10/26/02 FUEL PUMPS

For those of us whom are "Mechanically Challenged" can someone provide a small tutorial on what fuel pumps to use on the M14P? - Seth
If you are going to use the standard M14P carburetor, I believe it runs on about 6 psi fuel pressure. Kevin uses a Facet pump, I don't know what number it is. Also, Holley makes a high volume, low pressure pump. If you want to spend some bucks, get a Weldon pump. Whatevery you do, stay away form the Dukes pumps. To use a well worn shop expression, they are a piece of crap. A Dukes pump will cost more than a Weldon and is not near as good. I'm sure Parker also makes a low pressure pump; I have no idea what the part numbers are. - Monty Barrett

09/10/02 EGT PROBES

How many EGT probes are people running on their motors, all nine cyclinders? - Scott
Scott, we use one CHT and one EGT probe each on our Model 12's. We use the EIS system from Grand Rapids Technologies as they have developed an M14P specific unit for us that is set up for 9 cyl, air start pressure etc. Good people too. We did install all nine CHT and nine EGT probes on one Model 12, but it was a pain and really didn't add much useful info. KK
Thanks, I'll check out GRT. I may go with two CHT probes on different sides of engine. Any particular cylinder you guys are using? - Scott
The russians use #6 for the CHT and #3 for the EGT on several of the sukhois I have looked at. The #6 cylinder is the cyl to the right of the sump as veiwed from the cockpit. The one with the exhaust port close the the carb. We didn't see much temp spread on the airplane we put all 9 on and so later, installed the EGT and CHT on #1 for ease of doing so. KK


I've had some compressor problems after only 100 hours flying time. Unless you fly in a very cold climate, it is important that you duct lots of cooling air to your compressor and the external one-way valve. If you don't then this valve, (thats the one sticking out the compressor), could suffer from heat corrosion and start leaking. The valve casing material is some form of cast iron and is pretty crappy considering the temps it has to endure; compressed air is very very hot. This valve has also a cheap zinc type coating which normally burns off after a while. The internal one-way valve, ( located within the compressor, in the top piston) is better made but could also ultimately leak. This valve has a black nitride coating and is also better machined, (maybe a different factory) but is still not that great. Electroless nickel coating could be an option for an outside valve, but EN cracks at 250 degrees C, and the substrate iron will outgass during coating because it is so porous. Another problem may be that the EN coating would have to be 25 microns thick to withstand corrosion, then valve tolerances may be a problem. Another possibility is TiN coating (thats Titanium nitride) which is very thin, about 2 - 4 microns, but the preparation of the substrate is critical and having tried it, am of the opinion that it doesn't take well to the cast iron either.

So I would like to suggest that regardless of whether you have had compressor problems or not, a small scoop be attached to the cooling pipe which runs through the engine baffles to the compressor. And that cooling air is directed not only at the compressor cooling fins, but if possible also at the one-way valve. If you want any sort of reasonable life out of your compressor, give it lots of cold air. I gave up on coatings and have replaced my outer one-way with a completely re-designed stainless steel version without a banjo, using 1/8'' NPT fittings, less chance of leaks, and am trying a SS ball type which may be easier to maintain. If it doesent work any better I will revert to a piston type. - Neil Forsyth. Pitts 12 ZU-BXX
Neil, we duct air to the compressor with a 2" scat hose as shown in this picture. A typical russian aircraft M14P installation on a Sukhoi or Yak uses an aluminum duct to deliver the air to the compressor.

Some builders have used a vacuum pump cooling shroud and scat hose to cool their compressors. The duct takes some modification and this is why we simply use the hose as we do. A 2" dia hose seems to provide enough air to keep things alive for some time in typical Florida temps with 300hrs on N360KC so far, about 80hrs on N80JR, and nearly 400hrs on Herb's WACO, etc. Using a larger hose than 2" can introduce too much high pressure air into the accessory section and reduce the cooling capabilities of the cowling. Adding a scoop or funnel to the hose in front of the baffles will not add much additional air flow rate through the hose as the entire section of the cowl forward of the baffles is equally pressurized and there is little RAM air to enter the funnel.

Another advantage we have is by using an unload valve in our air systems, the workload on the compressor is far less than on russian airplanes for much of the flight hours which reduces the heat generated by the compressor. The russian systems do not have an unload valve and therefore require the compressor to constantly work against the 750psi relief valve. This sends air into the tank all the time and tends to deposit that oily grunge into the tank and relief valve that air compressors create. The compressor get very hot as do the hoses to and from it. By using our bypass valve, the compressor pumps directly overboard for all the flight time starting just after takeoff to landing. That takes about 90% of the run time of air pumping out of the tank easing the load on the compressor and keeping the tank cleaner. KK

08/28/02 SMOKE OIL

Can anyone recommend a vendor for smoke oil?
Just contact your local Texaco or Shell distributor. They will order it for you in a 55 gal drum. Paraffinic base mineral oil, no additives. Texaco trade name is "Canopus" (was Corvus), Shell is "Carnea". I think both come in 13wt as well as higher viscosity. - Dan Horton
Here's airshow performer Mike Goulian's requirements for smoke oil:

Smoke oil should be available before each flight and at the conclusion of each performance day. The barrels must be portable either in the back of a pickup truck or on a hand cart. The smoke producing characteristic of oils vary so the correct oil must be supplied to produce dense white smoke. The preferred oil, Cannopus Oil #13, is by far the best smoke oil. If Cannopus is not available other paraffin based oils may be used. Acceptable oils are listed below:

Cannopus Corvus Oil 13 or 519 Standard Oil Facto 39 Texaco Regal B
Sun Oil Circle X Shell Carnea 10 or 22 Union Oil Unax 105
Gulf Oil 370 Arco Duro-S 105 Exxon Faxam 40
Military #1010 Eng. Oil    

Smoke oil usage for CAP 232 aircraft: 6 gallons per flight (20 gallons total)


What makes the M14P such a durable motor for aerobatics?
Compared to a Lycoming, the M14P transmits very little propeller load to the crank. Being a geared engine, the propshaft and crankshaft are separate. The outer end of the propshaft is held by a 70mm ID ball bearing in the nose case. It carries most of the propeller radial load and all the propshaft end thrust. The inboard end is inside a sleeve in the end of the crank. There's another ball bearing on the outside of the crank at that point, mounted in a plate separate from the main case webs and main bearings. That one carries propshaft radial loads as well as crankshaft end thrust. Crankshaft end thrust is minimal, as there is no propeller thrust load. It's isolated by the drive spines on the outer rim of the planetary. Dan


How does the air start system on the M14 deal with moisture that gets into the system? I know when I run my air compressor in my shop it does not take long for it to build up a fair amount of water in the tank. I drain the tank usually when I am done for the day, and/or before I start the next. How does the air start system on the M14 get rid of this build up? or does it not build up? It seems that it would potentially build up more in the tank due to the differences in air temperature on the ground vs. while in flight. Number of flight cycles etc. would only add to this. Is there a drain built into the system that automatically purges the water out while the engine is running and re-pressurizing the system? - Eric
Good question. Yes the air compressor on the M14P generates that "snot" that your shop compressor makes. It is in smaller amounts due to the smaller volumes of air that pass thru the system. Russian airplanes like Yaks and Sukhois have a small catch tank for this gooo that we here in America call, "The Snot Pot". This snot pot has a valve that you open post flight to clear the goo out of the system.

A few sukhois and yaks have been modified to manually, via a cable, open this device in flight thereby allowing the snot to exit continuously and allow the air compressor to in effect, dump overboard during flight. This "unloads" the compressor and reduces the load on the engine from it.

We have taken this to a further level. In the complete air system we sell for the model 12 and other airplanes that use the M14P, we have a solenoid valve that unloads the compressor. It is cockpit operated via a small switch and is opened after start pressure is back to a full 800-850psi. This valve takes the air from the compressor and dumps it to atmosphere while the tank is maintained at full charge with a checkvalve. This way, the snot goes overboard. In our first model 12, we fitted the air tank with a drain. At the first annual and 90hrs of flight time, we opened the drain to find less than a tablespoon of snot in it. So, we eliminated the drain from kit versions instead setting up the tank and air system components such that they are very easy to remove and maintain if needed. All the above airsystems, russian and ours have a limiting relive valve which limits the max air pressure to about 50 atmospheres.

In the yak and sukhois that have the air continuously pumped into the tank, if the snot was not drained, you could load up the system. In our system, the air is sent to the tank for 3-5 minutes at the start of each flight. So in some cases, that is 2 or 3 flight hrs between starts.KK

02/26/02 TBO

Kevin, what do you consider the TBO (time between overhaul) to be for the M14P engine? - Rudi
Rudi, the TBO for these engines depends on use. If mild acro and lots of just flying around, the TBO on the M14P is 2250hrs. If hard unlimited world class gyroscopic acro like in a sukhoi, 750hrs.

Sean Tucker gets about 500hrs out of his lycoming. But about half of that is hard acro/half traveling to shows. Monty can tell you exact times for hard world class unlimited acro for a lyc. I had heard that some US unlimited team members were getting 250-350hrs out of an engine of hard acro time plus x-country time from their lycs. About what Sean gets. KK
Kevin, That TBO on the M-14P of 2250 hours is the highest I have seen quoted. In fact, that number was the life limit of the engine in former Soviet times. The Russians, as most of you know, had a program of tearing the engine down at 500 hours or five years. Essentially, an IRAN (inspect replace as necessary). I can quote numbers all day long and try to boost M-14P sales (we sell the engines, parts, tech.support and overhaul) but what really matters is what is happening in the field.

The Russians are now up to 850 hours before overhaul. They still put a 500 hour limit on Romanian engines. And they do overhaul Romanian engines. I believe (Kevin Correct me if I am wrong) George Coy has gotten the Romanians to list 1500 TBO on their engines. That said, let's look at the real story:

We know of one guy that had 1100 hours on his engine, when he had a hydraulic lock. This was on a Sukhoi and HARD acro. The teardown revealed very little wear. So, who knows how long he could have gone, otherwise. The engines we have received for overhaul have all been for hydraulic lock, not any old worn-out dogs headed for the garbage can. Superior fuels and lubricants will add to longevity. We are begining to see problems in the top end of the engine, mainly with valves and carbon. Yeah, in 1000 hours you might need to do a top. It's a no-brainer for me. $15,000 for a new M-14P? How many of you will put over 1000 hours on the engine? - Jill
Jill, I have seen many original russian M14P engine log books pass thru here. In the opening few pages, the intended airplane type and model is typically listed. On 2 engines that were intended to go into Yak 18Ts, the TBO time was listed at 2250. On the Yak 52 and Sukhoi aimed engines, the logs had 750 written in with 500 hr intervals after that (750+500+500+500=2250). This is where I got the 2250hr number from. KK


If I run out of air somewhere that 750psi air is not available, how easy is this engine to hand prop? What is the procedure, do you just use the booster coil and keep both mags off or do both the booster coil and mags need to be on for a hand prop? I saw them hand prop a Yak55, 54? at an airshow one time and it started right up. Bill
Hand-propping the engine without air is not difficult if the mags are off and the booster coil is on. The only retarded spark comes through the booster coil - the mag sparks are always advanced. Carl
Best to hand prop with start button on so booster coil is energized and generating a spark. KK
I had the good fortune to learn to fly in airplanes which predated electric's (the airplanes were a lot older than I was, really). I am happy to hand start airplanes but only after carefully briefing the rules with whomever is in the cockpit and explaining that I WILL walk away and leave them stranded if they stray from my rules.

I was trained NOT to use words like switch on and switch off, they sound too much alike, and I was taught to require that ALL commands are repeated back loud and clear.

Rule #1: The word "contact" and ONLY the word contact will be used to turn the mags on. It is a clear and distinct word. If the person in the cockpit hears or thinks he hears anything else, he should go mags off and say so. I use "Switch off" to command mags off

Rule #2: The cockpit operator repeats the contact order BEFORE actually switching mags on. When in doubt: mags off.

Rule #3: treat the prop as if it is ALWAYS hot (it is), and turn it backward to clear a flooded condition (vacuum pumps permitting)

Rule #4: prop with palms pressed against the blade shank, NO fingers wrapped around the blade trailing edge. This way a kick back pushes your hands away from the prop instead of pulling your finger tips in.

When I call for contact, I will ask for "brakes and contact." A push on the hub verifies that brakes are applied before I turn the blades.

I was taught to move the airplane if required to get on smooth nonskid grounded then use "proper" posture. Back straight and vertical, NEVER leaning into the prop during the swing (pretty obvious reasons)? Two hands forward and comfortable on the blade face, fingers straight or curled back. The leg adjacent to the prop is then lifted stiff kneed straight forward in preparation, then swung down and back just prior to turning the prop. Keep the back straight and vertical, and continue the leg swing aft as you step away from the prop. The purpose of the leg swing is to generate substantial momentum away from the propeller before you even begin turning it. If you keep your back straight, there is no way you will slip into the prop and you will be well into retreat as it first fires.

Awkward airplanes require variations, a little Quickie with an Onan motor is barely knee high and gets started more like a model airplane, and a radial on a tall biplane may require more lateral push than vertical, just give it some thought before trying. If you slip, where will your momentum carry you.

I will prop with a briefed pilot in the cockpit, or with the airplane tied down and operating switches myself. If there is a non-pilot in the airplane, I will show them the mixture control and brief them to pull if they get scared: otherwise hands off all controls!

Stick with a firm pre-brief. If the guy in the cockpit strays, he clearly was not listening during the brief and must be assumed not to be listening as you spin the prop, thus deserving to be stranded until he learns better manners! Tom


What provides a retarded spark for starting the M14 engine?
Mags are not able to produce the required spark at near zero rpm. This is typical of radial engines that turn slow at starting. One thing to clear up here is that the M14P along with its radial engine brothers use BOOSTER COILS not Shower of Spark units! SOS units use the mags points to create the fire pulses. A booster coil has its own vibrator points and can produce a continuous spark that is delivered to the distributor block. Staggerwings, stearmans, Wacos, 195s use booster coils. On the 2 mag round motor like a 220 cont, PW 985 /1340, M14P, a booster coil unit is used which delivers High tension voltage thru a high tension lead to the distributor block, bypassing the mag's coil altogether. The mags do not have a second set of points etc like a flat motor mag.

Flat motors use a buzz box, shower of sparks box, whatever you want to call it, that feeds into the low tension p-lead side of the mag to excite the mag's coil and use a retarded set of points in the mag. A lycoming or Bendix Shower of Sparks box will not work on the M14P.

So, what do we do in the model 12? We use a bendix OFF-LEFT-RIGHT-BOTH-START switch. It has settings to kill the right mag on start. We wire it up to ground the right mag at start, left mag hot and booster coil hot at start.. When it fires, you release the key just like a flat motor and the right mag comes online. Simple one hand operation.

We have found 2 things that cause the M14P to kick back. Too lean or too rich at start up. Mags on, mags off does not seem to affect the kick back as much as start fuel mixture. Not enough prime kicks back. Too much prime kicks back. You have to get it in the happy spot. Again, if the mags were able to produce adequate spark to always fire at start, the booster coil would not be needed. Yes, the booster coil is firing the plugs at a retarded point. But we routinely start stearmans and staggerwings without a booster coil simply by spinning the prop fast with a good hot battery and electric starter. When the blade is moving as slowly as it does with the airstart system, the mags are not producing much juice. Thus the need for the booster coil. Since the mags are not producing much juice, having them on or off makes little difference.

Also, I know that an M14P, if recently run in the past 20 minutes, properly primed, out of start air, ignition on, will start by moving the prop 6 inches. This happened about awhile back to a guy I know. He ran the thing out of air taxiing around a bunch. Got in to fire it up and return to the hangar and missed the start running out of air. Got out, grabbed the scuba tank, walked up to the nose of the plane, moved the prop 6", and BAM, it was running, prop hit his arm and leg but the thing was at idle and did not taxi away on its own. Bleeding, he pulled himself out of the way as another person ran over and turned the mags off. He had left the mags on when he got out to go get the air bottle. So, it started that easy with both mags on, booster coil off. New rule is that he has the ignition key with him when out of the plane. This is one reason why I prefer a key ignition over individual toggle switches for mags. KK


The M14 engine has a pretty low compression ratio, what do you think of running automobile fuel in it?
So far, we have had one model 12 owner that tried the autogas for a while. Things got weird. Not so much with the carb because he cought it in time but the rubber parts in the gascoator, primer solenoid valve, etc really became swollen. In fact, the primer would not pass enought fuel to start the engine. He was using Amoco (now BP) gold pump gas, the best stuff out there. He contacted EAA concerning auto gas and the folks there said that every batch of car gas should be tested for alcohol and that ALL car gas has some in it. The amount varies from very small amounts that are not a risk to several percentage points which can affect some seals and hoses etc. So, this guy switched back to avgas and all has been well since.

Sam Thompson of Tulsa Aircraft Engines and the guys at Aero Engines in CA both build R-985 and R-1340 PW radials. Sam built Jimmy Franklin's, Bobby Younkin's, Delmar's, and our Gee Bee Z engines. We used an Aero Engines R-985 in the last Staggerwing we restored........As you may know, the M14P is most similar to the 985 in construction, operation etc in that both are supercharged radial 9 cyl enignes. These engine builders stamp the log books with a statement to the effect of "All Warranty is null and void of auto gas is used". In otherwords, 2 top R985 overhaul shops recommend NOT using autogas in their engines. The M14P is supercharged as well so it may be a logical assumption to asign the same rules to it as the PW. Yes, the M14P has a low compression ratio as does the R985 but when the MP is boosted up by the internal supercharger, the pressure in the cyl increased dramatically, right? I don't know what the equiv non-supercharged compression ratio would be for an engine like the M14P at 35"hg.

Here is the logical way to look at the fuel issue. Ask yourself a few questions to know if car gas is for you:

1. Note that you should only use car gas that YOU tested and found to be free of the bad stuff. That means you will be using auto gas while at home airport or take the testing equipment with you where ever you go and only use that gas that passes your tests. This is on the assumption that the carb in the M14P has to be kept alcohol free (safe assumption).

2. How many hrs a year will you operate the airplane in question? 50, 100, 500? Base this on the current amount of flying you are doing. In many case, it is about 50hrs a year. Typical. So, 50hrsx15gal/hr = 750gal of gas per year. At $3/ga for 100LL and $1.79/gal Amoco gold pump 93 oct, you will realize just a tick over $900 savings by using the car gas. Sure , cheap gas at the corner station is priced lower but you may not get the good stuff. So, lets take that $900 and divide it by the 50hrs flown and see that it will cost you about $18 more per hr to operate the airplane with 100LL REAL AVGAS than with the mystery car gas. So, is $30-$40 per weekend a huge added expense compared to hangar rent, insurance, etc. etc. If you insure an airplane like this including hull coverage, and add it all up the determine the operating cost per hour with avgas (hangar rent, insurance, gas, oil, maintainance, etc) you have a direct op cost of about $130/hr assuming insurance cost of $3500/yr ($150k hull, acro contest, name pilots) SO, using car gas saves $18 of the $130 in this example.

If you operate 1000hr a year, the savings in using the car gas can be seen. I do know of an M14P in Atlanta area that used car gas for the first 350hrs of its life. The valves and valve guides had to be changed at 350hrs. A fluke maybe but I know of lots of avgas burning M14Ps that have 2 or more times the hrs on them and still going.

BTW, I asked Nikolay Temofeev, our Russian friend and world champ Sukhoi pilot/trainer/mechanic what American oils and gas is closest to what they used in weight and octane. He said use 60wt (50wt in cold winter if oil dilution system not on airplane) aeroshell and 100LL gas. KK


The best price I have paid for a full russian tool kit complete with time rite etc, is $750. The engine spares kit typically goes for $300. This is the full spares kit not the lightweight one that comes with George's current engines. Both the full tool kit and full spares kit are on the inventory list for a new engine and are intended to be included. It has been our experience that unopened engine crates have these items in them. Opened ones do not....i.e. the items were removed by someone. The Wickersham engines include the full tool kit and full spares kit. Market value of $1050 for those items makes his engines about $15k or $14.5k by your estimates. Also,I didn't say that I only use the russian tool kit when attacking an m14p. I wrote that I have not had to make or modify wrenches for the jobs Andy listed. In other words, the tens of thousands of dollars in hand tools we have here PLUS the russian tool kit have resulted in enough tools to do the job. The russian tool kit is a very good thing to have if you have an M14P as is a scuba tank!!!

We typically, take the 2 mags and the oil/fuel pump tree off to swap out the mount rings for the welded up mount. The rings vary a lot!! So, in a few cases, we even have to remove one stud from the right mag. One tip for you Andy, mark the location of each mag, L R and a mark where the mag base meets the case. This will help you put them right back on in hte same timing location. Also, DO NOT TURN THE CRANKSHAFT while the mags are off. If you mark the mags and their locations and do not turn the crank, you can reinstall the mags without having to retime the engine. Saves you alot work. If you have not marked the mags and or have turned the crank after they were removed, you will have to retime the engine. At that point, it would be REAL NICE to hace a full russian tool kit with the time right unit. KK

08/15/01 AIR SYSTEM

I understand the M14P doesn't use an electric starter, but uses air instead. Can you tell us more about the system?
The start system for the M14P is a great system. For starting, high pressure air is routed to an air distributor on the accessory pad of the engine which then sequences the air out to whatever cylinder is on the power stroke (after TDC with valves closed) which causes engine rotation. There is also an engine driven air compressor that pumps up the system again at flight RPM. After normal system pressure is restored a pressure relief valve opens porting air overboard. An added feature of our systems is a cockpit controlled "unload" valve which in conjunction with a check valve allows the compressor to port its output directly to atmosphere. This maximizes compressor life by keeping the compressor from working hard to pump air against the pressure relief valve, as well as minimizing the amount of oil introduced into the air system from constant pumping.

An added benefit to the air system is the reduced need for electrical power which allows us to run very small alternators, batteries and cables compared to an electric start airplane.

Initial air tank filling when installing a new system is normally done with a scuba tank. These are low cost, and are cheap to get filled. Our air system is set up with a fill valve for using an external tank to refill the system tank. Our air system is normally set to 850PSI allowing for a bit more stored air than those set to 700psi. It takes about 75-100lb per start attempt so normally, the tank never gets below 600psi even if you make a couple of tries. Minimum air pressure to start seems to be about 300psi. So, with our system, you get 6-8 attempts before you have to refill the system.

We call the scuba tank / hose set up for the hangar the "APU" since it serves the same purposeas the APU carts needed for other type airplanes. We travel with a small "pony" scuba tank that is about 3" dia and 14" long. This pony tank will fill a model 12 system nearly 2 times. The hangar APU will fill the airplane a dozen times or more.

Once you learn how to start your M14P, you rarely need back up air. We have friends and customers who travel the country without back up air bottles.

Some features of our air system:

Our air control system has 18 joints including the hook up to the bottle. Our valve is at the top of the bottle rather than separate so that the joint between the valve and the bottle is the only spot that can leak after the valve is closed. The valve is factory installed on the bottle and is o-ringed for a leak proof seal.

We use a firewall mounted aluminum CO2 Bottle to hold the air for starting. It has a burst pressure of 3000psi, but is both thinner and lighter than a scuba bottle rated at 1800psi. It also has twice the internal volume of a Sukhoi tank for a larger air reserve.

The bottle is mounted on a 6"x14" aluminum plate along with all the valves etc. This plate is mounted on the engine side of the firewall under the oil tank. Valves to the right of the airplane, bottle center to the left side. The bottle valve is accessed thru a pop open door on the left side of the cowl. This is also the door where the refill connection is. So, it is easy to pre and post flight the air valve when you do the oil. On the model 12, we turned the oil tank around backwards(inspection plate to the firewall) as it simplifies the plumbing tremendously. So our oil cap and door is on the left side of the airplane. So are the air door fuel tank and gasco drains etc. We like this arrangement as you get in the airplane from the left and all the required checkpoints are on one side.

The parts we use are all rated at 1000psi and up. We pressure test our systems to 950psi and typically set the pressure relief valve to pop off at 800-850 psi so that after the hot, compressed air cools, you will still have about 750psi(50 atmospheres) in the bottle after cool down. We have been using an electronic sensor for air pressure that is part of the Grand Rapids Tecnologies EIS engine monitor system we use. Also, for set up and as a back up, we have a 'steam' gage right in the manifold of the air system. You can look at it from underneath the airplane (up into the cooling tunnel) and check the air pressure without turning on the electrical system. It's also handy for setting the pressure relief valve solo rather than having a helper read the pressure in the cockpit. KK
Kevin made a good point about the bypass system extending compressor life. It should be interesting to see how many hours an average Model 12 compressor gets in comparison to a Yak aircraft. The compressor rings (there about ten in the two pistons) and the bore will eventually wear, but this will be influenced by cooling and of course oil. I believe that the ultimate limiting factor may be more related to the one-way valves and even the poppet valve on top of the compressor. That's what lets air in for compression. Gunk and carbon could foul the seat and there is not much you can do about it aside from spraying degunking fluid or alternatively stripping and rebuilding. It would probably be a good idea to service the external one-way valve occasionally. Its pretty easy to reach for cleaning and you can check it for leaks by simply blowing shop air into it. I have re-seated the piston with grinding paste before, but if its badly corroded, replacing it may be the best option. And dont forget to replace the crush washers. But I have also seen new valve bodies with pretty rough seats and am amazed how well the whole system actually works. Seems air is black art. - Neil Forsyth


Carl and I went to the OKBM factory in Voronezh, Russia and received their certification in overhaul of the M-14P and -X engine. We have established a working relationship with OKBM regarding parts, service and support. Our interest is in maintaining the integrity and quality of the M-14P that is world-reknowned. The Production Manager of OKBM, Nicolai Sukhanov, will be visiting our facilities shortly.

There are a lot of rumors floating around about the engine. We would like to take the time and dispel some of the misinformation. Alexander Ivchenko, in Zaparozhye, Ukraine designed the AI- series engines. Production was moved to Voronezh when the engine reached 300 horsepower. The AI-14 versions were licensed to Poland(Wilga) and China(CJ-6). The M-14 was a version designed by the team of Ivan M.Vendeneyev in Voronezh, Russia. Additional design changes resulting in the current version of the M-14P engine were made by Anatoly Bakanov, the present Chief Designer at OKBM for more than 20 years. Technically, the manufacturer is OKBM. To call a Romanian engine a Vendeneyev M-14P is not accurate.

The Romanians were given a licensing agreement to assemble and manufacture M-14P engines, along with drawings. Initially, the Romanians assembled engines from Russian parts. Since 1990, the Romanians have manufactured the parts that they don't have. However, they were never given the engineering data by the Russians. The licensing agreement expired in 1995 and has not been renewed.

When the factory in Voronezh receives a Romanian engine for overhaul, they remove and replace any parts manufactured in Romania. The Russians have found the quality of Romanian parts lacking of their standards. The Romanians use 500 hours between overhauls, while the Russian M-14P is 750 hours between overhauls. OKBM expects the Russian engine to be increased to 1500 hours TBO (time between overhaul) for some applications. Helicopters will always have a lower TBO. The total service life of the Russian M-14P engine is 5000 hours.

Here's how to tell if you have a Russian, Romanian or helicopter engine:

K(YA): Russian (YA is actually a backwards "R")
RA: Romanian
KE: Helicopter

Serial Number meaning for the Russian engine, example KYA132026:

1st digit: Year example: 2001, 1991, 1981
2nd digit: Quarter of the year
3rd digit: Series of the engine
Last 3 digits: Ordinal, number off the production line

The numbering system is different for a Romanian engine. I will post it when I have the information. Also, the original engine Logbook, Section 2.3 will list the individual features of the engine. Special time parameters may be listed here. I have warned some engine shoppers to pay close attention to the data plate on the engine. There are less than scrupulous sellers who may try to pass off the engine as "new". Your first clue is a "missing" logbook. Your second clue is the serial number is not only on the data plate; it is also stamped onto a section of the rear case. They should match. We have heard that some timed-out helicopter engines are being re-manned into "M-14Ps". Basically, you get what you pay for. I am a bargain hunter through and through, but when it comes to my butt in the air, I am not going to scrimp on safety to get a "good deal".

The OKBM M-14P is a time-proven, well-engineered powerplant with years of excellent service and distinguishes itself from other engines on the market. Use prudence: when you find a cheaper or better deal, find out exactly what kind of engineering was done before the product was put out to the consumer. Ask questions. if you don't get answers, maybe you should think again about purchasing the product. Jill
Jill, Thanks for updating us on your trip, and the history lesson on the engine. Do you know if there are any plans to manufacture new engines again at Voronezh in the future? Darin
Darin, they are currently making NEW production engines in Voronezh. As I said, there is a competition between the designs of a SU54 and a Yak152 Trainer which will utilize the M-14P. This is very good news for the factory. We have a 2000 manufacture engine coming in one of our containers arriving Sept/Oct. .... I just reviewed my last post and I forgot to say that the factory is currently producing 10 engines a month. Sorry, I forgot this significant piece of info!

The SU54 and Yak 152 are new competing designs. The trainer will be designed around the use of an M-14 engine.

Richard Goode has an exclusive world distribution on the M-14PF engine with OKBM, but not the M-14P. We did not ask for any exclusive rights. We thought it would be foolish of OKBM to do this. It stifles competition and holds customers hostage to one seller. In a bigger picture: one has to look beyond the quick $$ to be had and say we want OKBM to succeed and churn out lots of reasonably priced engines! This is a simple statement and I urge you to go to Russia and see how they are progressing by fits and starts. The contrasts are amazing. Carl made the statement that it is truly incredible that a country could be so technologically advanced yet so many aspects of people's lives are Third World conditions. You have to get out of Moscow city center to see this. There is an amazing amount of construction and restoration happening in Russia, but the average salary is between $50 - $150 a month. Many people use their large, beautiful gardens at their dachas to supplement their income. An amazing place! Jill

07/18/01 PROPELLER

On our trip to russia we met with the guys at Vperod. Currently, we have new blades in stock and more on the way. ( 'Tis the season for Yak 52 pilots to forget to put their landing gear down. ) Also, we have a bunch of hub parts and some spinners on the way. This company also builds the MTV-9 prop under license. They are nearing completion of a prop with scimitar blades. This has been in the works for some time and they assured us in 1-2 years it will be on the market. No price, yet. Jill
Kevin you are correct on the information that Vperod does not build for the Western market. I was not aware that their license had run out. We did not pursue any discussions on the MT prop because we're not interested in that market. I'll follow-up out of curiosity. On the scimitar blades: we saw the protoype, but nobody is taking orders yet. Jill


Would someone happen to have a really accurate weight for the V503 Russian paddle prop, with mounting bolts?  Same for the 3-blade Whirlwind please, if someone knows an accurate number.  Dan
90lb for V-530 without spinner.  80lb for the WhirlWind and MT both with spinner and adapter/spacer flange.  That would make the MT prop alone weigh approx 70lb. The V-530 is heavier because of its steel hub.   The MT and WW have aluminum hubs.  KK
Here are some more M14P accessories I've weighed that those of you planning M14s might be interested in:  (See table below)

Cowl, SP95, w/o the 9 little struts that attach to cylinders  17.5
Oil tank, Yak 52 13.0
M14P mount ring 6.5
M14P SS exhaust 15.0

My manual says the engine w/o generator, compressor and filter, mount ring, exhaust, tach gen. weighs 467 lb. and the air compressor, AK50A weighs 6.5 lb. You would still have to add the air tank, shower of sparks, oil cooler, plus hoses, wires, selenoids, motor mount, and ?? to get total installation weight.   Bill
The SP95 cowl is only the compound curve nose bowl of the cowl.  Not the flat section from there aft to the FW.  The sp95 nose bowl is what is on the Prototype Model 12 that Curtis Pitts built, both Culp specials, etc.  The reason it is used is that it fastens to the engine.  The yak cowl needs the louver ring and the fuselage to hold it up.  Many magazine articles have misstated that the sp95 cowl nose bowl was a yak cowl when in fact it is not. So, by the time you add the 9 braces, rear cowl supports frames, flat wrap skins, scoops, hinges, camlocs etc, the cowl will come close to 30 lb. FWF. Our glass one weighs less than that.

As I wrote to you before, 689 lb. is a true number FWF including all systems.  The B&C alt does NOT have an adapter and this weight includes the BC alt.   This number includes the hoses, oil tank mounting brackets, cooler mounts, sparkplugs, control cables and brkts, etc.  For example, the oil tank weighs 13 lb. as Bill posted.  Add another few lbs for the mounts.  Bill posted the mount ring weighs 6.5 lb. but what about the legs?  Using the book weights like Bill posted along with a few I know in memory:

Engine 467.0
Compressor 6.5
Oil Tank 13.0
Mount Ring 6.5
Exhaust 15.0
 2 Blade Prop V-530 90.0
Remaining Cowl 15.0
Oil Cooler and Mount 15.0
Cables 5.0
Brackets 2.0
Oil Tank Mounts 4.0
10 amp BC Alternator (no adapter needed) 4.5
Mount Legs 10.0
Start Booster(shower of sparks) 2.0
Hoses 10.0
Fittings and Hardware 3.5
Air Start System 20.0

Use a 2 blade MT and cut 10 lb. off to get 679 lbs. KK


Today, Carl called to discuss some stuff with Dad and asked about some of the thrust numbers I have been posting for the M14 engines.  I thought I would bring it up here so the entire group can benefit.

One question was how did I come up with or where did I get the thrust numbers I have been quoting.  Well, several places is the answer.  It depends on the engine/prop combo.

First of all, I should define static thrust.  This is a good way to compare the pull available with a given engine/prop combo.  Static Thrust = max thrust the engine prop combo can produce with the airplane not moving forward.  This is usually measured with a pull dynomometer (there are literally hundreds of types of dynomometers).  A pull dyno is a very accurate sensitive pull scale.  The airplane is tied to a hard point or tie down anchor with a long nylon strap with the dyno in the line.  With a pilot on board, power settings are selected up to full throttle high rpm with all other combos in between.  Thes numbers are logged and the max thrust is determined from the readings.  This type of test can be adjusted for given day and temp conditions.

So, my sources for these thrust measurements are MT, Curtis Pitts, and ME. MT did these tests, Curtis did these tests and we did them here.  For the M14P 360hp with the V-530 prop, MT got 1325lb static thrust many years ago. Curtis got 1320 on his dyno in 1996.  We got 1320 on our dyno in 1999.  Having 3 seperate instruments operated by seperate people yield the same results makes the number VERY believeable.  

On the 360hp M14P with a 3 blade MT 2.5m(98"dia) prop, MT got 1550 we got 1560.  Pretty close.

We have not tested an M14PF 400hp with the MT3 blade prop as we have not had one available yet(we will soon...:)).  So, I took the values MT had on record.  Seeing that their #s and ours have been right together, it is a reasonable assumption to accept their test values.

To compare these thrust values to those for lycomings, I was able to again use numbers found by MT, Curtis Pitts, and our own test results.  Curtis did these tests years ago for the hartzell 2 blade props and in 1998 or 99 did a static test on the 3 blade black composite hartzell in the prototype flame job S2C.  MT has done all these tests too.  We got a chance to do these tests as part of some Prop STCs we are working on for the S2A and S2B,C,S airplanes.  We needed to test both the 2 blade Hartzell and the new MT 3 blade props to compare the results.  We all found that the typical 200hp lyc with 2 blade hartzell made around 400 to 440lb of static thrust.  We found the 260hp lyc with 2 blade hartzell made about 800lb static thrust.  The new MT prop we want to use on the S2A or Eagles or any other acro plane with 200hp lyc made about 470lb static thrust.  Not much gain but the prop is soooo much lighter that the stress on the crankshaft is much less with the MT.  The new MT for the S2B,C,S with the 260hp lyc made 965lb static thrust as compared to the 960 of the 3 blade Claw from hartzell but 165lb more than the 2 blader.  This showed that the new MT and the Claw had virtually the same static thrust yet the MT is $12k and the Hartzell is $25k.  2 for 1 price savings!!!  This STC is nearly complete.  

From all of the above, I was able to show that the M14P/3 blade prop combo has nearly 2 times the static thrust as a stock S2B with a 2 blader on it and almost 4 times that of an Eagle or S2A!!!! These numbers prove out with flight tests.  Also from these data sets, it is not hard to approximate the static thrust of other engine prop combos.  Like 250hp 540 lyc with a fix pitch prop.  A guess would be approx 600 to 650lb static.  So, a Model 12 with an M14P 360hp/3blade MT combo makes 2.5 times the thrust of a 250hp/fixed pitch powerd airplane.  This MORE than makes up for the 200-300lb extra weight.  On the other hand, putting a PW R-985 450hp engine on a Model 12 raises the empty weight by 300-350lb.  The Static thrust with a 3 blade hartzell (only prop for R-985 remotely accepted as acro prop and lightest), is about 1750lb static thrust.  So, 1500lb airplane with 1560lb static thrust vs 1850 lb airplane with 1750lb static thrust.  This shows the M14P combo to be a better choice.    KK


Jim and group,  I too agree with Jim that the M14P is a better engine than the Warner.  Heck, this is why we are building the McCullocoupe, right?  As for deals on M14P and PF engines, the best deals going right now are from George Coy at Gesoco.com.  George has BRAND NEW built in 2000 M14p engines for $15,500.00.  He has BRAND NEW built in 2000 M14PF 400hp engines for $19,500.00.  We just bought an M14PF for the McCullocoupe and it is very pretty.  Chrome pushrod tubes, amoerican plug lead ends, etc, etc.  It is set up for the MT prop so no adapter needed. These prices from George include a spare parts kit, and tool kit.  George gives a 1yr 100hr warranty on these engines too.  

Second best deal out ther now is the Brand new 1997 manufacture M14P engines from Jim Wickersham at Shadetree aviation.  These are new direct from the factory when he bought them.  I think his current price is around $16k and these units include the spares kit and tool kit as well.  Very good guy to deal with as many of our customers have purchased engines from him that were exactly as advertised and exactly on time delivery.

I think Carl and Jill have some new engines avaialable too.  I don't know the manufacture dates on these but they can tell you if you ask.  They have some O/H engines also, I think.  If budget is real tight, this may be a way to save a couple grand.  Jill, what do you guys have avail now?  Carl also has spares like exh systems, oil tanks etc.

Some of the engines available out there have a better sounding price but don't have all the extras.  For example, ther may be new engines available for $14,500.00 but no spare or tool kit.  Tool kit for $800 and spares kit for $400 means you really pay $15,700 for the same package.  Also, ther are some new engines out there that are NOS, new old stock.  These engines may be 10 to 15 years old yet never on an airplane.  Typically, the prices are about the same and brand new built this year engines.  So there is not a big savings to be had by getting a NOS engine unless the price is about $10k.  I personally can't see the point in saving $3-4k vs. the peace of mind from factory new.  Also, it still isn't cost effective to o/h the engines here when the supply at present prices is soooo good.

There are a few other guys around the country who have parts or engines. Frankly, some are very untrustworthy.  As I tell all our customers, here is a list of what you need russian.  Call these guys above and find out what they have instock that can ship today.  If they have it buy it, if not, NEVER send $ up front.  Work with these above importers that have a good reputation.  Compare apples to apples inclluding the tools and spares, spark plug adapters, alternator adapter, etc etc.

I know of a few "never do business with him" kinda people out there.  One in particular has even attempted to bootleg/blackmarket Model 12 kits and components.  Others are in or have been sued over deals.  I think many of these sharks are poised to pounce on new unknowing people building biplanes, murphy super rebels, or even wanting a yak.  Lets try and keep these newbies to M14P stuff out of trouble.

Andy, maybe we should start a parts supplier doc that has contributions from our members positive or negative about suppliers.  Sub set it in kits, parts, engines, etc.    KK


On the rear case of a M14P there are two small hose connections, one at the top of the case and the other just above the right mag with a line going over to the left side next to an intake tube. I can't find these in the manual but figure they must be for prime and mp gauge connection. Can anyone tell me which one is what? Also on the fuel pump there is another small connection on the left side, is that a drain in case the pump seals start leaking?
The connection fwd of the rt mag is the primer and normally has a yellow hard line attached to it crossing to the left side of center clamping to in intake tube.  Makes it easier to attach the line.  The one near the very top of the engine near #1 intake tube base is the MP gauge port.  The small fitting on the fuel pump is left as is.  It is a diaphram vent and tattle-tail for a leaking diaphram.  All the Sukhois and Yaks I have seen to date do not have a line hooked to this fitting. KK


Jill,  Here is the poop on the props from our point of view.

You wrote that you have a friends with Yak 55s that compared props.  One with WW one with MT. What are the diameters of each? Most of the MT props out there are 98" dia like we use on the Model 12. Most of the WW are 102 dia. The props have to be compared of equal dia to truly see the performance of each compared to the other.  A 102" dia MT out performs a 98" MT.

Jim Rust wrote to you that my comments on the 2 blade vs. 3 blade are basically correct.  We tested the static thrust of the 2 blade and our numbers matched the test results that Gerd Muhlbauer and Curtis Pitts got when they tested the 2 bade prop.  That being 1320lb of static thrust and NASTY tip vortices.  The 2 blader is too short for optimum performance.

Jim writes, "Concerning performance, the 102 inch dia. does out perform to MT." The way it was explained to me at the time, this is a 102" WW compared to a 98" MT.  Obviously the 102" creates more thrust.  Same with the MT.  We did not test a 102" MT vs a 102" WW as these props are too long for the Model 12. BTW, the 102" props reduce the top speed of the airplane approx 5mph while increasing vertical penetration.

Jim continues, "We have not done any real performance comparisons with the 98 inch dia. Whirl Wind Propeller with respect to MT. "

Well, we have.  Ben Morphew and Dad and I bought the first two 98" WW props made. We tested to 2 props on our model 12.  We had the WW on the plane first because it arrived first. The static pull of each was so close that we could not see a difference on our dynomometer.  This leads me to a logical concllusion that if 102" MT and WW are to be compared on the same engine and equipment, little difference would be seen there.  The big difference we saw between the WW and MT is that after hundreds of $ in dynamic balancing the WW still shook the airplane.  The MT was turbine smooth right out of the box.

Why is certified important?  To me it means that tons of $ have been spend in developing the product by a company that has built thousands of props.  

You write, "The MT has also been wracked with Ads to comply with:  $$$ and the FAA.  I cannot speak for maintenance on the Whirlwind propeller..."

This is true but here is the kicker to you statement.  The hub that MT was using during the early period when the hub cracking ADs, blade bolt propblems etc, is the EXACT HUB that WW uses today!!  A McCauley hub NOT designed for this use.  MT went thru 13 special mods to the McCauley hub to stablize it and finally, dveloped their own hub that is CERTIFIED for 450hp in full gyro acro like on a sukhoi.  The hub ADs come from the old MTV3 props that use the McCauley hub.  WW uses a blade lag bolt design similar to that of the old MT bolt design that has long been changed. 

I agree that you have to prioritize what you want out of your airplane.  If you don't have the budget for a 3 blade prop, you are stuck with the 2 blade that will beat the hell out of the airframe.  IT is cheap, but distructive. I have 4 of them for sale at $3800 brand new in the box if anyone out there wants one.

MT has service centers all over the world.  WW has one in CA only and your shop is about the only place in the US to work on the 2 blade with the aid of WW on the blades themselves. Repairs and O/h are VERY costly if you have to ship a prop from anywhere USA to CA.  MT is all over. BTW,   WW is $10470.00.   MT is $11,370.00  Not much difference.  KK


The V530 2 blade Russian prop is 2.4meters in Dia.  That's about 94.5" dia.  The MT, and WW 3 blade props are 2.5m (98") or 2.6m(102") in dia.  Both diameters are available from both manufacturers.  Hoffmann has a 2.4m(94.5") and a 2.5+m(99") version.  The 2 blader is shorter than the 3 so my numbers were correct.

The confusion comes to be like this.  Many airplanes are designed for a given 2 blade prop and when it is converted to a 3 blade, the blades are usually narrower and shorter to give comparable performance with less noise and vibs. An example is a Bonanza.  In the case of the M14P engine, the V530 2blade prop is not of the optimum diameter and blade area for best performace.  It is a short prop for the Yaks that give good ground clearence.  A wilga prop is longer as Jill pointed out a while back.  The 3 blade props work better, produce 25% more thrust, shake and vibrate the airframe less, look better and remove the fabric from the airframe at a much slower rate than the 2 blader.  Those big square tips produce terrible, nasty vortices that really pound away on the airframe.

V530 94.5"dia
MT 98" or 102" or 107" on special order
WW 98" or 102"
Hoffmann 94.5" or 99"

BTW, we tested all the above brands of props for overall performance, max static thrust, vibration, cruise rpm etc.  MT was the best performer all around and the only one that is certified. KK


What was the 210-51 bushing at FS 0.0 for, and why is omitted?
It was for a 5 point lyc 540 mount just in case the M14P didn't work.   KK
That's interesting about the fall-back strategy of sticking a Lyc up front. I'm curious, how does the weight of the M14P and the IO-540 compare? Have you ever considered designing a mount and cowl to allow an IO-540 option?
We have not looked into the 540 power option for the Model 12.  It would be a huge leap backwards in power and thrust.  Keep in mind that at the time Curtis designed the Model 12, and the Model 11 for that matter, M14P's were hard to get (1993).  He wanted to make sure all his options were open IF he didn't get an M14P.  That, too, is why the airframe is rated for 450hp, in case he had to use a P&W R985 450hp.  So, the answer is NO to your question of if we have done any work toward a 540 installation for the 12.  Engines are too easy to get and cheap.   KK
Is the M14P much heavier than the Lyc?
The M14P FWF is about 60-70lb heavier I think.  I know the M14P FWF is 50lb lighter than a 220hp cont radial like on a stearman.  The P&W R985 FWF is about 300lb heavier than the M14P.  The R985's extra 90hp is not much gain over the M14P for an added 300 pounds.  It makes the airplane a single place that is very big on the front end, since you have to keep the same gross wt so that gives you a 450-500lb useful.  A better choice is to use the M14PF of 400-420hp with no weight gain.  BTW, the 300lb added weight of the R985 comes with a thrust gain of only 200lb over the 360hp M14P.   KK


I removed my m14p from the plastic shipping bag and mounted it on my fuselage, it will be about two years before I get to where I can run the engine. Question is, will the engine be ok for this period with the Russian pickling now that it is out of the bag or should I rotate it and spray oil in the cylinders weekly?  Regards,  Bill
The Russian  preservative is fine, don't turn it or spray anything else in it.  It will be better to leave it.  They did agreat job of, as they say, "conserving" it.   Be sure to follow the de-preservation steps in the M14P maintainance manual.  There are many steps to this and it take the better part of a day.  They have oil, paper, cloth, etc. in places you'd never think about if you dodn't read it in the book. 
Sincerely,  KK
Kevin's right.  I found out about the preservative cloth between the mag points on a Yak 55 the hard way.. just doesn't want to run!  The manual, as Kevin said, covers all the steps.  Jill


Hales notes: automotive electric fule pump selenoid valve. nozzles welded to exhaust headers plumbed with 1/4'' tubeing high heat & tee to split to both headers, locate tank pump & selenoid valve under main tank. use breather cap. vent it outside. You could build it all on a piece of ply and bungie it in. That way it portable to fill or it just skips the next ride. Oil is corvus oil used in concrete as a release agent get it local. oh a switch and breaker in the rear and a quick connect. Sounds simple.  Denis
Mike,   Last year I built and installed a smoke system in my Acroduster II. It has worked great. It was designed by Steve Wolf. My system includes: A 5.5 Ga. fiberglass oil tank behind the rear seat, 3/8 aliminum tubing (without any fittings until the pump which is a hiperformance (blue) Holley racing pump and mounted on the engine side of the firewall. The pump comes with a regulator. You must take the filter screen out of the pump. Between the pump and regulator there is a normally closed 12V solenode valve that is switched with the pump. Steve desisned this system to be a "show" system so I have a nozzel in each exhaust. The nozzel is halfway from the cylinder and the end of the pipe. It puts out a lot of smoke!! I don't get very much oil on the belly. I only smell the smoke if I am doing a very fast aileron roll. I have a canopy. I'm sure that you could get buy with fewer nozzels if you don't need the really big smoke. I can feel when the smoke is on but I don't noticed any reduced performance. The smoke lasts about 10 minutes. If I am doing some writing or just want the smoke to hang around a long time I use a Shell transformer oil, but,it costs $4.00/gal. If I just want to have fun (most of the time) I burn no.1 diesel (stove oil). It works great but if you spill it, your plane smells like a Mack truck for awhile. I hope this helps. Wayne Ensey Albany, OR
Wayne,  What did you use for nozzles, and plumbing between the pump and the nozzles?
Mike,   For the hoses betwen the Manifold/Regulator and the nozzels I used 1/4" braided stainless with a Teflon liner. It has a temp rating of about 500 degrees and a burst pressure of 10,000 lbs. You can buy the hose and fittings at a hydraulic supply house. The fittings even have the correct flare angle. The nozzels are round machined 1/8" black pipe caps welded to the exhaust pipes. Drill the hole in the center of the caps before welding to the pipes, then drill thru the pipes. I think the hole size was 3/64, but I'm not sure. If you want to know let me know and I'll get back to you. You need to keep the closest part of the hose about 1 1/2" from the exhaust pipe. If you use a 1/8" male pipe to 1/4" male flare elbow for the connection to the nozzel you will have enough distance. Here's something that I am going to add to my system. My switch is by the throttle. I'm going to add an addittional momentary button on the stick. Sorry this is so windy. I hope this helps. Wayne
This listing in Trade-a-plane: AIRSHOW SMOKE SYSTEMS. Smoke pumps, fittings, hose, injectors and hardware. Custom systems and tanks. Call Ryan Industries, 914, 635-2754, E-mail ryanindust@aol.com


M-14P cost new is $15,500 to $18,000 depending on who you get it from.  This is the 360hp version and includes the generator, mags, fuel pump, carb, prop gov and engine mount ring.  Most come with a tool kit and a spare parts kit for that price.

M-14PF 400hp is $25,000 with same equipment listed above.

Overhauled M-14Ps go for about $10,000.

Fuel burn at full throttle is 34gal/hr.  At 75% cruise low alt, 15.5 gal/hr. High alt 14.5 gal/hr.  At this setting, we get 170mph in our Pitts Model 12. Econo cruise @ 12.5 to 13 gal/hr.

Dry weight is 470lb.  620 cubic inch nine cyl radial.  Internally supercharged to get 35" MAP at 2950rpm, 1950 prop rpm.  Engine is gear reduced .658:1. Fully aerobatic at unlimited level. 

Works on 80 or 100LL and some use car gas.

Some dealers in the US are:

GeSoCo Industries in Vermont

Shadetree Aviation in NV

Snaproll Aerobatic in KS

Carl Hayes in San Diego, CA

As well as a handful of small time importers who bring in extra stuff when the get a Yak shipped in.

We have all the required Stuff to hook it up converting from metric to AN fittings etc.

As for Happy users, ask any Sukhoi or Yak driver or a Pitt Model 12 owner.  KK


The mixture is not actually slaved to the throttle.  It is controlled by a barrometric pressure anneroid.  This system senses the barr. press. and sets the mixture accordingly.  From 0 to 5000ft. it stays full rich.  From 5000ft up it leans out.  There is an accelerator pump curcuit that is coupled to the throttle to ad extra fuel when the throttle is rapidly advanced.  This accell pump is the cause of the "stumble" that most M-14Ps have when the throttle is pushed up after being at idle or near idle for a while.  This can be adjusted out with a series of different needles etc to get it right for your condititions and piloting.  However, nobody does this and they live with the stumble.  There is a carb mod done here that we have done on our Model 12 and a few other M-14Ps around here.  It involves plugging this accell pump passage.  Very simple, and very effective.  The throttle response on our 12 is fantastic, like a dragster.  KK

08/14/00 OIL SYSTEM

Gary,  The internal vol of the tank should be a min of 4 gal.  The russian one is about 4.5 gal.  A min of 10% ov the internal vol should be for air and expansion.  The oil returning to the tank is a bit foamed up and there needs to be room for that.  The russian tank allows for a max of 4 gal of oil in it even though it is about a 4.5gal tank.  Minimum oil for flight is 2.5 gal.  KK


Kevin, Without a drain on the air tank, does it still need to be removed and drained at regular intervals? I'm planning on using a Yak "snot bottle" with a cable activated dump valve between the compressor and tank. Your tank looks like a scuba tank, can it be easily removed and filled at a scuba place?

On the oil tank cut-off valve, if it is 3/4 pipe thread, could I weld a 3/4pt. to the oil tank fitting and avoid the adoptor between 12AN and 3/4pt? The picture of it looks like it would screw in ok if the other two tank fittings were out, but I'm not sure since I don't yet have the valve. If it won't, I also will need the adoptor you wrote about.

What are you using for 12v. shower of sparks? I have a 12v. Bendix unit, but don't know if it will work with the Russian mag.  Bill
Bill,  If you are gonna use the snot bottle, you don't need the second sol valve.  You can drill and tap a drain in the bottle we sell without any problems to add a drain if you want.  We did that in our 12.  Yes, you could thread the oil valve onto the 3/4 npt fitting added to the oil tank fitting.  We do it the other way to get proper alignment and sealing at the same time as the pipe thread may not end up tight in the right place. 

We use a 12v booster coil of WW2 vintage.  Just like the russian 24v one but made for 12v.  The bendix shower of sparks unit or the Slick Start unit avail now will not work.  They are designed to use the point in the mag as the exciter and give a boosted spart once each time the points cycle as when you spin the engine with the starter.  With a Booster Coil like we need on the M-14P or R-985, the coil unit has a set of vibrating points built in and actually give off a continuous spark for starting that is sent to the correct cyl thru the mag.  It continues to buzz while the start switch is in.  If you use the Bendix or slickstart, you get only a quick blip of boosted spark  until you hit the start switch the next time.  Why do we need the booster coil?  The engine is turning too slow at start to get good voltage out of the mags.  The booster provides that spark and it is retarded to help start too. KK