I really don't know. My Cat has a 582 but I haven't flown it yet. My first Avid, a MKIV had a 582. My current Avid has a 912. To me there is no comparison. The 912 wins hands down for power, much less maintenance and a certain peace of mind that doesn't come with a 582. The effect the 912 has on W&B is real but easily managed. The thing I do not know is the effect of the 912 additional weight on the W&B where it is placed on the Catalina.
As is the case with ANY amateur built experimental, besides just looking for good workmanship, I think weight and weight and balance are paramount importance. I do not know what an "as light as possible" Catalina would weigh with a 582, but I think you would want it as close to that weight as possible. And then be sure that weight and balance is within limits...that the weight is properly distributed. I know this is obvious, but a lot of planes end up way over weight because people add bling or try to beef them up and they end up with no useful load.
The Ridge Runner is a very fun plane. A friend and I finished a build last year and flew it until it was sold. It was pull start 503 powered and had a jump seat with no controls. Ours weighed 400 empty but felt MUCH lighter than a typical Avid. It was a lot more like flying a true ultralight than flying an Avid even though in every respect it is a well made tube and fabric 3 axis airplane with flaps. It could land and take off in nothing. Here is a video of the end of the first flight and my first landing in the RR. I did not use flaps because it was a little breezy. They are not still in business but is is a well thought out little plane. I miss it.
"Avid" fixtures, molds and so forth have been split up, duplicated (sometimes poorly as in 912 engine mounts) depending on which company that produced parts at the time was "Avid". I do not know the history exactly, but the reason I ask is that it would be not only interesting, but very important to know EXACTLY what fixtures, molds and so forth for EXACTLY which Avid models this particular individual has. For instance I knew a fiberglass guy in Montana that had a bunch of "Avid" cowl molds. i had him make parts for my Magmum. He also had MKIV cowl molds. So does this person have them or are there multiple cowl molds? I guess what I am asking is, EXACTLY what would the non-profit be getting and is it the ability to make most of the parts the group would need? The idea is intriguing....
Have you talked to your local FSDO? I think if you approach them and say you have a couple of wrecked deregistered amateur built planes (say a couple, just make sure you are being honest and have some actual parts from another source so you would pass a lie detector :-) that you want to MODIFY and put together as a built from parts plane. I KNOW this is acceptable practice. What you need to determine is level and type of MODS FAA thinks is OK for the 51% rule Find out what they want to see, what they expect the DAR to ask for and so forth. if you work with the FAA first, document who you talked to there, your questions and their answers, you are prepared to talk to the DAR when the time comes and have someone to refer the DAR to. I think I would take an approach something like that. This approach beats trying to re-register or finding a nameplate because you will be the builder and get the repairman cert. This is appropriate because it sounds like you are indeed making some major modifications that would definitely qualify you as "building" the assemblies even though you are just modifying them (fuse, wings, tailfeathers etc.) Again, just thinking out loud. Chris
Here is a real world example. A friend bought a rans s-6 that had never been registered. it was legacy from pre sport pilot ultralight trainer days. He brought it home and took it completely apart into individual pieces basically (except for the wing rip/spar assemblies. he ended up ordering a bunch of parts from Rans (I do not know if that is important) because the steel fuse was rusted beyond use. Anyway he (we, I was with him) went and talked to the local FSDO and explained the situation. We found that at least in our experience these guys share a love of aviation and want plane to be in the air. It did not feel to us like they were there to come up with reasons to shut us down. They said "sounds like you are building it from parts you got here and there". He built it as parts and has the repairman certificate, even though it is technically still a rans S-6. I think there are more cases of situations like this than most realize. Most of the time with a lot of thought and actually communicating to work toward a solution things can work out. If you are truly COMPLETELY rebuilding a plane, it's hard to prove where the parts came from AND most technical authority figures will realize the fact that it is a COMPLETE rebuild so essentially you are building from scratch and will give you a break. if on the other hand you are only proposing repairs to a wrecked plane that is repairable, the case will be much harder to make.
How did the DAR know that you did not get wings from one place, a bent up fuselage from another, and an engine and mount from somewhere else? Plus you said you are performing mods. Seems like you need to present that what you have is disparate parts from multiple sources and not just a wrecked plane you are re-building. It can be done. A bit different angle but similar situation are the myriad of "experimental" Cubs and similar piper rag and tube experimental planes. Builders get parts from various wrecked planes, wings from a cub, fuse from a PA-12, tail feathers from something else, do a few custom mods and what was once a bunch of pieces of once certified planes is an amateur built experimental. So you should be able to present a case for build from parts. The great thing about that is you are the builder Another less desirable but possible option is to buy (or be given) the nameplate of a wrecked but not de-registered airplane and put yours back together under the nameplate. The downside to this is you do not own the repairman certificate. These are just some thoughts. Chris
Here are my thoughts taken from a previous thread with an interesting twist. The thread was started by Lorax on Oct 1st, 2021 if you want to look it up. Me:
Probably going to get hammered for saying this, but if you have a chance to get an unused grey head for a good deal grab it! Assuming it has been kept inside and not left out in the weather, I would replace the carb boots and any external rubber and put it on the plane and run it. Break it in properly on the ground (just in case). Normally I have done the break in procedure in the air over the airstrip I fly out of (just in case) because it is much easier to perform in the air than on the ground. But you don't know anything about the engine.
Make absolutely sure since it is a grey head with rubber seals that you either buy pre-mix dexcool or mix up your own with DISTILLED water and those rubber seals will never give you a problem. If the engine runs and works great as-is, fly it and gain confidence until you trust it and then fly the shit out of it. When you decide it is time for an overhaul send it to lockwood or another reputable shop and have them put a ceramic seal in place of the rubber if you want.
You might want to get a couple of the carb "short kits" or whatever they are called (the rebuild kits that only contain gaskets) and if the carbs give you any problem during startup and break in, rebuild the carbs.
Make sure you plumb the oil reservoir in properly, fill it with oil properly using the bleed screw, and watch for any drop in oil as you break in and run the engine for the first several hours. If all is good you should be money!
Like I said I may get hammered for saying this but I see no reason to do a time only rebuild of one of these engines if it is "new" and been kept in decent indoor conditions since purchased.
Couple of years ago, I picked up a Kitfox 3 project that had never been finished. It had a never run 582 gray head with it. I have a shop nearby me where I have taken probably at least a dozen two stroke engines to over the years, they have a good mechanic. He pulled the engine apart, and didn't find anything wrong except for this. When the engines are assembled in the factory, they use an assembly grease to protect against corrosion and initial lubrication on start up. That grease was close to 30 years old, and was all dried out. He washed it all out and the bearings were fine but he figured there would have been problems if I had just run the engine without the teardown. Of course new seals were installed on the reassembly. That engine had a C gearbox, and I took that off myself. The front bearing didn't run smooth, and I figured it was maybe corroded. I sent the gearbox off to Steve Beaty at Airscrew performance to change out the front bearing and it was the same as the engine. No problem with the bearing, but the assembly grease was all dry and caused the bearing to appear to be bad. That is my experience with a never run rotax that was 30 years old. Make what you will of it. :-)
I will acquiesce to Jim's experience with a new old "in the box) engine. My experience has always been with engines that have at least been previously run....but some not run for WELL over 10 years. I have always used the approach I described above and had great results. But those engines had been run previously, so any grease applied during assembly would have been diluted and gone. My experience is first hand including performing all disassembly, inspection, overhaul and re assembly activities myself (with the exception boring cylinders).
I have seen first had with my own eyes what the 582 looks like inside at all phases of time in use many times. If it had been previously run I would still recommend what I suggested above, but in light of discovering dried grease in an un-run engine, it is probably best to disassemble it first and clean up the dried grease.
Thanks for not letting me steer him in the wrong direction Jim.In the situation above the engine was “brand new” and I think Jim’s concerns were valid.
So....... If this engine is already sitting on and aircraft and has been flown, I still stand by what I posted above.
Anyone even remotely interested in a Catalina will want to take a serious look at this plane. I know Jo personally. He's the real deal. This plane is the real deal. I've watched the progress. Jo is an incredibly capable builder who pays absolute attention to detail. Everything must be "right" or it doesn't happen on his projects. Chris
I never had a problem drawing too much from the lighting coils. I ran LED landing lights, LED strobes, a full sized radio, mode c transponder and GPS and never had issues with charging the battery during flight. I even ran seat heaters at cruise in the winter. It's important to understand that at idle and lower RPM the lighting coil puts out much less current, so while idling, taxiing and so forth all of the accessories are really running off the battery, so only run the seat heaters at cruise :-)