTAF/tower frequencies). Other airports of landmark or emergency values have vanished. Interestingly, there’s a box that reads: “Limited chart information provided outside of US airspace…” That information would come from Nav Canada, which has been experiencing major personnel shortages (leading, for instance, to Montreal Terminal routinely denying services to VFR traffic this past summer). For those who asked, the Canadian sectional charts, though slightly different in appearance, do feature the detail you see in their US counterparts, including those charts that straddle the border.

goldsternp

Speaking of reciprocation there isn’t any. Canada doesn’t make their sectionals available online at all. You pay or get nothing.

2 replies

Uniform_Golf

Actually, Canadian charts are viewable on FltPlan.com. However, FltPlan appears to prioritize U.S. charts when both Canadian and U.S. charts are selected, meaning that you see the skeletonized view of the area covered by U.S. sectionals. Simply deselect U.S. charts, while ensuring that Canadian charts are selected, to see aeronautical data for Canada.

1 reply

icebrain

There was also an announcement that only private airports with “landmark value” would continue to be charted, and no references to those with “emergency value” would remain.
No clue what the criteria are for one vs the other but it’s nice to know the FAA is looking out for us and decluttering our sectionals to leave landmarks but not emergency landing areas…

Uniform_Golf

Previous to this change, and for as long as I can remember, FAA charts depicted a note telling pilots to refer to current Canadian charts and flight information publication publications for information in Canadian airspace.

It may well be that ensuring the accuracy of foreign aeronautical data was becoming an issue for the FAA and there may have been liability concerns. From practical point of view, charting aeronautical data in foreign states is not the FAA’s business and there is arguably a cost involved with tracking and updating foreign aeronautical data to be charted.

What is very unfortunate, though, is a lack of uniformity between chart products developed by different ICAO states, and ease of getting them. Canadian charts use some different symbology and don’t use magenta color like U.S. charts, but are relatively easy to get. Where would your average recreational pilot get a VFR chart for Mexico, Cuba, the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, some of the other Caribbean countries or Samoa? In Europe, many VFR pilots seem to buy charts produced by private companies, just like IFR pilots tend to use Jeppesen or Lido charts when flying internationally. This helps address the commonality and supply issue, although there is typically a higher cost involved than buying “official” charts.

1 reply

FliteBiz

This makes about as much sense as the media’s unfortunate habit of terminating weather maps, forecasts and such information at the US border. Or perhaps the next step is effectively banning cross-border overflights. Without proper charts, how is the PIC able to obtain ‘all information pertinent to the flight’?

1 reply

Matt_P

The cynic in me thinks this is a ploy by Foreflight (Boeing) to get more Canada subscriptions. But that would mean cooperation with/by the FAA…

Never mind.

2 replies

Josh_P

This also impacts services like SkyVector which I used a lot for planning flights in Southern Ontario/Quebec/New Brunswick. You can still plan airport to airport, but many of the navaids are not there from what I can see.

wally

This article needs to be reprinted with authoritative FAA explanations when they become available.

wally

If I subscribe to Canadian instrument charts in FF do I get Canadian sectionals, or whatever they are called?

1 reply

Jim_Kabrajee

Canadian VNC charts do show U.S. information along the border electronically.

Jim_Kabrajee

The termination of Wx charts across the border is incredibly annoying If you’re flying anywhere in the region on the U.S. or Canadian side, it makes weather planning 50% longer.

bserra

Exactly. In EU almost every country has they sectional charts and the neighbors ones don’t have acess to the borders sectional airports of the foreign countries in they sectional charts. You must buy the charts (digitally or paper ones), although EU is union of countries. Sad things happen.

Jim_Kabrajee

Yes you will get Canadian VNC charts with a Canadian subscription.

Trygve

With the removal of all data, safety has been markedly reduced. For example, immediately west of Sault Ste Marie, Michigan (KANJ) there is Class D airspace in the United States associated with a Canadian airport (CYAM) in Ontario. The new charts do not publish any frequencies so this airspace is effectively off limits to US pilots using FAA charts. It also makes it impossible to monitor traffic coming and going in the area. This is a huge step down in safety and reduces the ability to maintain situational awareness.

The FAA really needs to maintain a band of data in southern Canada and northern Mexico so that flights near the border can be as safe as those in the rest of the country.

Canada’s charts extend to about the 48th parallel, 60 miles into the USA. Ours need to extend into Canada by a similar amount. The FAA is already aware of this principle. The San Francisco Sectional overlaps the Klamath Falls Sectional by a small amount. All other FAA VFR charts are similarly overlapped.

We need chart overlap into Canada and Mexico.

1 reply

cutlermaine

Matthew P., that was my exact thought as well. I just renewed by Foreflight subscription, which has always displayed full aeronautical data for the Canadian border area and suddenly – poof – it’s gone!

I do understand that Foreflight is simply using the chart data supplied by the FAA, but I’ll be damned to pay for a product only to have said product degraded after I hand over my money.

1 reply

John_Memmer

Remember. It’s government vs the people. Not government for and by the people.

Joel_Ludwigson

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
Did someone in the FAA not have enough to do? “Hey, I have an idea, let’s give pilots LESS information!! that’s it!”

2 replies

cutlermaine

Starting with my area FSDO, I am contacting the FAA to find out the reasoning behind this terrible decision and to request that it be reversed.

I hope that all other pilots, especially those who regularly fly near or over the border, will likewise let the FAA know that the removal of so much data from the sectional charts is a serious safety of flight issue and that the aeronautical data in border areas must be restored.

If enough of us make a stink, we may be able to prevail – if we don’t at least try, then what will be the next cut GA pilots will suffer?

1 reply

cutlermaine

Joel L., Well said!

Tfallon

For NY and New England pilots, this change will make flying to AirVenture a bit more difficult, and less safe. Needs fixing!

wally

I added Canada to FF. This isn’t their fault.

1 reply

jbmcnamee

Remember the FAA motto; “We’re not happy until you’re not happy”.

jbmcnamee

It would be interesting to know where AOPA stands on this issue. Aren’t they supposed to represent our interests with the FAA?

Steve_D

I use ForeFlight with subscriptions to both U.S. and Canadian charts. Users are required to toggle between one and the other - they don’t display simultaneously. The Canadian charts (provided by Nav Canada) extend between 50 and 60 nm into the U.S. in Western Canada (from the Prairies/Central Plains to the West Coast). It’s complicated around the Great Lakes, but in Maine the Canadian coverage is as much as 100 nm south of the border.

n32romeo

Also, another little know memo from September 8, 2022 states…
“Private Airports Charted on VFR Aeronautical Charts
Effective November 3, 2023, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aeronautical charts will no longer
make reference to emergency value in private airport charting.
Only private airports with landmark value will be retained and charted beyond February 23,
2023.”

It seems like the FAA is putting out these memos of changes in hopes they stay under the radar until the changes are made…

1 reply

n32romeo

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/safety_alerts/media/VIS_22-02_CN_Charting_of_Private_Airports.pdf

Richard_Freilich

I’m sure that the FAA has found it as hard to work with NAVCanada is I and MANY OTHERS have. My own METARmaps.com and I’m directly affected by this change. ;-(

cutlermaine

Wally R., I didn’t say that it’s Foreflight’s fault - I do understand that they simply reproduce the FAA provided charts in their app.

But my point is when you pay for a product with the understanding and expectation that it will provide the same information (chart data) that it always has, and then a portion of that information is removed after you hand over your money, I call that bait and switch. Where Foreflight sources their chart data from is irrelevant here – they are providing a degraded product as compared to past versions!

cutlermaine

Richard H., I just found out about this second issue from AOPA when I called earlier today to bring to their attention the removal of Canadian border chart data.

I’m hopeful they will take up the cause (along with all us pilots) and bring some pressure on the FAA to undo these wrong headed changes.

1 reply

n32romeo

Yes, I pinged AOPA this morning in chat, the person I was chatting with seemed to not be aware of either of these memos. Hope it got their attention.

goldsternp

Many thanks!! For years I have unsuccessfully tried to find new Canadian sectionals online for my trips to Alaska. I had been using 10 year old paper copies and updating them myself from the Canadian Flight Supplement for which relatively recent copies can be found.

1 reply

goldsternp

How do I get the Terminal Area charts too?

chart_guy

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/acf/media/Presentations/20-02-Foreign-Data-Depiction-Enroute-Visual-Charts.pdf

chart_guy

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/acf/media/Presentations/20-02-Foreign-Data-Depiction-IFR-VFR-Prototypes.pdf

mrpeters23

Russ, you buried the lead.

Private airfields to be eliminated from sectionals, safety concerns rise among pilot community for their emergency use.

1 reply

Raf

Best point. Keep old sectionals?

morrij01

As a Canadian this is somewhat disappointing and head scratching, especially with two of the sectionals being named after Canadian cities (Montreal and Halifax). Are those names going to be changed? We don’t really have an equivalent since our VNC’s and VTC’s, which are not easy to obtain without cost, are rarely updated as years can go by between updates.

Luap71

Oh jeez I just wasted a few hours over the weekend trying to figure out why some restricted airspace near the us/Mexican boarder on the Mexico side was missing, that I know I have seen many times flying through there.

Raf

Where is AOPA in this?

1 reply

CKone

Hopefully anyone concerned is writing or calling the FAA, aviation organizations, etc. to let your voices be heard.

chart_guy

Word on the street is that AOPA supported the elimination of foreign data.