maxwell’s subie— a long way from its nsi roots · a few story ideas for your newsletter. the...

Volume 2 - Issue 4 Fourth Quarter 2008

$5.50 US

Maxwell’s Subie— A Long Way From Its NSI Roots

By Marc Cook

continued on 1

The NSI Subaru engine conversion story has been told many times around the GlaStar campfire. By now it’s also well understood that Dr. John and Gwen Maxwell didn’t intend to get into the alternative engine business, but found themselves there nevertheless, picking up the pieces of the failed NSI enterprise.

Over the last few issues of the Flyer, Gwen herself has described the evolution of the company’s product, and has done a great job of explaining the thought processes involved in updating the engine-firewall-forward package (in particular

an entirely new PSRU design) and the development track for airframe-specific installations.

All well and good, but I’m all about seeing the proof, so I stopped in at Arlington this summer to fly the Maxwell Dreamliner, a Sportsman 2+2. It was on prominent dis-play this summer at AirVenture, of course, and Gwen reports substantial interest in the project. Craig Woolman and Dominic A c i a

were on hand at Oshkosh and during my visit to answer questions. Dominic has just concluded his military stint and is full time at Maxwell.

In case you’re not familiar

GlaStar & Sportsman Flyer 2 Fourth Quarter 2008

a quarterly publication of the

GlaStar & Sportsman Association International

Editor and Publisher

Marc Cook

Regional Contributors

Dick King, Midwest US

Dave Prizio, Southwest US

Jane Grove, South Pacific

Simon Jarman, Europe

Kathy Sutton, Canada

Web Site

www.glastar.org

Email

[email protected]

Mailing Address

203 Argonne Ave, Suite B105

Long Beach, CA 90803

Phone (562) 608-8638

Fax (562) 372-3288

Back issues $5.50 plus shipping

© Copyright 2008. All rights reserved

GlaStar® is a registered trademark of Glasair Aviation

LLC. The trademark symbol is not shown throughout this

publication merely for convenience.

Contents of this issue...Features

1 Maxwell Propulsion’s Subaru-based Firewall Forward Package By Marc Cook4 First Flight: Walter Hiltebrand, HB-YKP6 First Flight (Follow Up): Rex Ott, N390TT8 Supplier News: Pillar Point Avionics Set to Close By Dennis Douglas 9 Supplier News: AirlinkTECH Closing Shop10 New Products: Ted Setzer’s Amazing You-Can’t-Live-Without-It Spreader Bar15 Avionics: Dynon Autopilot Software Released, Servos To Come In Early 2009 By Marc Cook16 Blast From The Past: Recollections Of The Early Days Of Glasair By Ted Setzer18 NTSB Report on Iverson GlaStar Accident19 Powerplants: An Expensive Lesson Learned By Michael Lott 21 Legalities: Are ADs Mandatory For Experimentals? A GlastarNet Discussion22 Builder Tips: Updating To The New Sportsman Fuel Vent System By Ted Setzer26 Builder Tips: Swagelok Tech By Ted Setzer

Regular Columns3 GSAI FlightDeck5 Aviation News27 StarFlight Achievement Awards28 Calendar

Fourth Quarter 2008 3 GlaStar & Sportsman Flyer

GSAI Flight Deck

Starting on a happy note, this issue of the Flyer marks Ted Setzer’s return to our pages, and the both of us are happy about it. Ted and I had lunch this summer dur-ing my visit to Arlington, and he suggested a few story ideas for your newsletter. The first of them appears in this issue, and Ted has proven to be a facile and fast writer; expect a lot more in the coming year. Put

it this way, Ted knows the GlaStar and Sportsman aircraft inside and out. His con-tributions will be incredibly valuable.

In this issue of the Flyer, you’ll see Michael Lott’s story of an overhaul gone wrong. There is some background to this tale, as Michael and I had a fair bit of back and forth on the GlastarNet forum as well as some one-on-one correspondence try-ing to get to the bottom of his engine’s high cylinder-head temps. It was clear to me at the time that he was working hard toward a resolution and wanted, more than

Renewal ReminderFirst of all, thanks to the substantial portion of the GlaStar & Sportsman Association members who renewed early this year. It helps your assocation to keep the lights on. For those who haven’t renewed for 2009, please do so soon. dues will be going up on January 1 for all new members. For renewing members, the old rate will be extended to February 1, 2009. After that time, annual dues will go from $44 to $48. Membership forms can be downloaded from www.glastar.org/registration.php. Checks can be mailed to GSAI, 203 Argonne Ave, Suite B105, Long Beach, CA 90803; faxed to 562-372-3288; or emailed to [email protected]. Thanks for your support.

anything, to be flying the airplane he’d just spent four years building. When he began suspecting the camshaft and roller lifters, I was surprised; of the causes for high tem-peratures, the valvetrain is seldom at the top of the list.

Turns out he had good reason to suspect something amiss with the aftermarket roller lifters—which are neither Lycoming’s nor Superior’s versions—based on conversations he had with his overhauler. In fact, the clues that trouble was waiting were there even before his first flight. (Hindsight is 20/20.)

I’ll leave the rest of the story to Michael, but would like to offer a few bits of advice for those of you who still have not pur-chased your engine.

First, there is no such thing as a “can’t miss deal” in aircraft engines, particularly for the very popular O-360 series. It isn’t there, so stop looking. When you find an engine that’s surprisingly inexpensive, there’s a reason, like it needs thousands of dollars worth of parts, the engine might need substantial case, crank or accessory section rework, or any number of other things—an outdated oil pump, for instance—that will require an infusion of cash before the engine is airworthy.

Second, when dealing with a shop, get everything in writing. What is the shop responsible for during the overhaul? What happens if the core you provide has parts that can’t be overhauled? It’s imperative that you come to an agreement about all aspects of the overhaul or engine build before the shop has your money or your parts. Period, end of this discussion.

Ted Setzer, hard at work, using his head.

Third, which components are included in the overhaul or build? You need to budget for the obvious stuff like magne-tos (or electronic ignition), carburetor or fuel injection, alternator, starter and other accessories. Generally, these items are well understood and spelled out in a purchase agreement. But what about fittings and hoses?

Fourth, and finally, I strongly discourage all but the most mechanically adept, well funded and patient builders from trying to mix-and-match critical components. We tend to forget that Lycoming (and the aftermarket) has thousands of test hours on the most important components. “I think that will work” and “I can do that better” are two phrases that should send up the warning signal every time. •

Engine Decisions and A Welcome (Back) to Ted

By Marc Cook


Walter HiltebrandHB-YKP

On Tuesday, October 7, 2008, GlaStar No. 5083 did its maiden flight, close to the famous “Rheinfall.” Walter Hiltebrand, very well known for his high mechanical skills, was behind the controls when GlaStar HB-YMQ jumped into the air for the first time at 3:02 p.m. local time. It flew like an angel, just didn’t want to slow down with the cruise prop. Uneventfully, HB-YMQ touched down at 3:40 local time to end the first flight. Walter will now start the detailed Swiss flight test program, to verify performance parameters. All this took place on the airfield “Schmerlat” (LSPF) close to Schaffhausen, Switzerland. HB-YMQ is a TD, equipped with a Lycoming O-360-A4M, one magneto, one side an electronic ignition. Driven from that combina-tion is a Prince prop P68AT78LK. The airplane weighs 1320 pounds empty, doors and latches as well as the wing folding mechanism are fitted with a one-handle operation system. All surfaces are flush riveted and polished to a mirror-like finish. The fuselage is spray-painted in yellow. This is the third GlaStar flying in Switzerland six more still under construction. •

First Flights


The FAA reopened the comment period for the “51% Rule” changes through December 15, and is expected to reconvene the Advisory Rulemaking Committee in January to take up the issue of recasting the Advisory Circulars to reduce “excessive use of commercial assis-tance.” Industry watchers predict another round of drafts before a final ruling is reached. They also suggest that with a new administration in the wings, the FAA has bigger fish to fry.

The FAA “signs off on” Two Weeks To Taxi. The following press notice was released by Glasair Aviation in November:

During the week of November 3, 2008, members of the FAA’s Production and Airworthiness Division (AIR-200) traveled to Glasair Aviation’s facility in Arlington, Washington to review Glasair’s “Two Weeks To Taxi” program in terms of whether or not such a program could com-ply with the “major portion” requirement of Part 21, Section 21.191(g). The FAA’s on-site team found that the “lean manu-facturing” processes employed, combined with the provided educational assistance, accelerates the Sportsman build time sig-nificantly without violating the spirit or intent of Part 21, Section 21.191(g).

“We couldn’t be more excited about the results of this visit by the FAA” says Glasair’s CEO Mikael Via. “I want to sin-cerely thank Mr. Frank Paskiewicz, head of the FAA’s production and airworthiness division, for bringing his team all the way from Washington, D.C. to take a look at the unique opportunity we’ve developed at Glasair.”

Paskiewicz and the FAA’s Amateur-Built Rulemaking Committee have been at the center of vigorous public debate on pro-posed new policies for administering and

enforcing the 51 percent rule for amateur-built aircraft.

Glasair’s “Two Weeks to Taxi” Program had been somewhat controversial since its introduction in 2006 because it is the first program ever developed which allows builders access to a very organized, system-atic course that takes them on a step by step building program that ends with their airplane taxing from the hangar under its own power.

“We have worked very, very hard to develop a program that makes aircraft building more accessible, more organized, and as efficient as possible, while staying within the letter and spirit of the amateur built rule,” says Via. This new finding from the FAA will allow Glasair’s Two Weeks to Taxi program to grow and expand.

Glasair’s Two Weeks to Taxi program recently celebrated its 100th customer-built aircraft.

According to the Energy Information Agency, “The average U.S. prices for regular-grade gasoline and diesel fuel, at $1.70 and $2.52 per gallon respectively on December 8, were both more than $2 per gallon below their highs in mid-July. With the assumption of a frag-ile economy throughout 2009, along with lower projected crude oil prices, annual average retail gasoline and diesel fuel prices in 2009 are projected to be $2.03 and $2.47 per gallon, respectively.”

Rocky Mountain Fly In set for 2009. A new fly-in event to be held at the Rocky Mountain Metro Airport (KBJC) happens this summer—August 22-23. For more information, click on over to www.cosportaviation.org. •

Aviation NewsAIRCRAFTSPRUCE &SPECIALTY

INSTRUMENTS AVIONICS

HEADSETS PILOT SUPPLIES

LANDING GEAR ENGINE PARTS

Your one stop for all your pilot supplies and aircraft needs.

1-877-4-SPRUCECALL TOLL FREE

7 7 7 8 2 3

www.aircraftspruce.com

HARDWARE METAL

AIRCRAFT SPRUCE EAST452 Dividend Drive

Peachtree City, GA 30269Ph: (770) 487-2310

AIRCRAFT SPRUCE WEST225 Airport Circle

Corona, CA 92880-2527Ph: (951) 372-9555 Fax: (951) 372-0555

AIRCRAFT SPRUCE CANADA1760 Meyerside Dr., Unit 5Mississauga, ON, L5T 1A3

Ph: (905) 795-2278(877) 795-2278

ALL NEW FREEFull Color Pilot Shop Catalog!

FREE800 Page Parts

Catalog!


Rex OttN390TT

First Flights (Follow Up)

I’m finally getting around to sending you the info on N390TT.

After 34 months and 2700 hours of labor, on August 29, 2008, my DAR signed 390TT’s paper and said she was fit to fly. After careful discussion with her pilot—that would be me—who had never flown a GlaStar before, everyone decided it was time to go fly. Three high-speed taxi tests and one crow hop later on our 2200-foot grass strip, and 390TT was lined up for takeoff.

Full throttle, release the brakes, a short roll and wow we’re in the air. I climbed out to 3000 feet, circled overhead, checked the

instruments, then tried a couple of stalls. Not wanting the first landing to be on a short strip, off we went to Mt Pleasant, Iowa, about 10 miles away. Two touch & goes were followed by a landing and taxi back for takeoff.

I thought the grass take off was wow, but on the concrete it was really short, about 500 feet into a 5 mph wind. After takeoff , I went back to our grass strip for an unevent-ful landing, finding the GlaStar really loves grass. What a great plane to fly!

N390TT has a Lycoming 0-320 of 150 horsepower turning a Sensenich, 74x62 prop. I used the 150-hp 0-320 because I

wanted to burn mogas and also to keep the fuel burn down. So far this seems to work well as I’m about 20 hours into the test period and the results are as follows, all done on a 78° F day.

Weight: 1265 pounds. Stall, no flaps: 48 knots indicated. Stall, full flaps: 42 knots indicated. CHT during climb: 290, 285, 355, 335.CHT in cruise: 320, 330, 390, 380.Takeoff roll, grass: 800 feet.Landing roll, grass: 900 feet.Rate of climb at 75 knots, 1200 fpm.Rate of climb at 85 knots: 800 fpm.GPS two-way test at 3000 feet, 75%


power: 120 knots. At 6000 feet, 75% power: 125 knots. At 8000 feet, 70% power: 128 knots.

I’m getting close on my settings on the fuel computer and it looks like I’m running about 7.8 gph average for cruise/climb etc. I may have to tweak the prop a little as I can exceed 2700 rpm at 6000 feet. Maybe can pick up a few knots also!

I’ve been flying full flap approaches into my 2200-foot grass strip using 55 knots on final and this seems to work fine as I usually

have to apply power to make the 1200-foot taxiway turnoff. Takeoffs are rotated at 50 knots [about 800 feet] and she accelerates rapidly to 75 knots. I am usually about 200 feet high as I cross the end of the strip.

After about 20 hours, the only prob-lems so far have been heavy right wing, high EGT on No. 3 cylinder (both fixed), and gremlins with the Garmin SL30 (still chasing them). I included CHTs in the accompanying data as this has been a lively topic on the GlastarNet; as you can see,

my engine runs cool. I still have not gotten around to finishing the decaling and the wheel pant fairings. I’ll finish the odds and ends this winter after flying off the hours. I’m running a little heavy on weight but have a full glass/IFR panel, leather seats, cable covers, etc. The weight gives me an incentive to lose pounds off my airframe. If you look closely at the pictures, you might see my flight engineer. He’s Jake, a Jack Russell terrier, and he loves to fly. This winter he’ll get his own seat in the back. •


Pillar Point Avionics ClosingBy Dennis Douglas

Supplier News

Pillar Point Avionics (PPAv) has decided to close the business, effective December 31, 2008. I know that many of you out there in GlaStar/Sportsman land will be upset by this news but in the current economic environment, with our small, single-prod-uct operation it just doesn’t make sense for us to continue.

PPAv has a very small advertising bud-get, and usually sells in quantities of ones and twos to a small percentage of custom-ers in the already small area of amateur-built aircraft. I am confident that, had we advertised heavily, sought STCs for the UFS and widely promoted the sensors

in other market areas we could have sold many more. But doing that would have required far more capital than we had.

Facet’s decision to change the design of their 40171 had a big effect on the sales of our XFR controller and we discontinued that product line in 2004. The UFS-T/POPO was a good alternative to an auto-mated transfer pump controller and we did sell a lot of those but the sales since September have tapered off significantly. Our UFS low fuel sensor has been a good-selling product that has found its way into many airplanes besides the GlaStar and Sportsman. But the Wall Street calamity

has taken a toll on us and many others in the amateur-built sector. We decided that since we didn’t have a diversified product line, that it was just better to close.

I feel badly that we’ll be leaving many of our customers without support, and that we’ll miss the opportunity to provide sensor systems to future customers. Our sensors are really useful and I think they should be standard safety equipment for every airplane. We are actively looking for someone who is interested in acquiring PPAv’s assets: the remaining inventory, the designs, software, tooling, goodwill, and so on. If someone steps up to that, the prod-uct line will continue. If not, well….

I will continue to help our existing cus-tomers as best I can. If you have a problem with one of PPAv’s products, call me at 541-350-2683 and I’ll provide whatever support or information I can to help you.

We began Pillar Point Avionics in 1998 and it has been a fun ten years. Thank you all for your support over the past 10 years and the pleasure of talking to you about your airplanes and related projects. I would say “I’ll miss that” but I’m sure I’ll still see some of you at Arlington or one of the other fly-ins and the talking will con-tinue. Until then, continue to build, and fly safely.

Postscript: Days after notice of PPAv’s closing hit the GlastarNet site, Dennis was contacted by several builders wanting to pur-chase new or spare components, to the extent that he has sold out of the XFR-J and UFS components, seen at left.•

Dennis Douglas (upper left) with his GlaStar. The optical fluid sensors are his company’s design.


AirlinkTECH Is Also Closing

Supplier News

We received news in November that GlaStar builder support and accessory manufacturer AirlinkTECH will be closing shop at the end of 2008. Wolf Espenhahn said that the two-seat GlaStar mar-ket is “drying up.” But, he said, “I’m not jumping off the edge, just closing shop.” As we went to press, Wolf had posted a short list of existing inventory and stated that he would be taking orders for custom fairing parts into 2009. “I can be reached at 561/252-5714 as before or at my personal email address, [email protected].” •


New Products

Ted Setzer’s Amazing You-Can’t-Live-Without-It Spreader Bar

This just in from Ted Setzer at the factory: I’ve had a few requests from Sportsman owners to fabricate a spreader bar for lifting the Sportsman. Now that I’ve built a few, I can easily do more. These will come complete with the quick pins and powdercoat finish, and will simplify the process of hoisting the Sportsman from a single point for putting on floats or changing landing-gear setup really easy. The spreader bar will cost $289 plus shipping. Anyone interested in ordering can reach me at [email protected] or 425/319-1733. •

Ted’s spreader bar grabs the cage at the upper eye hooks, spreads the load and stabilizes the airplane while it’s hoisted.

Deciding on an aviation insurance agent for your Glastar or Sports-man can be complicated and confusing. You want someone who knows the planes and people that build them. Whether you are still building or already flying, student or ATP, SkySmith can help you get the coverage that fits your needs. SkySmith knows Glastars and Sportsmans and what it takes to get your plane flying.

If the airplane matters, the agency matters!

Glastar and Sportsman Insurance

Contact us for a quote

today. (800)743-1439 * (515)289-1439

Or log on our website www.SkySmith.com

To fill out a quote request.

SkySmith Insurance Agency


with the current format, understand that Maxwell starts with new Subaru EJ25 engine components purchased locally. Components is the key term here, because this is not a totally off-the-shelf setup. While the old NSI conversion had many special parts and machining/assembly processes, the Maxwell conversion is, by design, much simpler. It starts with the engine block slated for the WRX STi auto-mobile—capable of 300-plus horsepower. The aluminum block features a stronger casting with internal risers inside the water jackets; they significantly improve the strength of the block assembly. These cases are one piece from the crankshaft split line to the junction of the cylinder heads—in all, a typically modern, weight-efficient, production-smart design. I spent quite a bit of time in Maxwell’s shop, in part because I was waiting for weather to improve in Arlington—imagine that! And I kept gravitating back to the raw engine components, marveling at this finish and clever engineering touches that come out the more you look at them. Subaru might not be Ferrari, but the quality of the core engine is, to my eye, excellent.

Maxwell departs from Subaru conven-tion by mating different heads to the STi block. Simply put, the double overhead cam layout of the STi engine is unneces-sary in this application, so instead the Maxwell conversion employs the lighter four-valve, single-cam heads—a good solu-tion that sacrifices no power or torque at the speeds the engine is likely to see in the aircraft. Belts drive the cams from the fire-wall end of the engine.

In the bores are forged pistons with the turbo’s modest 8:1 compression ratio; the normally aspirated versions of the EJ25 typically use 10:1 pistons. This reduced compression ratio serves two purposes:

providing additional detonation margin in an engine expected to work much harder than it does in a car, and making a later turbo model a simpler upgrade. Unlike the previous NSI iterations, the Maxwell-tuned Subaru is almost completely stock parts—no special cams or valves. (NSI was in the habit of mating EJ20 heads to the EJ25 bottom end, with many specialized parts.) As a result, continued maintenance of the engines should be possible with or without Maxwell Propulsion still in the picture.

Most of the induction system is stock—save for the specially designed and locally produced throttle body, which is much simpler than the stocker because it carries no emissions-control gear. The exhaust is aircraft-specific, as it would have to be to avoid the heavy, power-sapping catalytic converters from the car.

Maxwell has continued to develop the Subaru’s support systems. To ensure proper cooling, a large radiator stretches

Alternative Engines: Maxwell

The 2.5-liter Subaru flat four is a good fit in the Sportsman cowling.

continued From Page 1

Ducts in the sides of the lower cowling bring fresh air from the standard forward-facing inlets back to the firewall-mounted radiator.


across the firewall of the firm’s Sportsman test mule; cool air is fed from the standard inlets along twin channels outboard of the engine. The Subie is so much narrower than an angle-valve Lycoming that there’s ample room for these ducts.

Spark and fuel are delivered electroni-cally. Maxwell uses twin injection and ignition computers (engine control units)

paralleled. Only one operates at a time, but failure of one simply means reversion to the other fully featured channel; because they have equal capabilities, you really can’t call one primary and one secondary. A third box, the Engine Management System con-troller, manages both ECUs and the elec-tric propeller. The system remains singular in places. There is one spark plug and fuel

injector per cylinder, bone stock Subaru items that have a proven life in cars.

Maxwell has done something clever here. When you are ready to install your kit, send the company the desired harness lengths. You’ll receive professional look-ing, strain-relieved fully tested harnesses in return. Given that many amateur-builder miscues involve wiring, this is a great service.

Where NSI arguably had the most trou-ble was with the propeller speed reduction unit (PSRU). Maxwell has completely abandoned the old design and started

Top row: Much of the stock Subaru intake system remains, but Maxwell has a proprietary, simplified throttle body. Bottom row: Not only are the PSRU’s internals beefier, the aluminum case is more robust than the NSI part. With everything in place, the Subaru seems right at home on the nose of the Sportsman.

Alternative Engines: Maxwell


of the prop setting. The cur-rent system, with an electric pitch-change mechanism in a proprietary hub mated to Whirlwind composite blades, is not automatic. It acts like a fixed-pitch prop that you can adjust in flight. As such, you must determine a proper pitch setting for takeoff to keep from exceeding redline. I suspect that once you have lived with the system, this step will become second nature. For me, it seemed a lot fussier than simply jam-ming the blue knob into the instrument panel.

Initial takeoff perfor-mance is reasonably good with two aboard (estimated at 2050 pounds all up, against a max gross of 2350), with the engine note turning strident at the takeoff setting of 5200 rpm. With obstacles cleared, you can pull back to 5000 rpm, which quiets some of the din and nets a 700-fpm rate of climb. (For

fresh. The 2.13:1 reduction is achieved through a simple, helical-cut spur gear, the drive shaft at crankshaft level, and the prop-drive (driven) shaft just above it. Yet, the devil remains in the details. Maxwell tested several iterations to check on dam-aging harmonics between the prop and the engine (and airframe/engine mount). The final iteration starts with a full-size flywheel/starter ring. Eight elastomeric bushings are pressed into an aluminum carrier, which are then bolted to the fly-wheel. The carrier uses a central pilot bear-ing extending into the crankshaft bore for alignment. The drive gear rides on the splined end of this carrier shaft where it slides into the overhung PSRU body.

Prop loads are borne by a massive shaft carried fore and aft by roller- and ball-element bearings. And the entire PSRU is bolted to the bell housing of the engine by a thick machined-aluminum plate and anodized spacers. (The starter mounts to the engine plate as well, this time an off-the-shelf item, not a modified part.) Maxwell had examples of the old NSI gearbox on hand to hold and photograph next to the current parts, and the differ-ences are astonishing. If material size and overall “beef” are among the ingredients for a good PSRU, the Maxwell is off to a good start. Rated TBO is 1500 hours with a total weight of 72 pounds.

I spent a cloudy afternoon (imagine that!) flying with Ephraim Carter, on loan after hours from Glasair Aviation, in the Maxwell Dreamliner. It’s a nicely built ship with some great ideas in the panel, including a centrally located Dynon EMS-D120 engine monitor. Ephraim allowed me left seat and I asked him to hold a video camera as my way of getting pure hands-on time. (Wasn’t necessary, as he was com-pletely calm through the entire flight.)

Rated for 165 hp at 5500 rpm, the Subaru causes the factory’s Sportsman to perform as you’d expect. Startup is turn-the-key simple, and the engine settles into a pleasant idle. Runup is fairly routine except you have to do a quick confirmation

For 23 YearsBPE has provided the highest quality engine work for many of the world’s most successful pilots.

• New Lycoming and Superior Experimental Engines• Introducing the Lancair Reno Edition IO-550 and TSIO-550 series• All Overhauls to Factory New Limits• Experimental High Performance Modifications• Verifiable Test Cell Data on Every Engine• Prop Strike Inspections FAA CRS

Q8RR231Y

Where Precision Yields Performance

Call Today (918) 835-1089 • www.barret tprec is ionengines.com

The Maxwell PSRU parts are stacked on the left, NSI on the right.

perspective, my own Sportsman, with 215 hp, would be doing twice the climb


rate at 100 knots instead of 80 indicated.) Cooling performance is very good, eas-ily maintaining 180° F coolant temp and 215° oil temp at 4900 to 5000 rpm. Fuel flow in the climb started out at 14 gph and was 10.7 gph at the top of the climb to nearly more than 6000 feet (density altitude of 8000 feet). All of this was on a day with moderate (below 70°) ambient temperatures.

We performed cruise checks at altitude. The process of setting up for cruise is sim-ple, though not fully automatic. As you

level off, let the airspeed creep up, toggle a bit more pitch into the prop to keep close to the desired engine rpm. Naturally, the airplane accelerates a bit more, so you must repeat the process until, finally, equi-librium sets in. At 4800 engine rpm, the Maxwell Sportsman shows 116 knots indi-cated, 130 knots true on 9.9 gph. A two-way GPS run verified the speed calculated on the Dynon EFIS. Pull back to a more modest 4250 engine rpm, and you’ll see a true airspeed of 122 knots on 7.4 gph.

How does that compare with a

Lycoming? Given that a 180-hp Sportsman is capable of 137 KTAS on 10 gph (give or take), the Maxwell Subaru is in the ballpark. Current ECU mapping keeps the Subie from going aggressively lean at higher power settings, which gives the Lycoming a slight edge here. If the Subaru sacrifices a few efficiency points, it at least gives back ease of operation—aside from the need to set the prop pitch before take-off (and once more back in the pattern before landing). Truthfully, I can beat those efficiency numbers by aggressively leaning my IO-390, but I’ll almost always use more fuel from point to point, and I do have to leave part of my brain engaged in the engine-management loop. The Maxwell installation is, aside from setting the prop, virtually hands off.

Costs round out the equation, of course, and here the Maxwell is in line with tra-ditional powerplants. A package price of $29,540 gets you the engine, propeller, sys-tems and electronics. Add around $2300 for airframe-specific engine mounts—cur-rently available for the GlaStar and two-seat, side-by-side RVs. Firewall-forward, your costs are going to be close to a new Experimental-class IO-320 Lycoming, constant-speed prop, governor and acces-sories. In theory, reduced overhaul and ongoing costs tip the bargain in favor of the Subaru. For more information, visit www.maxwellpropulsion.com. •

Below: The turbocharged STi block has cylinder barrel supports inside the water jackets that make it stronger than the non-turbo block. Bottom: Four valves per cylinder are operated by single cams through rocker arms tipped with threaded adjusters.

Craig Woolman wheels the turbocharged version into the dyno for testing. Development of 195- and 240-hp variants is ongoing.


Avionics

Dynon Avionics has finalized Version 5.0 of its EFIS and EMS operating software that enables the just-released autopilot ser-vos. Builders in the RV world are already

enjoying the autopilot, but GlaStar and Sportsman builders will have to wait just a bit longer. The company has not yet spooled up production of the capstan ser-vos; the arm-style servos have been the pri-ority so far. Dynon expects to be shipping the capstan models soon after the first of the year.

Updating the story from the Third Quarter 2008 Flyer: Dynon worked through several more software releases before kicking 5.0 out the door. Among the adjustments were a substantial over-haul of knob functions, allowing a more

intuitive method of setting heading, alti-tude and barometric pressure. I’m happy to say that Dynon really listened to its beta testers on these issues and quickly came

up with alternative methods that worked much better in the aircraft—as opposed to on the bench. The engineers also con-tinue to tweak the trim-sensing algorithms and annunciation techniques. In general, the flying qualities get better with every iteration and even at this early stage, the Dynon autopilot flies the Sportsman like a much more mature product. (And if you’re coming out of a spam can with an old-school analog autopilot, it’ll seem like a magic carpet.)

Dynon shipped 5.0 and the AP74 with full two-axis, HDG, TRK (track) and GPS

NAV functions; in fact, you don’t need the external AP74 module for any of these functions, but I’ve flown a bit without the knob and dedicated autopilot controls and can’t imagine doing without them.

As this is written, a minor upgrade to 5.0 is being circulated among beta testers that will change the way the autopilot responds when engaged—it won’t automatically sync the altitude bug to the current alti-tude, for example—and will enable track-ing a VOR when the signal comes from a Garmin SL-30 or a 430/530 through the HS34 ARINC module. Full coupling to ILS or WAAS-GPS signals won’t come until the AP76 module is released and tested sometime in early 2009. •

Advanced Flight’s Autopilot

In December, Aerotronics announced that it would be distributing a new autopilot from EFIS maker Advanced Flight Systems. In fact, this is a collaborative effort between AFS and TruTrak to allow the EFIS to control a pair of conventional TruTrak servos. The details of the system had not been released at press time, including prices. Check out www.aerotronics.com, www.advancedflightsystems.com and www.trutrak.com for more information. •

Dynon Autopilot Software Available, Servos To Come In Early 2009

By Marc Cook

Another prototype panel for N30KP...with the AP74 mounting horizontally and the new Garmin GPSMAP696 under evaluation.


Tom wasn’t going to be the first to design an all composite aircraft. European sailplane manufacturers and Burt Rutan had earned that merit badge. Tom’s unique goal was to design the world’s first female molded, all-composite kit plane to reduce the countless hours and unnecessary weight of sanding, filling, sanding, filling, sanding, sanding, and sanding required of the Quickie and Varieze type designs.

Tom also wanted to reduce the time and hassle of building an amateur-built plane by including as much as possible in kit form.

Editor’s note: The following series originally appeared on the old Stoddard-Hamilton News magazines “back in the day.” Ted was keen to revive the stories so that new mem-bers of the GlaStar and Sportsman family can fully appreciate the development process behind their airplanes. .

The Founders of Stoddard-HamiltonIn the beginning was Tom Hamilton— in his father’s garage designing a tandem, two seat airplane made of composite fiber-glass materials—around 1975-76.

Blast from the Past

For the first two or three years, this was a spare-time-only project, as Tom was a full time student (along with this historian) at the University of Washington in the pre-dentistry curriculum.

I think Tom and I would have made fine dentists. We both volunteered a few days per week after school at the Seattle Indian Health Board Dental Clinic. I’ll bet we did more hands-on than most first or second year dental students. (We sure perfected the techniques for pulling teeth!)

I’ll never forget the day Tom got the bug to switch careers from vacuuming mouths to vacuum bagging composites. I stopped by to pick up Tom and his roommate Dave for our weekly game of racquetball. Tom was engrossed in a large drawing of an air-plane stretched across the kitchen table. Dave announced that Tom had abandoned his dentistry aspirations, was designing an airplane and switching his major to busi-ness. The whole time Dave was speaking he was making funny circular motions around his ear with his index finger. (Tom was too busy with his drawing to notice).

I was speechless. Tom had endured four years of genetics, embryology, inorganic and organic chemistry, only to switch his major in his senior year. It wasn’t a joke. Tom was serious. I told him he was nuts. If I hadn’t thought he was plumb crazy I would have experienced feelings of abandonment—after all, we had shared so much together, like deciphering thousands of cross sectional slides of pig embryos. All that useful pig embryo information gone to waste...obviously no application toward

Recollections of the Early Days of Glasair

By Ted Setzer

So much younger, then. Circa 1987, already a decade into building aircraft, are (left to right), Tom Hamilton, Bruce Hamilton, Bob Gavinsky and Ted Setzer. The airplane is the now-retired Glasair III prototype, N540RG.


aircraft.Tom endured a fifth year at the univer-

sity, earning a degree in business adminis-tration and studying aerodynamic design and theory from books and engineering professors. Tom calls it an “unarticulated approach” to his aircraft design eduction. I think that means he chose what he wanted to study in the aircraft design courses offered rather than having to endure thousands of hours studying thin, cross-sectional slides of airplane embryos under a microscope. I went on to apply to dental school and was turned down.

Two weeks after receiving my “Dear John” dental school letter I was in Kodiak, Alaska, grading halibut for a cannery to earn enough money to apply to expensive private dental schools where the odds for admission were better than 150:1. Before I left I called Tom to say goodbye and tell him he was crazy one more time. I ended up spending three years in Alaska earning tough money on a shrimp trawler. While I was gone, Tom designed, built and test flew the SH-1; a small tan-dem two-seat, low-wing, composite speed-ster. (His brother Bruce affectionately named it the “Pocket Rocket” because it had approach speeds of approximately 135 MPH).

After test flying it a few times and repairing broken landing gear, Tom’s dad, Roger, encouraged him to abandon the SH-1 design and start again. Tom listened to his father’s advice and included his older brother Steve as a partner. Steve was an engineer at Boeing and enlisted part-time assistance from others in his design group for the next version—the SH-2—otherwise known as the Glasair.

So we have the fledgling company with Roger as financier (mostly supplying resin, cloth, sandpaper, peanut butter and jelly), older brother Steve as chief engineer, and Tom as designer, manufacturing and mate-rials investigator and every other duty you

can think of involved with making tooling as well as fabricating and assembling a pro-totype airplane.

Midway through the tooling I returned from Alaska with the idea of obtaining a pilot’s license and going back to be a bush pilot. (I figured it was a safer occupation than commercial fishing). I tracked down Tom Hamilton in a barn converted to a hangar at the Cedar Grove Airport—more popularly known as the pig farm because it had been the largest pig farming operation west of the Mississippi River before some-one graded a crude runway alongside the rows of pig barns and called it an airport.

Tom got me started with flying lessons (out of the pig farm, of course) and when not flying, I started taking an interest in the Glasair project by helping out with tooling.

When the Glasair design and engineer-

ing was 90% complete, Tom’s brother Steve tragically ended his life. I clearly remember the family grief and despair, searching for answers that wouldn’t come.

Tom talked of ending the project. How could he replace Steve? What followed were very sad and painful days for Tom and his family.

We both kept showing up at the pig farm each day and stoked-up the wood stove. We spread Bondo and sanded endlessly. We listened to Chuck Swindoll on the radio each day and put our trust in God to guide our steps and bless our efforts.

Several months after Steve’s death, Tom and Roger offered me a share of the com-pany in exchange for a commitment of my time and sanding talents. Two others joined the company shortly thereafter, exchanging effort for ownership: Tom’s younger brother, Bruce Hamilton, and Bob Gavinsky, an engineer to replace Steve.

Founders of most under-capitalized start-up companies likely could fill vol-umes with stories of beginning struggles, entrepreneurial spirit and dogged deter-mination. We were no exception.

I’ll never forget the low-overhead pig farm. Our first shop was a 15 x 30 foot pig barn, which we insulated by stapling a thin sheet of plastic to the inside rafters and walls. Bob’s drafting room consisted of a small walled-in space at the back of the shop not any bigger than a walk-in closet. We spend almost as much time cutting and splitting firewood for the long winters as we did developing airplanes.

To heat the shop we welded up two horizontal 55-gallon drums connected together with a short piece of stove pipe and installed one of those cast iron barrel stove kits on the lower drum. The set-up radiated plenty of cheap heat.

One particularly cold winter morning, I was trying to kindle the fire with wet wood. Frustrated, having no luck and completely out of

newspaper, I went out to the nearest air-plane with a cup and drained some gas. I expected the smoldering embers to torch off the gas, but the gas didn’t ignite. After several minutes had passed (and the gas vapors had undoubtedly filled both bar-rels and all the stove pipe up and out of the shop), Tom offered to help. He bent down over the bottom drum with the door ajar and struck a match. KaBOOM!!

We now had a fire burning kindling wood all over the floor rather than in the stove. The stove pipe came crashing down and the shop quickly filled with smoke. We could have had the fire contained more quickly, but we were laughing so hard we couldn’t function for several minutes.

To balance our 60 to 70-hour work weeks (Sunday was the only day we didn’t work), we decided to go golfing every Thursday evening. Tom, Roger and Bruce Hamilton all played golf. Ted Setzer Sr.,

We both kept showing up at the pig farm each day and stoked-up the wood

stove. We spread Bondo and sanded endlessly.

and all four Setzer brothers—Tug, Mike, Tom and me joined in. With a few friends or initial employees along, we usually had between 10 and 12 players each and every Thursday.

Wihtout fail, it seemed, each Thursday brought a legitimate business urgency to justify canceling the game, but we rarely did. (We knew it was for our sanity.)

Our minister was a frequent golfing part-ner and I’ll never forget the harassing he got from us. The golf course we played at gave a discount to ministers. (They likely thought it would bode well for good weather.) We all made it a point to beat him to the golf course each Thursday and each “sincerely” claim to be ministers. By the time the real minister showed up and pulled out his minister I.D., the golf pro or cashier was plenty fed-up with the minister gag.

One evening at our traditional Thursday dinner at the golf course, we got down to the serious business of coming up with a name for the airplane. A list was started and we went around the table soliciting suggestions. It was much easier and lots more fun to shoot down others’ sugges-tions than to think of something unique. Since every darn bird name in the book had been used at least twice, we had to dig deep for names. We all seemed to revert back to the playground days when your name was a huge liability if it rhymed with anything bad.

Roger suggested “Glassy” but it sounded too much like Lassie, as in “Glassy Come Home.” We tried for hours to come up with a name that had a fast, macho ring to it. Roger finally got real excited and announced that he had it—The Nifty. I have never laughed so hard and so long in all my life. It wasn’t so much the sugges-tion, it was how serious and excited he was about it. We had a great time. Tom Hamilton finally came up with the name Glasair. It was safe since we couldn’t come up with a bad rhyme about it and besides, it was late and time to go home. The funny part was that Tom insisted that the pro-nunciation was the key since GLASair sounded plain and technical with GlasAIR ( accent on the second syllable) had more of an elegant ring to it.

Tom educated and corrected everyone for a good six months before he gave up and accepted the inevitable pronunciation.

Well that’s enough for now. For next quarter’s column, I’d like to go into greater “pig farm” detail, as this airstrip carries many fond memories for us with plenty of entertaining details and stories.

I’d like to solicit stories from early Glasair builders who managed to find the pig farm and perhaps even took a demonstration ride. What were your first impressions then and thoughts looking back now? Email us at [email protected]. Include any photos you may wish to share. •


• Factory Direct 2.5 L Subaru Engine• Cockpit Adjustable Prop• Accessories for a Complete System

Reliable • Complete • Modular

Maxwell Propulsion19132 59th Drive NEArlington, WA 98223-7821360-474-8118www.maxwellpropulsion.com

The Maxwell Propulsion SystemRecent UpgRades

electrical systemprop • exhaust

NTSB Identification: ANC08FA087Accident occurred Saturday, July 12, 2008 in Kenai, AKAircraft: Iversen Glastar SH-4, N212DRInjuries: 3 Fatal.

On July 12, 2008, about 1100 Alaska daylight time, an amphibious float-equipped kit built experimental Iversen Glastar SH-4 airplane, N212DR, was destroyed by impact and postimpact fire when it collided with terrain, about 35 miles west of Kenai, Alaska. The airplane was being operated as a visual flight rules (VFR) local area personal flight under Title 14, CFR Part 91, when the accident occurred. The airplane was operated by the pilot. The private certificated pilot, and the two passengers, received fatal injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed in the area of the accident. The flight originated at a private airstrip near Kenai about 1030, and no flight plan was filed.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) personnel notified the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge (IIC) that burning wreckage of an airplane was spotted by over-flying aircraft about 1110. Search and rescue personnel responded to the scene, as well as Alaska State Troopers from the Soldotna, Alaska, Trooper post.

Examination of the wreckage on July 15, by the NTSB IIC, and an FAA inspector from the Anchorage Flight Standards District Office, Anchorage, Alaska, revealed that the airplane came to rest in an upright position, with the wheel portion of the landing gear in the “up” position. A disruption of the ground was found about 60 feet from the wreckage point of rest. The nose of the left float assembly was bent upward, about 90 degrees. The entire cockpit and baggage area was destroyed by fire. Flight control continuity was established from the cockpit to all flight controls. One propeller blade was bent aft, and the blade tip was fractured. Engine continuity was established from the propeller to the accessory case. Fuel was present in each outboard wing fuel tank.

The closest weather reporting facility is Big River Lakes, which is about 9 miles south-southwest of the accident site. At 1050, an aviation routine weather report (METAR) was reporting, in part: Wind, calm; visibility, 40 statute miles; clouds and sky condition, 6,000 feet overcast; temperature, 55 degrees F; dew point, 51 degrees F; altimeter, 30.10 inHg


Powerplants

An Expensive Lesson LearnedBy Michael Lott

I began building this GlaStar almost four years ago and started out with a Lycoming O-320-H2AD I had left over from an RV-4 project. Then, after reading about less-than-stellar performance with the 160-horse-power engines, I decided to go with an O-360 of 180 hp.

With the idea of saving money, I bought a core from a salvage yard and was going to rebuild it myself. I have done several engines and, honestly, they are pretty easy to put together. I started thinking about my choices and decided that since the GlaStar was supposed to be a pretty nice airplane, I would go ahead and buy a rebuilt engine from a reputable shop.

I knew about Chuck Ney’s engine shop because of my dealings with the H2AD engine. He was the one who came up with the idea of the nozzles that sprayed oil on the cam and lifter area inside the case. That was supposed to make the cam last a lot longer. Now that I have seen the inside of

200-hp cases, I realize the Ney Nozzles are much like the nozzles that spray oil on the cylinders and pistons to assist in cooling in those higher horsepower O-360s. I figured anyone smart enough to do something like that must know something about engines so I sent my salvage yard O-360 to him for rebuild.

The engine had been in a hangar fire and was a little blackened. The salvage yard guy said he had a lot of experience with “burned” engines and this one wasn’t hurt. Chuck saw the “hot” engine and called me right away to say the engine was beyond help and that I should let him build one for me. I called a shop that rebuilds cases and they told me the same thing the salvage yard guy told me. From our conversation, we figured my case wasn’t damaged.

Chuck already had my parts and he didn’t agree with what the case rebuilder told me. I let him talk me into buying an engine from him. The economics looked OK at

the outset. After taking my “hot” O-360 and the H2AD in trade (I paid $3500 each for the two engine cores), the total was $12,500. Moreover, Chuck was going to put in the nozzles and take the choke out of the cylinders barrels. That modification was supposed to be good for almost 10% more hp and less heat on the cylinders. All good stuff.

I insisted on chrome cylinders but he said he wouldn’t do them because taking the choke out took away the reason cylinders rust in the first place. He said the choke in the cylinders causes the rings to wipe oil from the cylinder walls, causing them to rust. If you take out the choke, the cylinders don’t get wiped clean and won’t rust. I was very skeptical but, hey, he was the one with the patents and STCs for all this stuff.

I also wanted to put a roller cam in it. He didn’t like that idea too much, but said he would do it if I supplied the cam. I had the cam drop-shipped from AirPTechno.

They had the STCs for the H2AD roller cams and were waiting for the paperwork to come through on the O-360 cam.

When the cam arrived at Chuck’s shop he called me and said he didn’t like the way the lifters were supposed to be installed. He said the cutting tool they supplied was a piece of (****) and he would make his own tool for the machine work. These particular lifters would not fit in a factory lifter bore unless the bore is machined larger. I don’t know how the machine work was supposed to be done because Chuck lost the paperwork before I could see it. He The chewed up cam lobe (left); all lobes looked like this. A scuffed piston is, surprisingly,

among the biggest casualties. All four pistons had similar scuffing from internal FOD.


did say (after it was installed) he wouldn’t warranty any problems caused by the cam because he didn’t like the way it was meant to be installed.

After many delays—two weeks dragged into two months—the engine was ready and had been test-run. Chuck told me it dynoed out to 180 hp, uncorrected and when corrected for temps, it was close to 200 hp. Made me feel pretty good. They shipped it out and I had a shiny, rebuilt engine with a roller cam in it.

I looked at the paperwork and it didn’t say anything about horsepower anywhere on it. I called the engine shop that tested it and requested a copy of the dyno sheet from them, just to satisfy my curiosity. When I received the paperwork, it didn’t match what Chuck had told me. It actually barely made 180 hp, after being corrected. So much for the chokeless cylinder and roller cam. Maybe the electronic ignition I was preparing to add after the fact—a pair of P-Mags, the engine ran with standard Slicks—would give me a little more power. After all, I felt like I needed a little justifi-cation for paying so much for an engine. When all was said and done, I had nearly $25,000 in the engine.

It was nearly a year and a half more before I actually got the plane ready enough for me to hang the engine and crank it for the first time. I ran it in the yard a few times and everything seemed fine.

The first few flights went awry due to one ignition failure. Not much data was collected due to the short duration of the flights. I (finally) got the dead ignition repaired and back in the plane and was ready to try some more. I had a slightly heavy left wing, but it was something easily corrected by setting the aileron servo rod to the correct length.

The prop I was using seemed to have a

Powerplants

little too much pitch. I could barely get 2600 rpm out of it when it was going down hill. I was having problems with high CHTs, too. With the least little bit of lean-ing, the CHTs would climb to redline on a couple of the cylinders. The oil pressure was always good. The oil temps were good, too.

Everything looked pretty good with the baffling but, since I couldn’t figure out what was causing the high CHTs, I started experimenting and changing things. I opened up the hole in the bottom of the Sportsman cowling. I added the exit ramp and moved it around to different positions. I sealed up the area around the air inlet to the carb. I tried a lot of things in a short period of time and they never helped the CHTs.

I took the prop off to get re-pitched and put a climb prop on in its place. About that time, I decided something was wrong with the engine. I wasn’t getting the performance I should be getting with the climb prop. Within just a few flights, power seemed to be dropping off rapidly. All the temps were normal (or at least as normal as they had been) and the pressures were good.

I had told someone I would go out a few

miles from town and take pictures of some property for them. The airplane was feeling pretty anemic, but I kept going. I stayed up higher than I should have for taking pic-tures, just in case my worst feelings played out. By the time I decided I needed to head back to the airport, it was losing power. I could barely get 2000 rpm at full throttle.

I had been having a bad problem with the plugs fouling, so I thought this must be what was happening this time. When I got back on the ground, I took the cowling off and checked the plugs. They were no worse than usual, but I went ahead and cleaned them anyway. I pulled the dipstick to check the oil for metal and saw none. The oil was still looking pretty clean after15 hours.

I put it back together and was going to make one last flight for the day, just to sat-isfy what was now going on in my mind. I got to the far end of the runway and did a runup. No problems with that, so I started my take-off roll. Full throttle and it was rolling pretty good. As soon as the prop stopped cavitating and caught some air, it felt like it went to half throttle on its own. I could barely get 1800 rpm as I rolled down the runway. As badly as I wanted to fly, I went ahead and shut it down and parked it for the day.

With all the things going on with the engine, I knew it was probably the cam coming apart. That was almost all it could be. I took the rocker covers off to check the movement of the valves. Some were mov-ing like they were supposed to, around a half inch of travel, per my eyeball. Some of them were barely moving, maybe 1/8-inch. I pushed on the ones that weren’t making the full travel and could tell the lifters weren’t pumping up. I figured at that point that it was either metal in the oil clogging the lifters, or the cam was just getting worn down by the lifters.

The roller lifter in the lifter bore. Note the debris and damaged roller.


The following discussion took place on the GlastarNet site. Every GSAI member has free access to this new-and-improved bul-letin board site. If you have not tried it yet, sign up today. Go to www.glastarnet.org and click on Register in the upper right corner. Fill out the forms; when you’re asked for an authorization code, use “airport”.

Anyone know if there is a requirement to comply with all Lycoming engine ADs [Airworthiness Directives] if the engine is on an experimental aircraft? Sure there is an argument that you would be stupid if you did not comply but my question is: does the FAA require you to comply? An IA friend of mine says you have to comply but it doesn’t make sense to me that I can put a non certified electronic ignition on my engine but have to change oil pump gears because the FAA says they might not be good enough. John Lake

Omar Filipovic found this answer on the EAA website. “ADs do not apply to experimental amateur-built aircraft. If the builder seeks the 25 hour test flight requirement then applicable ADs must be applied to the engine and rotor baldes [sic] prior to the certification inspection. Once the experimental amateur-built heli-copter is certified by you and operates, the type certificated (TC) engine and rotor blades no longer conform to the type cer-tificate and future ADs do not have to be applied. The FAA and EAA suggest the builder/owner review all future AD’s and determine whether or not to apply them, but applying ADs to an experimental amateur-built aircraft is not a regulatory

requirement.” This is the end of the EAA advisory material.

I thought the main requirement for the 25 hour test phase was to have an engine and prop combination that was a known good pairing. The only really good known pairings are the ones that have been put on certificated airplanes and well tested.

So, I take it to mean if you took an engine and prop out of a Mooney, and stuck it right on your Sportsman, you would get the 25 hour test phase, whether you had complied with any ADs or not. I wouldn’t think ADs being complied with (or not) would have anything to do with the 25 hour test phase. I think some props have red zones or rpm restrictions in place when used with certain engines because of harmonics problems. Michael Lott

It is quite true that AD compliance is not required for experimental airplanes; however, that does leave more than a little bit unsaid. You as an owner and pilot are responsible for keeping your plane in an airworthy condition, and if you hold the repairman’s certificate, you must attest annually that your airplane is in a condi-tion safe for flying. If you can honestly do that without complying with any particu-lar AD, then feel free to do so.

The severity of the problem varies from one AD to the next. Non-compliance with every AD does not represent a serious threat to life and property, but some do. I suggest that all engine ADs be reviewed carefully, and if you choose not to comply with one you should have a very good rea-son for not doing so. Dave Prizio •

Are ADs Mandatory For Experimentals?A GlastarNet Discussion

I pulled the oil filter and cut it open. It didn’t take long to realize the engine was shot. It was full of glitter-sized metal. It would stick to a magnet. Not good. I went ahead and pulled the engine out and took it apart. The lifters had indeed turned in their bores and chewed the cam up. I was amazed at the amount of metal eaten away on the lobes. I was amazed something didn’t break or come apart and cause a catastrophic failure. I guess I was lucky.

It made me sick for while, when I thought about all the money that was now just a piece of metal not even worth recycling for coke cans. Chuck said he was sorry, but he told me he wouldn’t warranty it with that cam in it. He gave me a price of about $8000 to fix what was fixable and get it running again. I asked him if the new engine he was talking about would have a warranty on it. He said the $8000 was the warranty.

I just couldn’t bring myself to pay him to build another engine for me. So I bought a rebuilt case, new pistons, rings, bearings, rod bolts and nuts, new camshaft and kit, etc., and am putting it together myself, with a mechanic overseeing everything. Luckily, the oil filter saved the new crank I had in the engine—a new one would be a huge additional expense. The bearings even looked brand new. I just had to clean up the cylinders and re-hone them. I have it back together now but probably won’t get a chance to fly it until after Christmas. I’ll run it around the yard a few times first.

The cost of all the parts and getting things checked out was a little less than $5000. I probably would have spent about $10,000 rebuilding the first one I had anyway.

I hope this one runs well and will last a while. If not, I will do it, again. I can’t stand having a plane sitting out there and not being able to fly it. I can’t wait to see if the CHT problems were caused in any way by the cam metal in the engine—or some-thing else having to do with the nature of this engine. I’ll let everyone know how it goes. •

Legalities


Before we jump into the reasons for this change—something that has been implemented in the Two Weeks To Taxi program—it’s important to appreciate that any builder changes to the fuel system design should be carefully considered. Use your best judgment here.

The current Sportsman fuel system design is nearly identical to the GlaStar, with the exception of fuel tank vent routing. When the Sportsman was first

introduced, the fuel tank vent system was identical to the GlaStar. Recognizing that the outboard tanks spilled fuel easily when filled and the plane was on uneven ground (or when taxi turning on the ground), we sought a solution to the problem.

We took a serious look at all of the com-mercially available check-valves in a rea-sonable price range. We even designed a

fairly simple one as a prototype and tested it on one of our aircraft. The nagging issue with check-valves is that if they “check” the flow of fuel completely, they can also stop the flow of expansion air that needs to escape. When cold fuel is pumped from underground storage tanks into aircraft fuel tanks it begins to warm up to ambient temperature, or more, depending on what

Builder Tips

Updating to the New Sportsman Fuel Vent System

By Ted Setzer

Top: The vent tube ends directly behind the strut, it’s protected from impact ice. Above: A prototype of the streamlined barrier placed ahead of the vent.

Top: The bottom view of the streamlined barrier. Above: An alternative is to drill a small bleed hole in the trailing surface of the under wing vent.

Top: The overall schematic of the revised Sportsman system. Above: A look at the right-wing routing. The inboard section is nearest, the forward edge to the left.


color the wings are painted. As the fuel and trapped air expand, something has to give, and we don’t want the fuel tank to suffer. (Anything in excess of approxi-mately 4 psi can cause the tanks to pressure bulge and potentially induce cracks.) For

reference, we’ve listed the current FAR 23 certification requirements for venting of fuel tanks.

Section 23.975 of FAR Part 23

certification rules state:(a) Each fuel tank must be vented from

the top part of the expansion space.In addition—(1) Each vent outlet must be located and

constructed in a manner that minimizes the possibility of its being obstructed by ice or other foreign matter;

(2) Each vent must be constructed to prevent siphoning of fuel during normal operation;

(3) The venting capacity must allow the rapid relief of excessive differences of pressure between the interior and exte-rior of the tank;

(4) Airspaces of tanks with intercon-nected outlets must be interconnected;

(5) There may be no point in any vent line where moisture can accumulate with the airplane in either the ground or level flight attitudes, unless drainage is pro-vided. Any drain valve installed must be accessible for drainage;

(6) No vent may terminate at a point where the discharge of fuel from the vent outlet will constitute a fire hazard or from which fumes may enter personnel compartments; and

(7) Vents must be arranged to prevent the loss of fuel, except fuel discharged because of thermal expansion, when the airplane is parked in any direction on a ramp having a one-percent slope.

Our choices, it seemed, were to choose between a very expensive fuel vent float valve previously designed and used on the Glasair for many years, or a simple, low cost check-valve incorporating a small vent relief hole. The former was too expensive and the latter still leaked—just at a slower rate. We really wanted to stop this problem altogether, not just make it a bit better.

We searched the archives, discussed

Top: Drill through the rib to 7/16-inch with a Unibit. Above: Install MS35489-6 grommets in the holes; they’ll protect the nylon vent line.

Top: A light coat of WD-40 will help the lines slide through the grommets. Above: route the lines, but don’t cut yourself like Ted did.

Top: Angle the vent tubes toward the leading edge as they near the tip. Above: Drill 1/4-inch hole through main spar 4 inches inboard from rib BL 171.75. Drill hole perpendicular to the spar, then tilt bit along the angle needed to pass the line through. Deburr hole after.


fuel vent design ideas proposed by several GlaStar builders, and did a lot of head scratching. We were highly motivated to eliminate the cost, complexity, and poten-tial problems associated with check valves. The conclusion we reached was a fairly simple, but effective, improvement:

1) Raising the wing dihedral angle from 1.5 to 2.0 degrees would help, but with greater benefit to the main tanks than the outboard tanks.

2) Venting the outboard tanks inboard to the main tanks would eliminate all of the outboard tank vent spillage (the main problem).

Next, we tested the dihedral increase and vent system changes on a company aircraft and found that we indeed had

Builder Tips (Con’t)

Top: Carefully grind a slight relief in the rib ends to make room for the tube. Above: Grind a relief on the end rib for the tube.

Top: Here is a closeup of the end rib relief notch. Above: The vent tube tucks up against the spar cap in the aux-tank bay.

Top: Use silicone at spar to prevent rib/vent line abrasion. Above: The main tank vent tube follows the forward, upper edge of the main spare in the L.E. section.

eliminated the outboard tank vent spillage issue. The dihedral angle increase simply gives the plane a little more leeway for uneven parking with full main tanks. It takes 2° tilt to level the downhill wing and perhaps another degree or two for the fuel to reach the height of the vent port and begin spilling.

With the increased dihedral, there is no longer any vent spillage from the outboard tanks when filling, taxiing or flying unco-ordinated in the air. Of course, we realize that changing dihedral isn’t a practical solution for aircraft already flying.

Some more background: The Sportsman vent system was changed to the single-port configuration on aircraft assembled at the Customer Assembly Center/TWTT

approximately Spring of 2006. This vent system can also be used on GlaStar air-craft. The deciding factor may simply be if you have closed the wings yet or not, however, there is at least one Sportsman builder who retrofitted to this vent system who reported it as “challenging” working through inspection holes.

There are some other options that build-ers might want to consider, particularly if they intend to fly a lot of IFR in “real” weather, and they have to do with protect-ing the fuel vents from ice blockage. Before we get into that, though, understand that we simply don’t have a lot of feedback from the field that vent icing is a problem, so what follows is almost a theoretical discussion.


The photo at the begining of this story shows the way some aircraft manufacturers protect fuel vents from icing with a goose-neck or J-tube terminated just behind the lift strut. Vertical positioning of the out-let is key, as it needs to be mostly in the shadow of the strut, yet still have positive pressure. If you read a Cessna maintenen-ace manual, you’ll see that the positioning of this tube is critical.

To accomplish this modification on the GlaStar or Sportsman, the main tank vent line would still need to run out to the highest point at the wing tip, then return to the wing skin area behind the lift strut. The vent tube needs to be adjustable verti-cally to find the optimum position.

Another method to satisfy the icing requirement may be to add a small stream-lined barrier just ahead of the vent tube as shown (mock-up example). As with the Cessna vent outlet, there needs to be a bal-ance between protection in a low pressure pocket, and enough pressure to avoid a vacuum.

A third method would be to drill a 1/8-inch hole on the aft side of the vent tube just where it exits the wing skin. We flight tested this method as an alternate

vent source (initially on one side) and our results demonstrated that with the beveled outlet plugged, the tank vented adequately to deliver 13.8 gph.

For those flying IFR, it would be a pru-dent safeguard to drill these alternate holes now and perhaps consider the other meth-ods at a later date. What we don’t know is: Will heavy icing of the vent tube also cover the back side and plug the alternate hole as well? It would be valuable to get feedback from GlaStar and Sportsman owners who have had prior icing experience.

For those still in the building stage, the details of the current Sportsman fuel vent system are as follows:

A hole needs to be carefully drilled in the main spar shearweb in order for one of the vent tubes to be routed ahead of the main spar. Note: For those considering a vent system retrofit, it will require removal of the outboard tank. Both vent lines may possibly fit aft of the spar. Also, because your main (inboard) fuel tank will not have two vent ports at the outboard end as shown in the schematic on Page 22, simply use a nylon T here. Glasair Aviation part # 320-0271-001. The photos in this story depict the new vent installation procedures

If you don’t want to dig into your Sportsman’s fuel system—never a really ideal thing for flying aircraft—try this approach, which has worked well for 100+ hours. I understand Glasair Aviation not wanting to use expensive check valves in new kits and during TWTT—that’s just a good business decision.

But for those of us already flying, the check valve solution is probably the best all-around deal. In my Sportsman, I simply replaced the aux vent with fabricated aluminum lines and the Andair CK-250B vented check valves (Aircraft Spruce number 05-00714; about $50 each). The check valves do have bleed

holes, and this feature allows some fuel to dribble out of the aux vent line during rapid turns on the ground with a full tank, but it’s nothing compared to the torrent of fuel this system normally displays under these circumstances. It’s not a complete fix, but it’ll do. —Marc Cook

The vent lines converge in the wingtip. The aux tank’s line actually heads back to the main fuel tank, while the main tank’s line comes all the way out to the wingtip for venting. The underlying philosophy is that any time the aux tank needs to be vented, it’s during fuel transfer. Any displaced air from the main tank is absorbed by the aux tank as it’s draining. Fuel, which would slosh overboard from the aux tank, is harmlessly sent to the main tank.

we use in the TWTT program.When installing the vent tubing, make

sure there are no sags in-between ribs. And, needless to say, plan to thoroughly test fly this configuration in your own airplane. •

Materials you’ll need:26 FT. Part # 830-0600-001, Nylon 1/4-Inch OD vent tubing24 MS35489-6 grommets1 320-0271-001 Nylon T


Builder Tips

Swagelok TechBy Ted Setzer

In my opinion, Swagelok fittings (tube ends with ferrules) are far easier to assemble and install than traditional flared AN fittings. In 29 years of experience with flared tube ends and half that with Swagelok fittings, I am sold on Swagelok. I have seen my fair share of cracked, under-flared and over-flared tube ends; even some with minis-

cule cracks that produce persistent leaks. Admittedly, a properly flared tube end will function just fine, but it is an exercise that Swagelok eliminated, so we took advantage of this time-saving product starting in 1994 with the introduction of the GlaStar. Since then, I’ve yet to witness one that leaked. I recently helped a local Sportsman owner troubleshoot an issue with his rudder controls and having removed the seat pans and forward tunnel covers, we discovered three fuel leaks, all with flared AN tube ends on the selector valve or electric fuel boost pump fittings. Naturally, we sniffed and wiped all the fuel fittings in the cabin and could find no other tell-tale blue fuel stains at the tube ends. No wonder, since all the rest of the fittings were Swagelok. Fortunately, all the flared tube leaks were easily remedied with a little more torque on the B nuts.

To bring an end to this Swagelok info-mercial, I must say that I’m surprised that

Aircraft Spruce isn’t selling them and they haven’t caught on with other kit aircraft manufacturers. It seems to be a well-guarded secret in the ranks of GlaStar and Sportsman builders.

Here are some Swagelok assembly tech-niques to assure a no-leak tube connection every time.

Step 1: Cut and deburr the line. Use a tubing cutter, hacksaw or bandsaw. If a saw is used, be sure to file the end of the tube square and eliminate the blade marks (it doesn’t have to be square for Swagelok purposes, it is just good practice to do so). Deburr the inside and outside edges of the tube ends.

Step 2: Blow out the insides of the tube with compressed air after deburring to

assure no debris is present. Be sure to install the ferrules back into the B nut in the cor-rect orientation. The narrow ferrule fits behind the larger, conical ferrule, which in turn points toward the fitting, not back toward the tube.

Step 3: Temporarily install the line and verify its length.

Step 4: Make a reference mark on the tube. Sometimes you can “feel” if the line is bottomed out in the fitting. To be sure, insert the line and make a mark next to the nut. Remove the line and hold it next to the fitting to verify that the length extends to the nut portion of the fitting.

Step 5: Torque the nut down. Tighten finger tight, and then turn approximately 1 ¼ to 1 ½ more turns until the end of Swagelok no-go gap gauge won’t fit in the gap. If you don’t have a Swagelok gauge, you could order one from the closest Swagelok dealer (Part No. MS1G468) or use a dial caliper to make a gauge measuring .143-inch thick. Tighter is not necessarily better with ferrules on tube ends.

Step 6: Verify proper swage. Loosen and remove the line, verifying that ¼-inch of tube extends beyond the ferrules. Re-install the line and tighten the fittings or plug the ends and store in a safe location if the line is to be installed at a later time. •


StarFlight Achievement AwardsGSAI has instituted the StarFlight Achievement Awards for our members, recognizing those who have logged pilot-in-command

time in GlaStar and/or Sportsman aircraft. Upon receipt of your form a patch will be mailed to you and your achievement will

be noted in the GlaStar & Sportsman Flyer. Be proud of your achievement! Please fill out the form and mail it to GlaStar &

Sportsman Association International, 203 Argonne Ave, Suite B105, Long Beach, California 90803, or fax it to 562-372-3288.

You may also use the online form in the members’ section of the StarGate web site at www.glastar.org.

Osprey LevelMore than 100 hours pilot-in-command logged

• James Coonan, Ransom, Illinois • Paul Staby, Durango, Colorado

Kestrel LevelMore than 250 hours pilot-in-command logged

• Walt Wester, Lakespur, California

Hawk LevelMore than 500 hours pilot-in-command logged

• Juliette Cosh, Rosendale, New York

GSAI StarFlight Achievement Award Nomination

Name:________________________________________

Address:______________________________________

City:__________________________________________

State/Prov.:____________________________________

Zip/Postal Code:________________________________

Country:_______________________________________

E-mail:________________________________________

I am applying for the following StarFligfht Achievement Award:

p Osprey Level 100 hoursp Kestrel Level 250 hoursp Hawk Level 500 hoursp Falcon level 1,000 hoursp Eagle Level 2,000+ hours

I have logged ___________ hours as pilot-in-command

in a GlaStar and/or Sportsman airplane.

Signed__________________________ Date________


203 Argonne Avenue, Suite B105Long Beach, CA 90803 USA

FIRST CLASS POSTAGE

2008-2009 Calendar

January 17-20 U.S. Sport Aviation Expo Sebring, FL

April 8-13 Sun N Fun Lakeland, FL

May 30-31 Virginia Regional Fly-in Suffolk, VA

June 6-8 Golden West Fly-in Marysville, CA

July 9-13 Arlington Fly-in Arlington, WA

July 28-Aug 3 EAA Oshkosh/AirVenture Oshkosh, WI

August 22-23 Rocky Mountain Fly-in Denver, CO

October 22-25 Copperstate Fly-in Caza Grande, AZ

maxwell’s subie— a long way from its nsi roots · a few story ideas for your newsletter. the...

Documents