O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

C&P Kucera · Post by **C&P Kucera** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:39 pm

Thanks for your replies Wayne and Ken!!!
Another way to reduce stresses on the firewall would be the seemingly
impossible task of getting the engine weight down. I read an article
somewhere a while ago about a company in California that can lighten up
Lycoming engines making mods and using lighter materials. It sounded very
expensive. I wonder what mods can be done inexpensively without compromising
safety and reliability. Any pounds shed particularly farther away from the
firewall like at the front of the engine will reduce the torque loading at
the firewall. Using a composite prop is an obvious solution. I heard about
lighter alternators, even saw a wind driven type. Not sure what one can do
about those heavy magnetos and the starter. I heard about a starter that can
also charge battery once the engine starts.
Replacing the vac pump with a venturi should help. Something should be
possible with the muffler without adding too much noise.
I know that beefing up the firewall is easier and probably cheaper than the
above ideas and I will most likely go that route myself but keeping the
weight down is also a part of the homebuilding fun.
Each mod may not seem like much weight saving but adding them all up may
amount to something significant. Any tips on this would be much appreciated.

Paul Kucera

Rebel builder 453R

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne G. O'Shea <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: REBEL O-320 ENGINE MOUNT, HELP!!!

Paul, you are describing the mount for a "conical" engine! Well trussed at
the bottom etc and two tubes going forward at the top to pick up the

engine.

Very typical mount design, even on certified conically mounted engines.
Anywhere you put a cross tube, it will be in the way of the mags, oil

cooler

line fittings or something as there is barely enough room to pull a mag on

a

Rebel(but with a little imagination and work it could probably be done)

The

Murphy dynafocal engine Mount on the other hand, has a very rigid top
section with a diagonal brace etc. and the lower two tubes are just loose
tubes from the dynafocal mount ring to the firewall bolt flanges(similar

to

the top tubes on the conical mount) My web pic's show a Dynafocal Mount.
There have been firewall problems with both engine mounts in use! A prop
strike on a Rebel at idle power (without the reinforcements) will buckle

all

4 mount locations approximately 1/2", making the new propellor and the

bulk

overhaul on the engine, the easy part of the repairs.

Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: C&P Kucera <cpkucera@idirect.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:07 AM
Subject: REBEL O-320 ENGINE MOUNT, HELP!!!

I had a look at Wyne O'Shea's firewall fix and a memory came to mind.

Last

summer I visited a Rebel builder who had the engine mount bolted on the
wall
ready to hang his gorgeous Canadian Aero O-320. He said the mount was
purchased from Murphy and designed for the O-320. What I did not like

about

it were the two uppermost tubes extending from the upper firewall bolts
with
the other end hanging in the breeze. I could easily flex each of the

tubes

with one hand and see the wall flex and this is supposed to support a 160
hp
engine!!! Wow!!!! All the other tubes were triangulated or crossbraced to
others and they did not flex.
The argument was that the upper tubes would stop flexing once tied to the
engine. I did not buy that because the junction at the engine is not

rigid,

it is through flexing rubber mounts. These tubes can never be rigid like
the
rest. I would always expect to see them spread out a bit and cause the
firewall to locally bulge out.
Wayne's photos don't show the engine end of the mount so I don't know

where

the wall flex was comming from on his installation but with the mount I
described above there should be a way to address the problem at the

source

and tie the flexing tubes to other ones. Perhaps a firewall fix would not
even be required then although direct pulling loads out of the wall at

this

location must be very high just from the moment generated by this heavy
engine.
I understand that once in flight the tubes will not flex nearly as much

as

when bouncing on the ground (or water) but still that would not be a good
excuse for leaving the tubes flex.
Can anyone shed some light on this? Has anyone done any beefing up of

this

flexing mount and how did it effect the firewall?

Paul Kucera
Rebel builder, 453R

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wayne G. O'Shea · Post by **Wayne G. O'Shea** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:39 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your following message has been delivered to the 134 members of
the list murphy-rebel@dcsol.com at 18:57:48 on 4 Dec 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul, we are already making the lyco installations as light as possible
(externally anyway). We are using Skytec starters at 8+ lbs. less than the
old style originals.(and I don't think anyone wants to start by hand prop
anymore) Lightweight alternators, either the Nipco supplied buy Murphy(with
the engine mt. kit) or the really small 40amp(6 lbs. less than standard))
ones Ron Newburg sells (Ron, since closing the engine shop, only advertises
as Niagara Air Parts in Trade a Plane with a Niagara Falls Shipping address)
His shop is still located on HWY 11 north of Orillia though and he flys
stock back and forth in his twin commanche!(I have one of his alternators in
stock c/w a case mount bracket-$300.00cdn)The new alum case vacuum pumps
only weight about a pound, so not very significant but removal of the gears
that drive it would cut some more weight although the problem with using a
venturi is that it will probably kill 5MPH of your cruise.(they create a lot
of drag to pull that 5" of vacuum. The other big thing as you said is the
prop. A Warp Drive weighs in at about 11.6 lbs.(bolts and all) as compared
to a new Sensenich 74-DM-7S8-56 that weighs in at 40lbs(c/w 2" spacer and
bolts) If weight is a big issue that almost 30 lbs.. is a big deal! But
there is just something about that solid aluminum prop out there that makes
the plane seem to fly better!(compared to my warp drive'd one) Maybe it's
just my inner self telling me I paid $3 big bills for it and it has to be
better than the $1500.00 Warp Drive. Who knows??

Wayne

-----Original Message-----
From: C&P Kucera <cpkucera@idirect.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Date: Saturday, December 04, 1999 1:17 PM
Subject: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Thanks for your replies Wayne and Ken!!!
Another way to reduce stresses on the firewall would be the seemingly
impossible task of getting the engine weight down. I read an article
somewhere a while ago about a company in California that can lighten up
Lycoming engines making mods and using lighter materials. It sounded very
expensive. I wonder what mods can be done inexpensively without

compromising

safety and reliability. Any pounds shed particularly farther away from the
firewall like at the front of the engine will reduce the torque loading at
the firewall. Using a composite prop is an obvious solution. I heard about
lighter alternators, even saw a wind driven type. Not sure what one can do
about those heavy magnetos and the starter. I heard about a starter that

can

also charge battery once the engine starts.
Replacing the vac pump with a venturi should help. Something should be
possible with the muffler without adding too much noise.
I know that beefing up the firewall is easier and probably cheaper than the
above ideas and I will most likely go that route myself but keeping the
weight down is also a part of the homebuilding fun.
Each mod may not seem like much weight saving but adding them all up may
amount to something significant. Any tips on this would be much

appreciated.

Paul Kucera

Rebel builder 453R

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne G. O'Shea <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: REBEL O-320 ENGINE MOUNT, HELP!!!

Paul, you are describing the mount for a "conical" engine! Well trussed

at

the bottom etc and two tubes going forward at the top to pick up the
engine.
Very typical mount design, even on certified conically mounted engines.
Anywhere you put a cross tube, it will be in the way of the mags, oil
cooler
line fittings or something as there is barely enough room to pull a mag

on

a
Rebel(but with a little imagination and work it could probably be done)
The
Murphy dynafocal engine Mount on the other hand, has a very rigid top
section with a diagonal brace etc. and the lower two tubes are just loose
tubes from the dynafocal mount ring to the firewall bolt flanges(similar
to
the top tubes on the conical mount) My web pic's show a Dynafocal Mount.
There have been firewall problems with both engine mounts in use! A prop
strike on a Rebel at idle power (without the reinforcements) will buckle
all
4 mount locations approximately 1/2", making the new propellor and the
bulk
overhaul on the engine, the easy part of the repairs.

Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: C&P Kucera <cpkucera@idirect.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:07 AM
Subject: REBEL O-320 ENGINE MOUNT, HELP!!!

I had a look at Wyne O'Shea's firewall fix and a memory came to mind.
Last
summer I visited a Rebel builder who had the engine mount bolted on the
wall
ready to hang his gorgeous Canadian Aero O-320. He said the mount was
purchased from Murphy and designed for the O-320. What I did not like
about
it were the two uppermost tubes extending from the upper firewall bolts
with
the other end hanging in the breeze. I could easily flex each of the
tubes
with one hand and see the wall flex and this is supposed to support a

160

hp
engine!!! Wow!!!! All the other tubes were triangulated or crossbraced

to

others and they did not flex.
The argument was that the upper tubes would stop flexing once tied to

the

engine. I did not buy that because the junction at the engine is not
rigid,
it is through flexing rubber mounts. These tubes can never be rigid like
the
rest. I would always expect to see them spread out a bit and cause the
firewall to locally bulge out.
Wayne's photos don't show the engine end of the mount so I don't know
where
the wall flex was comming from on his installation but with the mount I
described above there should be a way to address the problem at the
source
and tie the flexing tubes to other ones. Perhaps a firewall fix would

not

even be required then although direct pulling loads out of the wall at
this
location must be very high just from the moment generated by this heavy
engine.
I understand that once in flight the tubes will not flex nearly as much
as
when bouncing on the ground (or water) but still that would not be a

good

excuse for leaving the tubes flex.
Can anyone shed some light on this? Has anyone done any beefing up of
this
flexing mount and how did it effect the firewall?

Paul Kucera
Rebel builder, 453R

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

C&P Kucera · Post by **C&P Kucera** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:39 pm

Wayne, thanks for this valuable info. Adding up all your numbers gives some
42 lb weight saving and if one could do something with the mags and the
muffler the number could go over 50? I'll be going on water and cutting down
the pounds will compensate for those heavy hollow logs I'll be dragging
under me.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne G. O'Shea <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Paul, we are already making the lyco installations as light as possible
(externally anyway). We are using Skytec starters at 8+ lbs. less than the
old style originals.(and I don't think anyone wants to start by hand prop
anymore) Lightweight alternators, either the Nipco supplied buy

Murphy(with

the engine mt. kit) or the really small 40amp(6 lbs. less than standard))
ones Ron Newburg sells (Ron, since closing the engine shop, only

advertises

as Niagara Air Parts in Trade a Plane with a Niagara Falls Shipping

address)

His shop is still located on HWY 11 north of Orillia though and he flys
stock back and forth in his twin commanche!(I have one of his alternators

in

stock c/w a case mount bracket-$300.00cdn)The new alum case vacuum pumps
only weight about a pound, so not very significant but removal of the

gears

that drive it would cut some more weight although the problem with using a
venturi is that it will probably kill 5MPH of your cruise.(they create a

lot

of drag to pull that 5" of vacuum. The other big thing as you said is the
prop. A Warp Drive weighs in at about 11.6 lbs.(bolts and all) as compared
to a new Sensenich 74-DM-7S8-56 that weighs in at 40lbs(c/w 2" spacer and
bolts) If weight is a big issue that almost 30 lbs.. is a big deal! But
there is just something about that solid aluminum prop out there that

makes

the plane seem to fly better!(compared to my warp drive'd one) Maybe it's
just my inner self telling me I paid $3 big bills for it and it has to be
better than the $1500.00 Warp Drive. Who knows??

Wayne

-----Original Message-----
From: C&P Kucera <cpkucera@idirect.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Date: Saturday, December 04, 1999 1:17 PM
Subject: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Thanks for your replies Wayne and Ken!!!
Another way to reduce stresses on the firewall would be the seemingly
impossible task of getting the engine weight down. I read an article
somewhere a while ago about a company in California that can lighten up
Lycoming engines making mods and using lighter materials. It sounded very
expensive. I wonder what mods can be done inexpensively without
compromising
safety and reliability. Any pounds shed particularly farther away from

the

firewall like at the front of the engine will reduce the torque loading

at

the firewall. Using a composite prop is an obvious solution. I heard

about

lighter alternators, even saw a wind driven type. Not sure what one can

do

about those heavy magnetos and the starter. I heard about a starter that
can
also charge battery once the engine starts.
Replacing the vac pump with a venturi should help. Something should be
possible with the muffler without adding too much noise.
I know that beefing up the firewall is easier and probably cheaper than

the

above ideas and I will most likely go that route myself but keeping the
weight down is also a part of the homebuilding fun.
Each mod may not seem like much weight saving but adding them all up may
amount to something significant. Any tips on this would be much
appreciated.
Paul Kucera

Rebel builder 453R

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne G. O'Shea <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: REBEL O-320 ENGINE MOUNT, HELP!!!

Paul, you are describing the mount for a "conical" engine! Well trussed
at
the bottom etc and two tubes going forward at the top to pick up the
engine.
Very typical mount design, even on certified conically mounted engines.
Anywhere you put a cross tube, it will be in the way of the mags, oil
cooler
line fittings or something as there is barely enough room to pull a mag
on
a
Rebel(but with a little imagination and work it could probably be done)
The
Murphy dynafocal engine Mount on the other hand, has a very rigid top
section with a diagonal brace etc. and the lower two tubes are just

loose

tubes from the dynafocal mount ring to the firewall bolt

flanges(similar

to
the top tubes on the conical mount) My web pic's show a Dynafocal

Mount.

There have been firewall problems with both engine mounts in use! A

prop

strike on a Rebel at idle power (without the reinforcements) will

buckle

all
4 mount locations approximately 1/2", making the new propellor and the
bulk
overhaul on the engine, the easy part of the repairs.

Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: C&P Kucera <cpkucera@idirect.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:07 AM
Subject: REBEL O-320 ENGINE MOUNT, HELP!!!

Last

the

wall
about

bolts

with
tubes
160
hp
to
the
rigid,

like

the
where

I

source
not
this

heavy

much

as
good
this
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wayne G. O'Shea · Post by **Wayne G. O'Shea** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:39 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your following message has been delivered to the 134 members of
the list murphy-rebel@dcsol.com at 23:25:02 on 6 Dec 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul, if you use the hi-pro exhaust for the speed cowl (Murphy now actually
supplies the same exhaust supplied originally for Van's RV's and is a better
quality than their old set) available from Murphy, it does not have any
mufflers, but is a simple cross-over straight pipe arrangement, thus as
light as it can get, other than using straight stacks off each cylinder! My
wife tells me that on fly over, the straight pipe exhaust is actually
quieter than the double muffler exhaust I have on my personal plane(both are
on 150 HP lycomings), but it is a little louder on take off.

Wayne

-----Original Message-----
From: C&P Kucera <cpkucera@idirect.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Date: Monday, December 06, 1999 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Wayne, thanks for this valuable info. Adding up all your numbers gives some
42 lb weight saving and if one could do something with the mags and the
muffler the number could go over 50? I'll be going on water and cutting

down

the pounds will compensate for those heavy hollow logs I'll be dragging
under me.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne G. O'Shea <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Paul, we are already making the lyco installations as light as possible
(externally anyway). We are using Skytec starters at 8+ lbs. less than

the

old style originals.(and I don't think anyone wants to start by hand prop
anymore) Lightweight alternators, either the Nipco supplied buy
Murphy(with
the engine mt. kit) or the really small 40amp(6 lbs. less than standard))
ones Ron Newburg sells (Ron, since closing the engine shop, only
advertises
as Niagara Air Parts in Trade a Plane with a Niagara Falls Shipping
address)
His shop is still located on HWY 11 north of Orillia though and he flys
stock back and forth in his twin commanche!(I have one of his alternators
in
stock c/w a case mount bracket-$300.00cdn)The new alum case vacuum pumps
only weight about a pound, so not very significant but removal of the
gears
that drive it would cut some more weight although the problem with using

a

venturi is that it will probably kill 5MPH of your cruise.(they create a
lot
of drag to pull that 5" of vacuum. The other big thing as you said is the
prop. A Warp Drive weighs in at about 11.6 lbs.(bolts and all) as

compared

to a new Sensenich 74-DM-7S8-56 that weighs in at 40lbs(c/w 2" spacer and
bolts) If weight is a big issue that almost 30 lbs.. is a big deal! But
there is just something about that solid aluminum prop out there that
makes
the plane seem to fly better!(compared to my warp drive'd one) Maybe it's
just my inner self telling me I paid $3 big bills for it and it has to be
better than the $1500.00 Warp Drive. Who knows??

Wayne

-----Original Message-----
From: C&P Kucera <cpkucera@idirect.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Date: Saturday, December 04, 1999 1:17 PM
Subject: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Thanks for your replies Wayne and Ken!!!
Another way to reduce stresses on the firewall would be the seemingly
impossible task of getting the engine weight down. I read an article
somewhere a while ago about a company in California that can lighten up
Lycoming engines making mods and using lighter materials. It sounded

very

expensive. I wonder what mods can be done inexpensively without
compromising
safety and reliability. Any pounds shed particularly farther away from
the
firewall like at the front of the engine will reduce the torque loading
at
the firewall. Using a composite prop is an obvious solution. I heard
about
lighter alternators, even saw a wind driven type. Not sure what one can
do
about those heavy magnetos and the starter. I heard about a starter that
can
also charge battery once the engine starts.
Replacing the vac pump with a venturi should help. Something should be
possible with the muffler without adding too much noise.
I know that beefing up the firewall is easier and probably cheaper than
the
above ideas and I will most likely go that route myself but keeping the
weight down is also a part of the homebuilding fun.
Each mod may not seem like much weight saving but adding them all up may
amount to something significant. Any tips on this would be much
appreciated.
Paul Kucera

Rebel builder 453R

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne G. O'Shea <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: REBEL O-320 ENGINE MOUNT, HELP!!!

trussed

at
engine.

engines.

cooler

mag

on
a

done)

The
loose
flanges(similar
to
Mount.
prop
buckle
all bulk Last
the
about
bolts
tubes
160

crossbraced

to
the
rigid,
like

the

where
I
source
not

at

this
heavy
much
as
good
this *----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Patterson · Post by **Bob Patterson** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:39 pm

Paul,

FWIW, we just learned at the RAA meeting last night that Kovachik
Air Services at Burlington Airport now sells their own design of lightweight
starter for Lycomings - about 8 lb., and $300 CDN !!! Might be worth a
look.... (Bill Tee had one at the meeting - I guess it will find a home
in his Zenith ! )

You also might check B & C Electrics, in USA - several folks have
said they have the BEST lightweight starters, alternators, and many other
electrical goodies. They are at all the big shows ....

.....bobp

--------------------------------orig.------------------------------------
At 10:48 PM 12/6/99 -0500, you wrote:

Wayne, thanks for this valuable info. Adding up all your numbers gives some
42 lb weight saving and if one could do something with the mags and the
muffler the number could go over 50? I'll be going on water and cutting down
the pounds will compensate for those heavy hollow logs I'll be dragging
under me.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne G. O'Shea <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Paul, we are already making the lyco installations as light as possible
(externally anyway). We are using Skytec starters at 8+ lbs. less than the
old style originals.(and I don't think anyone wants to start by hand prop
anymore) Lightweight alternators, either the Nipco supplied buy
Murphy(with
the engine mt. kit) or the really small 40amp(6 lbs. less than standard))
ones Ron Newburg sells (Ron, since closing the engine shop, only
advertises
as Niagara Air Parts in Trade a Plane with a Niagara Falls Shipping
address)
His shop is still located on HWY 11 north of Orillia though and he flys
stock back and forth in his twin commanche!(I have one of his alternators
in
stock c/w a case mount bracket-$300.00cdn)The new alum case vacuum pumps
only weight about a pound, so not very significant but removal of the
gears
that drive it would cut some more weight although the problem with using a
venturi is that it will probably kill 5MPH of your cruise.(they create a
lot
of drag to pull that 5" of vacuum. The other big thing as you said is the
prop. A Warp Drive weighs in at about 11.6 lbs.(bolts and all) as compared
to a new Sensenich 74-DM-7S8-56 that weighs in at 40lbs(c/w 2" spacer and
bolts) If weight is a big issue that almost 30 lbs.. is a big deal! But
there is just something about that solid aluminum prop out there that
makes
the plane seem to fly better!(compared to my warp drive'd one) Maybe it's
just my inner self telling me I paid $3 big bills for it and it has to be
better than the $1500.00 Warp Drive. Who knows??

Wayne

-----Original Message-----
From: C&P Kucera <cpkucera@idirect.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Date: Saturday, December 04, 1999 1:17 PM
Subject: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Thanks for your replies Wayne and Ken!!!
Another way to reduce stresses on the firewall would be the seemingly
impossible task of getting the engine weight down. I read an article
somewhere a while ago about a company in California that can lighten up
Lycoming engines making mods and using lighter materials. It sounded very
expensive. I wonder what mods can be done inexpensively without
compromising
safety and reliability. Any pounds shed particularly farther away from
the
firewall like at the front of the engine will reduce the torque loading
at
the firewall. Using a composite prop is an obvious solution. I heard
about
lighter alternators, even saw a wind driven type. Not sure what one can
do
about those heavy magnetos and the starter. I heard about a starter that
can
also charge battery once the engine starts.
Replacing the vac pump with a venturi should help. Something should be
possible with the muffler without adding too much noise.
I know that beefing up the firewall is easier and probably cheaper than
the
above ideas and I will most likely go that route myself but keeping the
weight down is also a part of the homebuilding fun.
Each mod may not seem like much weight saving but adding them all up may
amount to something significant. Any tips on this would be much
appreciated.
Paul Kucera

Rebel builder 453R

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne G. O'Shea <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: REBEL O-320 ENGINE MOUNT, HELP!!!

at
engine. cooler
on
a The
loose
flanges(similar
to
Mount.
prop
buckle
all bulk Last
the
about
bolts
tubes
160
to
the
rigid,
like
where
I
source
not
this
heavy
much
as
good
this *----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

C&P Kucera · Post by **C&P Kucera** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:39 pm

Hi Bob. Thanks for your tip. I am slowly building a library of this info. I
am beginning to believe that it is possible to have an older 150 hp O-320
with all attachments including a light prop hanging on the firewall at a
total weight of about 285lbs. At this weight the firewall maybe need not be
moved or perhaps not the full 3 inches. Jack Wiebe for example, moved his
only 2 inches.
I think with the Rebel one can go for the 912S but then forget about the
amphibs that I would like. For the 1800 amphibs and two people and some
luggage in the plane I think one may have to go O-320. Although the wing and
power loading look adequate even at less power and slightly lighter engines
I have a feeling the Rebel has a bit higher drag so more power is needed to
pull it through the air (all those rivets on the wings, a relatively fat
wing, side by side seating).
I'm always impressed with the old J3 Cub on floats pulling two guys easily
out of the water with 80 hp. But there it is the big wing area and the
tandem arrangement.
No, I would not trade the Rebel on a J3, I prefer side-by-side and more
space. Comparing to others out there I am still perfectly satisfied with my
choice.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Patterson <bob.patterson@canrem.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Paul,

FWIW, we just learned at the RAA meeting last night that Kovachik
Air Services at Burlington Airport now sells their own design of

lightweight

starter for Lycomings - about 8 lb., and $300 CDN !!! Might be worth a
look.... (Bill Tee had one at the meeting - I guess it will find a home
in his Zenith ! )

You also might check B & C Electrics, in USA - several folks have
said they have the BEST lightweight starters, alternators, and many other
electrical goodies. They are at all the big shows ....

.....bobp

--------------------------------orig.------------------------------------
At 10:48 PM 12/6/99 -0500, you wrote:
Wayne, thanks for this valuable info. Adding up all your numbers gives

some

42 lb weight saving and if one could do something with the mags and the
muffler the number could go over 50? I'll be going on water and cutting

down

the pounds will compensate for those heavy hollow logs I'll be dragging
under me.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne G. O'Shea <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Paul, we are already making the lyco installations as light as possible
(externally anyway). We are using Skytec starters at 8+ lbs. less than

the

old style originals.(and I don't think anyone wants to start by hand

prop

anymore) Lightweight alternators, either the Nipco supplied buy
Murphy(with
the engine mt. kit) or the really small 40amp(6 lbs. less than

standard))

ones Ron Newburg sells (Ron, since closing the engine shop, only
advertises
as Niagara Air Parts in Trade a Plane with a Niagara Falls Shipping
address)
His shop is still located on HWY 11 north of Orillia though and he flys
stock back and forth in his twin commanche!(I have one of his

alternators

in
stock c/w a case mount bracket-$300.00cdn)The new alum case vacuum

pumps

only weight about a pound, so not very significant but removal of the
gears
that drive it would cut some more weight although the problem with

using a

venturi is that it will probably kill 5MPH of your cruise.(they create

a

lot
of drag to pull that 5" of vacuum. The other big thing as you said is

the

prop. A Warp Drive weighs in at about 11.6 lbs.(bolts and all) as

compared

to a new Sensenich 74-DM-7S8-56 that weighs in at 40lbs(c/w 2" spacer

and

bolts) If weight is a big issue that almost 30 lbs.. is a big deal! But
there is just something about that solid aluminum prop out there that
makes
the plane seem to fly better!(compared to my warp drive'd one) Maybe

it's

just my inner self telling me I paid $3 big bills for it and it has to

be

better than the $1500.00 Warp Drive. Who knows??

Wayne

-----Original Message-----
From: C&P Kucera <cpkucera@idirect.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Date: Saturday, December 04, 1999 1:17 PM
Subject: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

up

very

compromising
the

loading

at
about

can

do

that

can

than

the

the

may

appreciated.

trussed

at

engines.

oil

mag

on

done)

top

loose
flanges(similar
Mount.
prop
buckle

the

mind.

the

was

like

bolts

the

a

160

crossbraced

to

to

the

not

like

the

know

mount

I

would

not

at

heavy
much

a

good

of

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ryan Amendala · Post by **Ryan Amendala** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:39 pm

We have ordered our Engine from Aerosport power. O-320 160hp. We are
thinking of using a wood Prince P-tip (for cost and weight reasons), similar
to the Long Ez. Has anyone used a wood/composit prop with the Rebel? Does
anyone see an issue with this?

Thanks

BB&R Amendala
rebel 669

----Original Message Follows----
From: "C&P Kucera" <cpkucera@idirect.com>
Reply-To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com> (Murphy Rebel Builders List)
To: "Murphy Rebel Builders List" <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Subject: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 12:43:59 -0500

Thanks for your replies Wayne and Ken!!!
Another way to reduce stresses on the firewall would be the seemingly
impossible task of getting the engine weight down. I read an article
somewhere a while ago about a company in California that can lighten up
Lycoming engines making mods and using lighter materials. It sounded very
expensive. I wonder what mods can be done inexpensively without compromising
safety and reliability. Any pounds shed particularly farther away from the
firewall like at the front of the engine will reduce the torque loading at
the firewall. Using a composite prop is an obvious solution. I heard about
lighter alternators, even saw a wind driven type. Not sure what one can do
about those heavy magnetos and the starter. I heard about a starter that can
also charge battery once the engine starts.
Replacing the vac pump with a venturi should help. Something should be
possible with the muffler without adding too much noise.
I know that beefing up the firewall is easier and probably cheaper than the
above ideas and I will most likely go that route myself but keeping the
weight down is also a part of the homebuilding fun.
Each mod may not seem like much weight saving but adding them all up may
amount to something significant. Any tips on this would be much appreciated.

Paul Kucera

Rebel builder 453R

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne G. O'Shea <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: REBEL O-320 ENGINE MOUNT, HELP!!!

Paul, you are describing the mount for a "conical" engine! Well trussed

at

the bottom etc and two tubes going forward at the top to pick up the

engine.

Very typical mount design, even on certified conically mounted engines.
Anywhere you put a cross tube, it will be in the way of the mags, oil

cooler

line fittings or something as there is barely enough room to pull a mag

on
a

Rebel(but with a little imagination and work it could probably be done)

The

Murphy dynafocal engine Mount on the other hand, has a very rigid top
section with a diagonal brace etc. and the lower two tubes are just loose
tubes from the dynafocal mount ring to the firewall bolt flanges(similar

to

the top tubes on the conical mount) My web pic's show a Dynafocal Mount.
There have been firewall problems with both engine mounts in use! A prop
strike on a Rebel at idle power (without the reinforcements) will buckle

all

4 mount locations approximately 1/2", making the new propellor and the

bulk

overhaul on the engine, the easy part of the repairs.

Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: C&P Kucera <cpkucera@idirect.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:07 AM
Subject: REBEL O-320 ENGINE MOUNT, HELP!!!

I had a look at Wyne O'Shea's firewall fix and a memory came to mind.

Last

summer I visited a Rebel builder who had the engine mount bolted on the
wall
ready to hang his gorgeous Canadian Aero O-320. He said the mount was
purchased from Murphy and designed for the O-320. What I did not like

about

it were the two uppermost tubes extending from the upper firewall bolts
with
the other end hanging in the breeze. I could easily flex each of the

tubes

with one hand and see the wall flex and this is supposed to support a

160

hp
engine!!! Wow!!!! All the other tubes were triangulated or crossbraced

to

others and they did not flex.
The argument was that the upper tubes would stop flexing once tied to

the

engine. I did not buy that because the junction at the engine is not

rigid,

it is through flexing rubber mounts. These tubes can never be rigid like
the
rest. I would always expect to see them spread out a bit and cause the
firewall to locally bulge out.
Wayne's photos don't show the engine end of the mount so I don't know

where

the wall flex was comming from on his installation but with the mount I
described above there should be a way to address the problem at the

source

and tie the flexing tubes to other ones. Perhaps a firewall fix would

not

even be required then although direct pulling loads out of the wall at

this

location must be very high just from the moment generated by this heavy
engine.
I understand that once in flight the tubes will not flex nearly as much

as

when bouncing on the ground (or water) but still that would not be a

good

excuse for leaving the tubes flex.
Can anyone shed some light on this? Has anyone done any beefing up of

this

flexing mount and how did it effect the firewall?

Paul Kucera
Rebel builder, 453R

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Patterson · Post by **Bob Patterson** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:39 pm

I'm not quite ready yet to discount the 912-S on amphibs ! Our Rebel
hauled 2 people out of the water better than a J-3 or an Aeronca Super
Chief, with the original 80 hp. 912, on Murphy 1500 straight floats.
The Super Chief, with side-by-side seating, was easily 5 to 10 mph faster
than the tandem Champ, so width isn't the only factor.

I suspect that it could handle the amphibs with 20 more horses, and
I'm prepared to try it - one of these days, if I ever get my act together !!
(All I need is time and money :-) )

There is no doubt that the Rebel with an O-320 is an unbeatable amphib
float plane - I'm just trying for 'adequate' performance, on 1/4 of the
fuel & oil ... The O-235 didn't make it - too much weight, and very
small horses :-) ...

I encourage you to keep up with the plan of reducing the weight of
the larger engine - this will definitely help performance.

How about the 150 Hp. turbine now flying in the Luscombe ?? It only
weighs 85 lb., bare, and under 140 lb. ready to fly, with PSRU !!! :-)
Only 15 gallons/hour, too !

:-) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

....bobp

---------------------------orig.-------------------------------------------
At 01:03 AM 12/9/99 -0500, you wrote:

Hi Bob. Thanks for your tip. I am slowly building a library of this info. I
am beginning to believe that it is possible to have an older 150 hp O-320
with all attachments including a light prop hanging on the firewall at a
total weight of about 285lbs. At this weight the firewall maybe need not be
moved or perhaps not the full 3 inches. Jack Wiebe for example, moved his
only 2 inches.
I think with the Rebel one can go for the 912S but then forget about the
amphibs that I would like. For the 1800 amphibs and two people and some
luggage in the plane I think one may have to go O-320. Although the wing and
power loading look adequate even at less power and slightly lighter engines
I have a feeling the Rebel has a bit higher drag so more power is needed to
pull it through the air (all those rivets on the wings, a relatively fat
wing, side by side seating).
I'm always impressed with the old J3 Cub on floats pulling two guys easily
out of the water with 80 hp. But there it is the big wing area and the
tandem arrangement.
No, I would not trade the Rebel on a J3, I prefer side-by-side and more
space. Comparing to others out there I am still perfectly satisfied with my
choice.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Patterson <bob.patterson@canrem.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Paul,

FWIW, we just learned at the RAA meeting last night that Kovachik
Air Services at Burlington Airport now sells their own design of
lightweight
starter for Lycomings - about 8 lb., and $300 CDN !!! Might be worth a
look.... (Bill Tee had one at the meeting - I guess it will find a home
in his Zenith ! )

You also might check B & C Electrics, in USA - several folks have
said they have the BEST lightweight starters, alternators, and many other
electrical goodies. They are at all the big shows ....

.....bobp

--------------------------------orig.------------------------------------
At 10:48 PM 12/6/99 -0500, you wrote:
Wayne, thanks for this valuable info. Adding up all your numbers gives
some
42 lb weight saving and if one could do something with the mags and the
muffler the number could go over 50? I'll be going on water and cutting
down
the pounds will compensate for those heavy hollow logs I'll be dragging
under me.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne G. O'Shea <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

the
prop
Murphy(with
standard))
advertises address)
alternators
in
pumps
gears
using a
a
lot
the
compared
and
makes
it's
be
up
very
the
loading
at about
can
do
that
than
the
the
may
trussed
engines.
oil
mag
done)
top
loose flanges(similar Mount. prop buckle
the
mind.
the
was
like
bolts
the
a
crossbraced
to
not
like
the
know
mount
I
would
at
heavy much
a
of
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wayne G. O'Shea · Post by **Wayne G. O'Shea** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:39 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your following message has been delivered to the 133 members of
the list murphy-rebel@dcsol.com at 18:01:50 on 9 Dec 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

And it (the Turbine Luscombe) was force landed and severly damaged on it's
way home from Sun & Fun. Lets give that configuration a little more time
also!!!!!!!! As Bob says weight is the key to it all. Every 10lbs you can
shed, seems to leave you needing 1or 2 less horsepower.

Wayne

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Patterson <bob.patterson@canrem.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

I'm not quite ready yet to discount the 912-S on amphibs ! Our Rebel
hauled 2 people out of the water better than a J-3 or an Aeronca Super
Chief, with the original 80 hp. 912, on Murphy 1500 straight floats.
The Super Chief, with side-by-side seating, was easily 5 to 10 mph faster
than the tandem Champ, so width isn't the only factor.

I suspect that it could handle the amphibs with 20 more horses, and
I'm prepared to try it - one of these days, if I ever get my act together

!!

(All I need is time and money :-) )

There is no doubt that the Rebel with an O-320 is an unbeatable amphib
float plane - I'm just trying for 'adequate' performance, on 1/4 of the
fuel & oil ... The O-235 didn't make it - too much weight, and very
small horses :-) ...

I encourage you to keep up with the plan of reducing the weight of
the larger engine - this will definitely help performance.

How about the 150 Hp. turbine now flying in the Luscombe ?? It only
weighs 85 lb., bare, and under 140 lb. ready to fly, with PSRU !!! :-)
Only 15 gallons/hour, too !

:-) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

....bobp

---------------------------orig.-------------------------------------------
At 01:03 AM 12/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
Hi Bob. Thanks for your tip. I am slowly building a library of this info.

I

am beginning to believe that it is possible to have an older 150 hp O-320
with all attachments including a light prop hanging on the firewall at a
total weight of about 285lbs. At this weight the firewall maybe need not

be

moved or perhaps not the full 3 inches. Jack Wiebe for example, moved his
only 2 inches.
I think with the Rebel one can go for the 912S but then forget about the
amphibs that I would like. For the 1800 amphibs and two people and some
luggage in the plane I think one may have to go O-320. Although the wing

and

power loading look adequate even at less power and slightly lighter

engines

I have a feeling the Rebel has a bit higher drag so more power is needed

to

pull it through the air (all those rivets on the wings, a relatively fat
wing, side by side seating).
I'm always impressed with the old J3 Cub on floats pulling two guys easily
out of the water with 80 hp. But there it is the big wing area and the
tandem arrangement.
No, I would not trade the Rebel on a J3, I prefer side-by-side and more
space. Comparing to others out there I am still perfectly satisfied with

my

choice.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Patterson <bob.patterson@canrem.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Paul,

FWIW, we just learned at the RAA meeting last night that Kovachik
Air Services at Burlington Airport now sells their own design of
lightweight
starter for Lycomings - about 8 lb., and $300 CDN !!! Might be worth a
look.... (Bill Tee had one at the meeting - I guess it will find a

home

in his Zenith ! )

You also might check B & C Electrics, in USA - several folks have
said they have the BEST lightweight starters, alternators, and many

other

electrical goodies. They are at all the big shows ....

.....bobp

--------------------------------orig.-----------------------------------

-

At 10:48 PM 12/6/99 -0500, you wrote:
some
down

possible

than

the
prop
standard))

flys

alternators
pumps
using a

create

a
the
compared
and

But

it's

to

be

seemingly

up
very

from

loading
can
that

be

than
the
may
trussed

the

engines.
oil

a

mag
done)
top

just

A

the
mind.

on

was
like
the

support

a
crossbraced

tied

to
not

rigid

cause

the
know
mount

the

would

wall

at

as

be

a

up

of
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

C&P Kucera · Post by **C&P Kucera** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:39 pm

You are right, the 912S should be OK. A basic Rebel with 912S and 1800
amphibs should tip the scales at around 1010 lbs. Say, adding crew and fuel
ends at 1600 lbs then power loading + wing loading = 26.7
Tom Blackwell's Cessna 172 (160 hp, straight floats) I did my rating on,
added up to 26.6. I thought it performed great (although I am a very green
pilot (200 hrs)). Similar performance should then be expected from the Rebel
although the Cessna may be a tad cleaner with less drag.
The Rebel with 125 hp O-235 grossing out at 1720 lb gives power loading +
wing loading of only 25.1 but I hear guys complaining about this arrangement
and that kind of confirms that drag may be an issue.
But then again, as you pointed out the Rebel performed OK even with the 80
hp engine.
Maybe all the guys just want to fish in tiny ponds surrounded by cliffs and
120 foot trees...or maybe they catch really big ones. There is definitely
something fishy going on here. :-)

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Patterson <bob.patterson@canrem.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

I'm not quite ready yet to discount the 912-S on amphibs ! Our Rebel
hauled 2 people out of the water better than a J-3 or an Aeronca Super
Chief, with the original 80 hp. 912, on Murphy 1500 straight floats.
The Super Chief, with side-by-side seating, was easily 5 to 10 mph faster
than the tandem Champ, so width isn't the only factor.

I suspect that it could handle the amphibs with 20 more horses, and
I'm prepared to try it - one of these days, if I ever get my act together

!!

(All I need is time and money :-) )

There is no doubt that the Rebel with an O-320 is an unbeatable amphib
float plane - I'm just trying for 'adequate' performance, on 1/4 of the
fuel & oil ... The O-235 didn't make it - too much weight, and very
small horses :-) ...

I encourage you to keep up with the plan of reducing the weight of
the larger engine - this will definitely help performance.

How about the 150 Hp. turbine now flying in the Luscombe ?? It only
weighs 85 lb., bare, and under 140 lb. ready to fly, with PSRU !!! :-)
Only 15 gallons/hour, too !

:-) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

....bobp

---------------------------orig.------------------------------------------

-

At 01:03 AM 12/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
Hi Bob. Thanks for your tip. I am slowly building a library of this info.

I

am beginning to believe that it is possible to have an older 150 hp O-320
with all attachments including a light prop hanging on the firewall at a
total weight of about 285lbs. At this weight the firewall maybe need not

be

moved or perhaps not the full 3 inches. Jack Wiebe for example, moved his
only 2 inches.
I think with the Rebel one can go for the 912S but then forget about the
amphibs that I would like. For the 1800 amphibs and two people and some
luggage in the plane I think one may have to go O-320. Although the wing

and

power loading look adequate even at less power and slightly lighter

engines

I have a feeling the Rebel has a bit higher drag so more power is needed

to

pull it through the air (all those rivets on the wings, a relatively fat
wing, side by side seating).
I'm always impressed with the old J3 Cub on floats pulling two guys

easily

out of the water with 80 hp. But there it is the big wing area and the
tandem arrangement.
No, I would not trade the Rebel on a J3, I prefer side-by-side and more
space. Comparing to others out there I am still perfectly satisfied with

my

choice.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Patterson <bob.patterson@canrem.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Paul,

FWIW, we just learned at the RAA meeting last night that Kovachik
Air Services at Burlington Airport now sells their own design of
lightweight
starter for Lycomings - about 8 lb., and $300 CDN !!! Might be worth a
look.... (Bill Tee had one at the meeting - I guess it will find a

home

in his Zenith ! )

You also might check B & C Electrics, in USA - several folks have
said they have the BEST lightweight starters, alternators, and many

other

electrical goodies. They are at all the big shows ....

.....bobp

--------------------------------orig.------------------------------------
At 10:48 PM 12/6/99 -0500, you wrote:
some

the

cutting

down

dragging

possible

than

the
prop
standard))

flys

alternators
pumps

the

using a

create

a

is

the
compared

spacer

and

But

that

it's

to

be

seemingly

article

lighten

up

sounded

very

from

loading

heard

can
that

be

than
the

up

may
trussed

the

engines.
oil

a

mag
done)
top

just

A

and

the
mind.

on

mount

was
like

firewall

the

support

a
crossbraced

tied

to
not

rigid

cause

the
know
mount

the

would

wall

at

this

as

be

a

up

of
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Patterson · Post by **Bob Patterson** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:39 pm

I would likely use the 1500 amphibs on a 912-S powered Rebel (partly
because I already have a set :-) ), to reduce the weight even further.
The empty weight of the Rebel should be in the 600 - 700 lb area, plus
the 1500 amphibs, at about 230, for a total of say 880 lb. . This still
leaves 620 lb. for crew & fuel, to stay under the 1500 lb limit for the
floats - which, of course, everyone would/does ;-) ;-) !!

Should give reasonable performance ..... I hope !

If there's something fishy, it just MIGHT be the 125 hp O-235 - these
engines usually put out about 100 ponies (and they're SMALL ponies ! ) !!

Carmon Titus did fly his Rebel, on Murphy 1800 amphibs, with a
Continental O-200, of 100 HP., although he was underwhelmed by the
performance :-) !! The 912-S is lighter, and one could use the GSC variable
pitch prop, which goes for only $1,500 - likely a good combination...

As I said, this Rebel would NOT be anything like the dazzling performer
that the O-320 Rebels on amphibs are, but it sure would be cheap to run !! :-)

:-)

.....bobp

FWIW - during testing, the 1500 amphibs were often flown at 1,800 lb !

---------------------------orig.------------------------------------------
At 01:17 AM 12/11/99 -0500, you wrote:

You are right, the 912S should be OK. A basic Rebel with 912S and 1800
amphibs should tip the scales at around 1010 lbs. Say, adding crew and fuel
ends at 1600 lbs then power loading + wing loading = 26.7
Tom Blackwell's Cessna 172 (160 hp, straight floats) I did my rating on,
added up to 26.6. I thought it performed great (although I am a very green
pilot (200 hrs)). Similar performance should then be expected from the Rebel
although the Cessna may be a tad cleaner with less drag.
The Rebel with 125 hp O-235 grossing out at 1720 lb gives power loading +
wing loading of only 25.1 but I hear guys complaining about this arrangement
and that kind of confirms that drag may be an issue.
But then again, as you pointed out the Rebel performed OK even with the 80
hp engine.
Maybe all the guys just want to fish in tiny ponds surrounded by cliffs and
120 foot trees...or maybe they catch really big ones. There is definitely
something fishy going on here. :-)

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Patterson <bob.patterson@canrem.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

I'm not quite ready yet to discount the 912-S on amphibs ! Our Rebel
hauled 2 people out of the water better than a J-3 or an Aeronca Super
Chief, with the original 80 hp. 912, on Murphy 1500 straight floats.
The Super Chief, with side-by-side seating, was easily 5 to 10 mph faster
than the tandem Champ, so width isn't the only factor.

I suspect that it could handle the amphibs with 20 more horses, and
I'm prepared to try it - one of these days, if I ever get my act together
!!
(All I need is time and money :-) )

There is no doubt that the Rebel with an O-320 is an unbeatable amphib
float plane - I'm just trying for 'adequate' performance, on 1/4 of the
fuel & oil ... The O-235 didn't make it - too much weight, and very
small horses :-) ...

I encourage you to keep up with the plan of reducing the weight of
the larger engine - this will definitely help performance.

How about the 150 Hp. turbine now flying in the Luscombe ?? It only
weighs 85 lb., bare, and under 140 lb. ready to fly, with PSRU !!! :-)
Only 15 gallons/hour, too !

:-) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

....bobp

---------------------------orig.------------------------------------------
-
At 01:03 AM 12/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
Hi Bob. Thanks for your tip. I am slowly building a library of this info.
I
am beginning to believe that it is possible to have an older 150 hp O-320
with all attachments including a light prop hanging on the firewall at a
total weight of about 285lbs. At this weight the firewall maybe need not
be
moved or perhaps not the full 3 inches. Jack Wiebe for example, moved his
only 2 inches.
I think with the Rebel one can go for the 912S but then forget about the
amphibs that I would like. For the 1800 amphibs and two people and some
luggage in the plane I think one may have to go O-320. Although the wing
and
power loading look adequate even at less power and slightly lighter
engines
I have a feeling the Rebel has a bit higher drag so more power is needed
to
pull it through the air (all those rivets on the wings, a relatively fat
wing, side by side seating).
I'm always impressed with the old J3 Cub on floats pulling two guys
easily
out of the water with 80 hp. But there it is the big wing area and the
tandem arrangement.
No, I would not trade the Rebel on a J3, I prefer side-by-side and more
space. Comparing to others out there I am still perfectly satisfied with
my
choice.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Patterson <bob.patterson@canrem.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

lightweight
home
other

--------------------------------orig.------------------------------------ some
the
cutting
down
dragging
possible
than
the prop standard))
flys
alternators pumps
the
using a
create
a
is
the compared
spacer
and
But
that
it's
to
be
seemingly
article
lighten
up
sounded
very
from
loading
heard
can that
be
than the
up
may trussed
the
engines. oil
a
mag done) top
just
A
and
the mind.
on
mount
was like
firewall
the
support
a crossbraced
tied
to not
rigid
cause
the know mount
the
would
wall
at
this
as
be
a
up
of *----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Brian Cross · Post by **Brian Cross** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:39 pm

Hi There

I have the B&C alternator & regulator on my Rebel. They are first class
people all the way. They are almost always at Oshkosh but can be reached
by phone 5 days of the week. They have many other electrical items which I
also have used. They also have a close relationship with "Aeroelectric
Connection". If you have not tapped into Bob Knuckolls work at
Aeroelectric, you are missing a great deal of high quality and free
information. They are both great folks. Also have the B&C sealed battery
in the back of the aircraft. Does not need an enclosure etc. as it is
completely sealed.

From Bob K., I got the basic wiring diagram (which I received in ACAD format

& modified to suit the Rebel). His write ups are very easy & practical
reading.

Regards

Brian #328R

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Patterson [mailto:bob.patterson@canrem.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 10:57 PM
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Paul,

FWIW, we just learned at the RAA meeting last night that Kovachik
Air Services at Burlington Airport now sells their own design of lightweight
starter for Lycomings - about 8 lb., and $300 CDN !!! Might be worth a
look.... (Bill Tee had one at the meeting - I guess it will find a home
in his Zenith ! )

You also might check B & C Electrics, in USA - several folks have
said they have the BEST lightweight starters, alternators, and many other
electrical goodies. They are at all the big shows ....

.....bobp

--------------------------------orig.------------------------------------
At 10:48 PM 12/6/99 -0500, you wrote:

Wayne, thanks for this valuable info. Adding up all your numbers gives some
42 lb weight saving and if one could do something with the mags and the
muffler the number could go over 50? I'll be going on water and cutting

down

the pounds will compensate for those heavy hollow logs I'll be dragging
under me.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne G. O'Shea <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Paul, we are already making the lyco installations as light as possible
(externally anyway). We are using Skytec starters at 8+ lbs. less than

the

old style originals.(and I don't think anyone wants to start by hand prop
anymore) Lightweight alternators, either the Nipco supplied buy
Murphy(with
the engine mt. kit) or the really small 40amp(6 lbs. less than standard))
ones Ron Newburg sells (Ron, since closing the engine shop, only
advertises
as Niagara Air Parts in Trade a Plane with a Niagara Falls Shipping
address)
His shop is still located on HWY 11 north of Orillia though and he flys
stock back and forth in his twin commanche!(I have one of his alternators
in
stock c/w a case mount bracket-$300.00cdn)The new alum case vacuum pumps
only weight about a pound, so not very significant but removal of the
gears
that drive it would cut some more weight although the problem with using

a

venturi is that it will probably kill 5MPH of your cruise.(they create a
lot
of drag to pull that 5" of vacuum. The other big thing as you said is the
prop. A Warp Drive weighs in at about 11.6 lbs.(bolts and all) as

compared

to a new Sensenich 74-DM-7S8-56 that weighs in at 40lbs(c/w 2" spacer and
bolts) If weight is a big issue that almost 30 lbs.. is a big deal! But
there is just something about that solid aluminum prop out there that
makes
the plane seem to fly better!(compared to my warp drive'd one) Maybe it's
just my inner self telling me I paid $3 big bills for it and it has to be
better than the $1500.00 Warp Drive. Who knows??

Wayne

-----Original Message-----
From: C&P Kucera <cpkucera@idirect.com>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Date: Saturday, December 04, 1999 1:17 PM
Subject: O-320 MOUNT AND WEIGHT

Thanks for your replies Wayne and Ken!!!
Another way to reduce stresses on the firewall would be the seemingly
impossible task of getting the engine weight down. I read an article
somewhere a while ago about a company in California that can lighten up
Lycoming engines making mods and using lighter materials. It sounded

very

expensive. I wonder what mods can be done inexpensively without
compromising
safety and reliability. Any pounds shed particularly farther away from
the
firewall like at the front of the engine will reduce the torque loading
at
the firewall. Using a composite prop is an obvious solution. I heard
about
lighter alternators, even saw a wind driven type. Not sure what one can
do
about those heavy magnetos and the starter. I heard about a starter that
can
also charge battery once the engine starts.
Replacing the vac pump with a venturi should help. Something should be
possible with the muffler without adding too much noise.
I know that beefing up the firewall is easier and probably cheaper than
the
above ideas and I will most likely go that route myself but keeping the
weight down is also a part of the homebuilding fun.
Each mod may not seem like much weight saving but adding them all up may
amount to something significant. Any tips on this would be much
appreciated.
Paul Kucera

Rebel builder 453R

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne G. O'Shea <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: Murphy Rebel Builders List <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: REBEL O-320 ENGINE MOUNT, HELP!!!

trussed

at
engine.

engines.

cooler

mag

on
a

done)

The
loose
flanges(similar
to
Mount.
prop
buckle
all bulk Last
the
about
bolts
tubes
160

crossbraced

to
the
rigid,
like

the

where
I
source
not

at

this
heavy
much
as
good
this *----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*
*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

*----------------------------------------------------*
The Murphy Rebel Builders List is for the discussion
between builders and owners of Murphy Rebel aircraft.
Archives located at:
http://www.dcsol.com/murphy-rebel/lists/default.htm
*----------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------