VW?

[Richard Lamb]

I'm just kinda curious about who here might be flying
(or building?)
a VW powered airplane?

Richard

[J.D.]

>I'm just kinda curious about who here might be flying
>(or building?)
>a VW powered airplane?
>
>Richard

T-2, Quail, Ragwing Special...a little at a time! Gettin' hangar space next
month, thank heaven; I'll be able to see the living room floor and the
opposite wall of my garage again.


J.D.
to e-mail, pull the post

[Richard Lamb]

Richard Lamb wrote:
>
> I'm just kinda curious about who here might be flying
> (or building?)
> a VW powered airplane?
>
> Richard


Oh come on now!

There are only two of us actually playing with VW planes?

On the whole list?

[acepilot]

Does a Half-VW count?

Scott


Richard Lamb wrote:
> Richard Lamb wrote:
>
>>I'm just kinda curious about who here might be flying
>>(or building?)
>>a VW powered airplane?
>>
>>Richard
>
>
>
> Oh come on now!
>
> There are only two of us actually playing with VW planes?
>
> On the whole list?

[Albert]

Not worth messing with VW's now that cheap used 80hp Rotax's and
Jabirus are available.
Albert

Richard Lamb > wrote in message >...
> Richard Lamb wrote:
> >
> > I'm just kinda curious about who here might be flying
> > (or building?)
> > a VW powered airplane?
> >
> > Richard
>
>
> Oh come on now!
>
> There are only two of us actually playing with VW planes?
>
> On the whole list?

[RU ok]

>> I'm just kinda curious about who here might be flying
>> (or building?)
>> a VW powered airplane?
>>
>> Richard
>
>
>Oh come on now!
>
>There are only two of us actually playing with VW planes?
>
>On the whole list?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One can only hope. <g>

Could it be...
Today's builders are more sophisticated, have more viable
options and are vastly better informed than in years past?


Barnyard BOb -- devil's advocate

[Richard Lamb]

RU ok wrote:
>
> >> I'm just kinda curious about who here might be flying
> >> (or building?)
> >> a VW powered airplane?
> >>
> >> Richard
> >
> >
> >Oh come on now!
> >
> >There are only two of us actually playing with VW planes?
> >
> >On the whole list?
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> One can only hope. <g>
>
> Could it be...
> Today's builders are more sophisticated, have more viable
> options and are vastly better informed than in years past?
>
> Barnyard BOb -- devil's advocate

Possibly, or maybe there just aren't THAT many builders here?

[Richard Lamb]

acepilot wrote:
>
> Does a Half-VW count?
>
> Scott

For sake of argument, half a point?

Richard


> Richard Lamb wrote:
> > Richard Lamb wrote:
> >
> >>I'm just kinda curious about who here might be flying
> >>(or building?)
> >>a VW powered airplane?
> >>
> >>Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh come on now!
> >
> > There are only two of us actually playing with VW planes?
> >
> > On the whole list?

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:53:02 +0000, acepilot >
wrote:

>Does a Half-VW count?
>
>Scott
>
>

Not exactly off topic (only half off) ... but I am seeking info on a
1/2 VW and a comparison between a 1/2 VW and a 1/3 Corvair.

Cost ? Weight? Power? And most importantly, fuel consumption.

How many Gal/Hr at minimum power settings? ... say 50% & how many HP
does this represent?

Any response appreciated, thinking of attempting a world record
flight, but need hard info.

Thanks,

[jls]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> RU ok wrote:
> >
> > >> I'm just kinda curious about who here might be flying
> > >> (or building?)
> > >> a VW powered airplane?
> > >>
> > >> Richard
> > >
> > >
> > >Oh come on now!
> > >
> > >There are only two of us actually playing with VW planes?
> > >
> > >On the whole list?
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > One can only hope. <g>
> >
> > Could it be...
> > Today's builders are more sophisticated, have more viable
> > options and are vastly better informed than in years past?
> >
> > Barnyard BOob -- advocate's devil
>
> Possibly, or maybe there just aren't THAT many builders here?

You got THAT right, dude. I have flown behind a 1/2 VW and know someone
who has 700+ hours on one in a J-3 Kitten. He flies out of State Line, SE
of Rutherfordton, NC.

[Veeduber]

>Possibly, or maybe there just aren't THAT many builders here?

----------------------------------------------------

Don't be silly. Lookit Oshkosh. If you include trailer trash and the ones
freighted in from Oz there must of been five, six hundred homebuilts there last
year.

-R.S.Hoover

[Richard Lamb]

Veeduber wrote:
>
> >Possibly, or maybe there just aren't THAT many builders here?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Don't be silly. Lookit Oshkosh. If you include trailer trash and the ones
> freighted in from Oz there must of been five, six hundred homebuilts there last
> year.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

Sorry Robert, I meant here on the list.

On my home field we have 12 (or more?) VW powered airplanes.
That's out of about 100 planes based here.

[Leon McAtee]

wrote in message >...

> Not exactly off topic (only half off) ... but I am seeking info on a
> 1/2 VW and a comparison between a 1/2 VW and a 1/3 Corvair.
>
> Cost ? Weight? Power? And most importantly, fuel consumption.

Opinion follows................................

Cost? Depends on what you can scrounge up. The 110 Hp Corvairs are
getting kind of hard to find. All of us airplane types are buying
them up. But other than a slightly smaller size due to the shorter
stroke there really is nothing wrong with the older ones.

Weight? Based on my comparisons (and I have both sitting here in my
shop) I'd be willing to bet the 13/ Corvair is going to end up just a
bit heavier.

Power? Both the VW and the Corvair are limited in continuos power
output by their waste heat dissipation. 100 Hp Corvair conversions
have proven reliable so you could probably expect a mid 30 Hp 1/3
Corvair to be reliable.

Other differences? There is a greater supply of parts for the VW than
the Corvair, but lots of them are junk. You can still get good VW
parts. You just have to know what to look for.

You can buy a good counterweighted crank for a VW and cut it in half.
You will have to weld your own for the Corvair.

The oil pump housing in the Corvair is cast with the rear case
housing. If the housing on a VW pump gets worn you just replace the
whole thing.

Can't put dual plugs in a VW head due to where they put the
camshaft(at least and have them symmetrical in each head and easy to
service). Dual plugs in a Corvair head is easy.

The Corvair has hydraulic lifters. Good hydraulic lifters for VW's
may not exist.

> How many Gal/Hr at minimum power settings? ... say 50% & how many HP
> does this represent?

For all practical purposes the 1/2 VW and the 1/3 Corvair will use the
same amount of fuel for the same Hp. Nothing we mere mortals can do
to change this. If you want good fuel efficency for duration records
find a water cooled motor, a Diesel would be best. Look at the Briggs
and Stratton Vanguard 3 cylinder diesel. Made by Diahatsu and can be
had with factory turbo. About the same weight and rated at 30 HP -
continuos.

If you decide on a 1/2 VW check eBay. I should have a fresh set of
heads for sale soon............nice ones, not the welded creations
most have.
=================================
Leon McAtee
Quickie with 1/2 VW - 55% finished

> Any response appreciated, thinking of attempting a world record
> flight, but need hard info.
>
> Thanks,
>
>

[RU ok]

>> >Possibly, or maybe there just aren't THAT many builders here?
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Don't be silly. Lookit Oshkosh. If you include trailer trash and the ones
>> freighted in from Oz there must of been five, six hundred homebuilts there last
>> year.
>>
>> -R.S.Hoover
>
>Sorry Robert, I meant here on the list.
>
>On my home field we have 12 (or more?) VW powered airplanes.
>That's out of about 100 planes based here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Out of 100 planes on my home field, there is but one VW example.
After the third engine failure, it and the KR-2 it is attached to
appear destined to remain earthbound forever more.


Barnyard BOb -

[Don]

Many homebuilts on my field with engines mostly Rotax and Jabiru. Two
with VW. There were three VW but one had engine failure after takeoff
and was destroyed. A visiting aircraft with VW had engine failure on
downwind and was destroyed. As previously said, there's no need to use
VW now that low cost used Rotax and Jabiru are available.
Don

RU ok > wrote in message
>
> Out of 100 planes on my home field, there is but one VW example.
> After the third engine failure, it and the KR-2 it is attached to
> appear destined to remain earthbound forever more.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -

[Richard Lamb]

Don wrote:
>
> Many homebuilts on my field with engines mostly Rotax and Jabiru. Two
> with VW. There were three VW but one had engine failure after takeoff
> and was destroyed. A visiting aircraft with VW had engine failure on
> downwind and was destroyed. As previously said, there's no need to use
> VW now that low cost used Rotax and Jabiru are available.
> Don
>

Depends on what do you consider "low cost"?
A new Rotax 912 might as well be a Lycoming, price wise...


Ricahrd

> RU ok > wrote in message
> >
> > Out of 100 planes on my home field, there is but one VW example.
> > After the third engine failure, it and the KR-2 it is attached to
> > appear destined to remain earthbound forever more.
> >
> >
> > Barnyard BOb -

[Edward Schrom]

Me! A Sonerai, but I'm at least a couple of years from flying. Haven't even
bought the engine yet.

Ed Schrom


"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Lamb wrote:
> >
> > I'm just kinda curious about who here might be flying
> > (or building?)
> > a VW powered airplane?
> >
> > Richard
>
>
> Oh come on now!
>
> There are only two of us actually playing with VW planes?
>
> On the whole list?

[Jerry Springer]

VW let me down twice, would not fly behind one again even if it meant
I had to give up flying forever, which I almost did flying behind a VW.
When I first got into homebuilt aircraft there were many airplanes using
VW's, you do not see many anymore for a reson. YMMV

Jerry

Don wrote:
> Many homebuilts on my field with engines mostly Rotax and Jabiru. Two
> with VW. There were three VW but one had engine failure after takeoff
> and was destroyed. A visiting aircraft with VW had engine failure on
> downwind and was destroyed. As previously said, there's no need to use
> VW now that low cost used Rotax and Jabiru are available.
> Don
>
> RU ok > wrote in message
>
>>Out of 100 planes on my home field, there is but one VW example.
>>After the third engine failure, it and the KR-2 it is attached to
>>appear destined to remain earthbound forever more.
>>
>>
>>Barnyard BOb -

[Don]

A Rotax 503 with reduction drive swinging a 60" prop would provide
much more thrust at greatly reduced weight than a direct drive VW.
Should be able to pick up a dual ignition 503 with a few hundred hours
for less than the cost of a VW conversion.
Don

Richard Lamb > wrote in message >
> Depends on what do you consider "low cost"?
> A new Rotax 912 might as well be a Lycoming, price wise...
>
>
> Ricahrd

[Leon McAtee]

(Don) wrote in message >...

As previously said, there's no need to use
> VW now that low cost used Rotax and Jabiru are available.
> Don

I don't know where your finding all of these cheap motors. Sure isn't
in TAP or on Barnstormers (or I'm just not looking in the right place)
and with the euro exchange rate the Rotax isn't such a good buy now.
The OZ dollar is starting to gain also.

As for VW reliability they get a bad reputation because the majority
of the ones that quit could be expected to quit. The VW is NOT a
simple motor to work on. You have to know it's quirks. Back when I
was build'n em for a living I lost a bunch of work to the "guy down
the road" because he would do a rebuild for $600 when I charged $800
"for the same thing". I generally had to charge $900, or more, to
redo the other guys work - if the customer had any money left 6 months
later.

Point is there are just too many "experts" that have built a 1/2 dozen
or so buggy motors that think they can build a reliable VW aero motor.
They generally can't. After you've built a few hundred and lived
with them through their life span then you begin to get an idea of
what works and what doesn't. Then you get to start all over with that
knowledge base and adapt it to the unique demands of pulln' or pushn'
a plane.

So don't disparage the VW just because some are junk. Just like the
airframe they power, if properly built and operated within a
reasonable envelope they are just as reliable as any
powerplant..................in my opinion.

=====================================
Leon McAtee
"Puttn' my money where my mouth is"
Quickie with 1/2 VW %55 finished

[Jerry Springer]

Leon McAtee wrote:
> (Don) wrote in message >...
>
> As previously said, there's no need to use
>
>>VW now that low cost used Rotax and Jabiru are available.
>>Don
>
>
> I don't know where your finding all of these cheap motors. Sure isn't
> in TAP or on Barnstormers (or I'm just not looking in the right place)
> and with the euro exchange rate the Rotax isn't such a good buy now.
> The OZ dollar is starting to gain also.
>
> As for VW reliability they get a bad reputation because the majority
> of the ones that quit could be expected to quit. The VW is NOT a
> simple motor to work on. You have to know it's quirks. Back when I
> was build'n em for a living I lost a bunch of work to the "guy down
> the road" because he would do a rebuild for $600 when I charged $800
> "for the same thing". I generally had to charge $900, or more, to
> redo the other guys work - if the customer had any money left 6 months
> later.
>
> Point is there are just too many "experts" that have built a 1/2 dozen
> or so buggy motors that think they can build a reliable VW aero motor.
> They generally can't. After you've built a few hundred and lived
> with them through their life span then you begin to get an idea of
> what works and what doesn't. Then you get to start all over with that
> knowledge base and adapt it to the unique demands of pulln' or pushn'
> a plane.
>
> So don't disparage the VW just because some are junk. Just like the
> airframe they power, if properly built and operated within a
> reasonable envelope they are just as reliable as any
> powerplant..................in my opinion.
>
> =====================================
> Leon McAtee

In my case it was built by Revmaster which had been building VW engines for years.

Jerry

[G. A. Loeffler]

about 60someting Sonexes build until today, about half of them fly behind a
2180cc VW
-loef (www.loeff.de)

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
link.net...
> VW let me down twice, would not fly behind one again even if it meant
> I had to give up flying forever, which I almost did flying behind a VW.
> When I first got into homebuilt aircraft there were many airplanes using
> VW's, you do not see many anymore for a reson. YMMV
>
> Jerry
>
> Don wrote:
> > Many homebuilts on my field with engines mostly Rotax and Jabiru. Two
> > with VW. There were three VW but one had engine failure after takeoff
> > and was destroyed. A visiting aircraft with VW had engine failure on
> > downwind and was destroyed. As previously said, there's no need to use
> > VW now that low cost used Rotax and Jabiru are available.
> > Don
> >
> > RU ok > wrote in message
> >
> >>Out of 100 planes on my home field, there is but one VW example.
> >>After the third engine failure, it and the KR-2 it is attached to
> >>appear destined to remain earthbound forever more.
> >>
> >>
> >>Barnyard BOb -
>

[Don]

According to Sonex completions at
http://www.sonex-ltd.com/completions.html only 28% are VW.
NTSB reports that Jack Lockamy's VW powered Sonex had 'loss of engine
power' after take-off. "... crank/sleeve/hub arrangement cut loose"
reported elsewhere.
Don

"G. A. Loeffler" > wrote in message >...
> about 60someting Sonexes build until today, about half of them fly behind a
> 2180cc VW
> -loef (www.loeff.de)

[RU ok]

>As for VW reliability they get a bad reputation because the majority
>of the ones that quit could be expected to quit. The VW is NOT a
>simple motor to work on. You have to know it's quirks. Back when I
>was build'n em for a living I lost a bunch of work to the "guy down
>the road" because he would do a rebuild for $600 when I charged $800
>"for the same thing". I generally had to charge $900, or more, to
>redo the other guys work - if the customer had any money left 6 months
>later.
>
>Point is there are just too many "experts" that have built a 1/2 dozen
>or so buggy motors that think they can build a reliable VW aero motor.
> They generally can't. After you've built a few hundred and lived
>with them through their life span then you begin to get an idea of
>what works and what doesn't. Then you get to start all over with that
>knowledge base and adapt it to the unique demands of pulln' or pushn'
>a plane.

Point is....
Auto rebuilds don't count for squat. Until you have built a couple
hundred engines specifically and SUCCESSFULLY for aircraft,
you are just flapping your gums, too.

>So don't disparage the VW just because some are junk. Just like the
>airframe they power, if properly built and operated within a
>reasonable envelope they are just as reliable as any
>powerplant..................in my opinion.

>Leon McAtee
>"Puttn' my money where my mouth is"
>Quickie with 1/2 VW %55 finished

Put your money and your ass where your mouth is,
but screwing with half a VW is a 'half fast' attempt at flight.

For the rest of you contemplating VW power....
check and see if you can find an insurance company that
will write hull coverage for you and at what price. What you
discover will tell you what VW power is worth to the savvy folks
that pay out losses and survive the builder/pilots that don't.

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

[Daniel]

RU ok wrote ...

> Out of 100 planes on my home field, there is but one VW example.
> After the third engine failure, it and the KR-2 it is attached to
> appear destined to remain earthbound forever more.
>

Probably a good idea. If the fellow can't do it right, he shouldn't
be flying it. Therein lies the crux of the problem with VW's and
other auto-conversions: If LyCons were being built by 100's of
backyard mechanics and self-styled experts randomly using a huge base
of aftermarket dune buggy parts from God knows where, following
do-it-yourself self published tracts, applying racing engine
methodologies and being abused by asking two and three times the
performance they are capable of, you'd likely see similar incidences
of failure. Those who are successful with VW conversions are
generally those who put as much effort into building their engines
right as LyCon puts into theirs, and then operate the engine within
it's abilities.

Daniel

[Leon McAtee]

RU ok > wrote in message >...
>> Then you get to start all over with that
> >knowledge base and adapt it to the unique demands of pulln' or pushn'
> >a plane.
>
> Point is....
> Auto rebuilds don't count for squat. Until you have built a couple
> hundred engines specifically and SUCCESSFULLY for aircraft,
> you are just flapping your gums, too.

I believe that - is - essentially what I was saying. But I disagree
with the assertion that any prior experience is "worth squat". That
prior experience lets one avoid at least some of the basic mistakes.
If you or anyone else thinks in some way that I am claiming to be an
aero VW expert I'm sorry to have mislead. I am NOT an aero VW expert
- yet (my never be). But I do have enough VW experience to see the
problems with some of the VW conversions. Many of these problems are
basic, known and understood by those with some experience, and lead to
unreliability of VW engines, even when installed in ground bound
applications.

That prior experience allows me to see the limitations of the VW
motor. It as a result of that prior experience that I generally
recommend to others that they NOT consider the VW as an aircraft
powerplant because most often expectations are unrealistically high.
To dismiss the motor completely due the the shortcomings of a bunch of
amateur converters is short sighted and closed minded.
=================
Leon McAtee
Atkins trimmed ass leaves less for the 1/2 VW to pull <G>

[RU ok]

>To dismiss the motor completely due the the shortcomings of a bunch of
>amateur converters is short sighted and closed minded.
>Leon McAtee
>Atkins trimmed ass leaves less for the 1/2 VW to pull <G>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OK...
For the sake of discussion, consider the amateurs eliminated.

Who is left with a reputation of converting and selling hundreds
of VW engines that yield PROVEN equal reliability, performance
at a significantly lower overall LONG TERM cost than suitably
rebuilt aircraft engines... like the 65 hp Continental, for example?

Nobody, if you 'axe' me.

As far as anyone using 1/2 of a VW goes...
They are not even in the business of flying.
TURD comes to mind.....

Trainee
Under
Rapid
Development.

Barnyard BOb -

[Jerry Springer]

RU ok wrote:
>>As for VW reliability they get a bad reputation because the majority
>>of the ones that quit could be expected to quit. The VW is NOT a
>>simple motor to work on. You have to know it's quirks. Back when I
>>was build'n em for a living I lost a bunch of work to the "guy down
>>the road" because he would do a rebuild for $600 when I charged $800
>>"for the same thing". I generally had to charge $900, or more, to
>>redo the other guys work - if the customer had any money left 6 months
>>later.
>>
>>Point is there are just too many "experts" that have built a 1/2 dozen
>>or so buggy motors that think they can build a reliable VW aero motor.
>>They generally can't. After you've built a few hundred and lived
>>with them through their life span then you begin to get an idea of
>>what works and what doesn't. Then you get to start all over with that
>>knowledge base and adapt it to the unique demands of pulln' or pushn'
>>a plane.
>
>
> Point is....
> Auto rebuilds don't count for squat. Until you have built a couple
> hundred engines specifically and SUCCESSFULLY for aircraft,
> you are just flapping your gums, too.
>
>
>>So don't disparage the VW just because some are junk. Just like the
>>airframe they power, if properly built and operated within a
>>reasonable envelope they are just as reliable as any
>>powerplant..................in my opinion.
>
>
>>Leon McAtee
>>"Puttn' my money where my mouth is"
>>Quickie with 1/2 VW %55 finished
>
>
> Put your money and your ass where your mouth is,
> but screwing with half a VW is a 'half fast' attempt at flight.
>
> For the rest of you contemplating VW power....
> check and see if you can find an insurance company that
> will write hull coverage for you and at what price. What you
> discover will tell you what VW power is worth to the savvy folks
> that pay out losses and survive the builder/pilots that don't.
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight
>
>

Bob
Notice in the NTSB prilimanary reports for this last weekend that out of
the four experimental forced landings three of them were auto engines. :-)

Jerry(crashed behind a VW and lived to tell about it twice)Springer

[RU ok]

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 03:31:54 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>RU ok wrote:
>>>As for VW reliability they get a bad reputation because the majority
>>>of the ones that quit could be expected to quit. The VW is NOT a
>>>simple motor to work on. You have to know it's quirks. Back when I
>>>was build'n em for a living I lost a bunch of work to the "guy down
>>>the road" because he would do a rebuild for $600 when I charged $800
>>>"for the same thing". I generally had to charge $900, or more, to
>>>redo the other guys work - if the customer had any money left 6 months
>>>later.
>>>
>>>Point is there are just too many "experts" that have built a 1/2 dozen
>>>or so buggy motors that think they can build a reliable VW aero motor.
>>>They generally can't. After you've built a few hundred and lived
>>>with them through their life span then you begin to get an idea of
>>>what works and what doesn't. Then you get to start all over with that
>>>knowledge base and adapt it to the unique demands of pulln' or pushn'
>>>a plane.
>>
>>
>> Point is....
>> Auto rebuilds don't count for squat. Until you have built a couple
>> hundred engines specifically and SUCCESSFULLY for aircraft,
>> you are just flapping your gums, too.
>>
>>
>>>So don't disparage the VW just because some are junk. Just like the
>>>airframe they power, if properly built and operated within a
>>>reasonable envelope they are just as reliable as any
>>>powerplant..................in my opinion.
>>
>>
>>>Leon McAtee
>>>"Puttn' my money where my mouth is"
>>>Quickie with 1/2 VW %55 finished
>>
>>
>> Put your money and your ass where your mouth is,
>> but screwing with half a VW is a 'half fast' attempt at flight.
>>
>> For the rest of you contemplating VW power....
>> check and see if you can find an insurance company that
>> will write hull coverage for you and at what price. What you
>> discover will tell you what VW power is worth to the savvy folks
>> that pay out losses and survive the builder/pilots that don't.
>>
>> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight
>>
>>
>
>Bob
>Notice in the NTSB prilimanary reports for this last weekend that out of
>the four experimental forced landings three of them were auto engines. :-)
>
>Jerry(crashed behind a VW and lived to tell about it twice)Springer
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We who are considered 'messengers of doom' concerning auto
conversions are not likely to sway those who herald them as equal
or better than certified aircraft engines. However, if I can be the
cause for just one swayable soul to understand that they are laying
their life and their passengers on the line in a high risk venture, it
is easily worth any backlash that comes my way.

IMHO, anyone who puts a 'happy face' on auto engines for
airplane use should be held liable for such cavalier behavior.
Converting is a terribly, terribly serious and complex endeavor
that few can measure up to and successfully master.

The usual words heard for considering an auto conversion are...
"I can't afford a real airplane engine."

With rare exception... few can truly afford otherwise.


Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

[Bill A.]

I respect all of your opinions but does anyone have actual numbers on
engines (VW, Corvair, Rotax, Lycoming,...)? I'm looking for the number in
use, hours flown, number of accidents, etc.


"RU ok" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 03:31:54 GMT, Jerry Springer
> > wrote:
>
> >RU ok wrote:
> >>>As for VW reliability they get a bad reputation because the majority
> >>>of the ones that quit could be expected to quit. The VW is NOT a
> >>>simple motor to work on. You have to know it's quirks. Back when I
> >>>was build'n em for a living I lost a bunch of work to the "guy down
> >>>the road" because he would do a rebuild for $600 when I charged $800
> >>>"for the same thing". I generally had to charge $900, or more, to
> >>>redo the other guys work - if the customer had any money left 6 months
> >>>later.
> >>>
> >>>Point is there are just too many "experts" that have built a 1/2 dozen
> >>>or so buggy motors that think they can build a reliable VW aero motor.
> >>>They generally can't. After you've built a few hundred and lived
> >>>with them through their life span then you begin to get an idea of
> >>>what works and what doesn't. Then you get to start all over with that
> >>>knowledge base and adapt it to the unique demands of pulln' or pushn'
> >>>a plane.
> >>
> >>
> >> Point is....
> >> Auto rebuilds don't count for squat. Until you have built a couple
> >> hundred engines specifically and SUCCESSFULLY for aircraft,
> >> you are just flapping your gums, too.
> >>
> >>
> >>>So don't disparage the VW just because some are junk. Just like the
> >>>airframe they power, if properly built and operated within a
> >>>reasonable envelope they are just as reliable as any
> >>>powerplant..................in my opinion.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leon McAtee
> >>>"Puttn' my money where my mouth is"
> >>>Quickie with 1/2 VW %55 finished
> >>
> >>
> >> Put your money and your ass where your mouth is,
> >> but screwing with half a VW is a 'half fast' attempt at flight.
> >>
> >> For the rest of you contemplating VW power....
> >> check and see if you can find an insurance company that
> >> will write hull coverage for you and at what price. What you
> >> discover will tell you what VW power is worth to the savvy folks
> >> that pay out losses and survive the builder/pilots that don't.
> >>
> >> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Bob
> >Notice in the NTSB prilimanary reports for this last weekend that out of
> >the four experimental forced landings three of them were auto engines.
:-)
> >
> >Jerry(crashed behind a VW and lived to tell about it twice)Springer
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> We who are considered 'messengers of doom' concerning auto
> conversions are not likely to sway those who herald them as equal
> or better than certified aircraft engines. However, if I can be the
> cause for just one swayable soul to understand that they are laying
> their life and their passengers on the line in a high risk venture, it
> is easily worth any backlash that comes my way.
>
> IMHO, anyone who puts a 'happy face' on auto engines for
> airplane use should be held liable for such cavalier behavior.
> Converting is a terribly, terribly serious and complex endeavor
> that few can measure up to and successfully master.
>
> The usual words heard for considering an auto conversion are...
> "I can't afford a real airplane engine."
>
> With rare exception... few can truly afford otherwise.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight
>

[Richard Lamb]

Doc had 600 hours on his 1776 powered Parasol...

On the other hand, I got about 16 hours on my first VW.
It was a 1600, and had to run 3200 rpm just to keep the
plane up.

Got a litle recreation out of it.
Got a LOT of education.

Richard


"Bill A." wrote:
>
> I respect all of your opinions but does anyone have actual numbers on
> engines (VW, Corvair, Rotax, Lycoming,...)? I'm looking for the number in
> use, hours flown, number of accidents, etc.
>
> "RU ok" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 03:31:54 GMT, Jerry Springer
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >RU ok wrote:
> > >>>As for VW reliability they get a bad reputation because the majority
> > >>>of the ones that quit could be expected to quit. The VW is NOT a
> > >>>simple motor to work on. You have to know it's quirks. Back when I
> > >>>was build'n em for a living I lost a bunch of work to the "guy down
> > >>>the road" because he would do a rebuild for $600 when I charged $800
> > >>>"for the same thing". I generally had to charge $900, or more, to
> > >>>redo the other guys work - if the customer had any money left 6 months
> > >>>later.
> > >>>
> > >>>Point is there are just too many "experts" that have built a 1/2 dozen
> > >>>or so buggy motors that think they can build a reliable VW aero motor.
> > >>>They generally can't. After you've built a few hundred and lived
> > >>>with them through their life span then you begin to get an idea of
> > >>>what works and what doesn't. Then you get to start all over with that
> > >>>knowledge base and adapt it to the unique demands of pulln' or pushn'
> > >>>a plane.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Point is....
> > >> Auto rebuilds don't count for squat. Until you have built a couple
> > >> hundred engines specifically and SUCCESSFULLY for aircraft,
> > >> you are just flapping your gums, too.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>So don't disparage the VW just because some are junk. Just like the
> > >>>airframe they power, if properly built and operated within a
> > >>>reasonable envelope they are just as reliable as any
> > >>>powerplant..................in my opinion.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Leon McAtee
> > >>>"Puttn' my money where my mouth is"
> > >>>Quickie with 1/2 VW %55 finished
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Put your money and your ass where your mouth is,
> > >> but screwing with half a VW is a 'half fast' attempt at flight.
> > >>
> > >> For the rest of you contemplating VW power....
> > >> check and see if you can find an insurance company that
> > >> will write hull coverage for you and at what price. What you
> > >> discover will tell you what VW power is worth to the savvy folks
> > >> that pay out losses and survive the builder/pilots that don't.
> > >>
> > >> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Bob
> > >Notice in the NTSB prilimanary reports for this last weekend that out of
> > >the four experimental forced landings three of them were auto engines.
> :-)
> > >
> > >Jerry(crashed behind a VW and lived to tell about it twice)Springer
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > We who are considered 'messengers of doom' concerning auto
> > conversions are not likely to sway those who herald them as equal
> > or better than certified aircraft engines. However, if I can be the
> > cause for just one swayable soul to understand that they are laying
> > their life and their passengers on the line in a high risk venture, it
> > is easily worth any backlash that comes my way.
> >
> > IMHO, anyone who puts a 'happy face' on auto engines for
> > airplane use should be held liable for such cavalier behavior.
> > Converting is a terribly, terribly serious and complex endeavor
> > that few can measure up to and successfully master.
> >
> > The usual words heard for considering an auto conversion are...
> > "I can't afford a real airplane engine."
> >
> > With rare exception... few can truly afford otherwise.
> >
> >
> > Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight
> >

[Leon McAtee]

RU ok > wrote in message >...

> Who is left with a reputation of converting and selling hundreds
> of VW engines that yield PROVEN equal reliability, performance
> at a significantly lower overall LONG TERM cost than suitably
> rebuilt aircraft engines... like the 65 hp Continental, for example?
>
> Nobody, if you 'axe' me.

And how many hundreds of Lycosaurs were around in, say, 1930 that
would yield PROVEN reliable performance? You have to start somewhere
if you want to improve things. Ambling down the same dusty path to
the same dead end isn't going to get you to your destination, unless
you are satisfied going where you have already been. Matter of fact
some claim that making the same mistake over and over is the
definition of stupidity - or insanity (neither of which I think wholly
applies in your case because I think you are quite satisfied to dwell
in the recent past comfortated by the benign acceptance of things as
they are).

RU ok > wrote in message >...
>
> Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

Which means exactly "Squat". In the bell curve of life some are going
to reach this milestone through nothing more than dumb luck. That
just a simple statistical fact.

=====================
Leon McAtee.................looking for the end of the rainbow

[Barnyard BOb]

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 15:32:04 GMT, "Bill A."
> wrote:

>I respect all of your opinions but does anyone have actual numbers on
>engines (VW, Corvair, Rotax, Lycoming,...)? I'm looking for the number in
>use, hours flown, number of accidents, etc.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dream on.

Anyone that tells you they have anything better than suspect
numbers that can be used for LEGITIMATE purposes....
are greatly pulling your leg.

Aviation insurance companies have good stats for the types
of aircraft they insure, but don't expect to ever get access.

FWIW...
Nobody knows how many accidents and incidents go UNREPORTED...
especially, experimentals with auto conversions that either cannot
obtain insurance, seldom see anything more than private strips or
small airports run by operators that would find it in their self
interest to keep the lid on such negative press and events.


Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

[Veeduber]

Flying Volkswagens are a bit like Texas midgets. Everything's bigger in Texas,
right? Even their midgets are six feet tall :-)

The VW Myth was spawned following WWII by those Gentleman Aviators of a
literary bent who, after winning the Battle of Britian decided to tell everyone
about it via articles in the aviation magazines. Of course, twelve issues a
year, your sea stories start getting a bit stale the n-th time they're told so
they extended their imaginary expertise to other areas, such those niffty
little flying machines coming out of Europe.

You know the ones I mean: Kubelwagen engine with a prop on one end and a Jodel
on the other.

Marvelous machine. Fly for pennies. Never a bit of trouble and the engines
were always good for at least a thousand hours.

All that from the Gentleman Aviator's single hop around the pea-patch followed
by a lengthy visit to the club house. No mention of the erks. Gentleman
Aviators do not associate with Other Ranks. Which is why they failed to
mention the annual overhaul, frequent valve jobs and dismally short service
life of those marvelous little engines. (Another round? Why not!)

Most Americans are dumber than stumps when it comes to engines and American
aviators are among the dumbest of the breed with the Internet providing daily
evidence of their failing. (Yes, you can check the oil. No, you can't adjust
the valves. If you want to watch, go stand over there.)

It's all about torque and waste heat but to the idiots it's all about
horsepower and top speed.

PEAK output of an engine can be... just about anything. You can see 300hp from
an aircooled "Volkswagen" engine for a few seconds (and note the quotes). But
if you're smart enough not to pee on your shoes you'll pay more attention to
the maximum SUSTAINABLE output. As with all aircooled engines the sustainable
output is a function of the engine's ability to cool itself. But don't get it
confused with the output that gives the greatest interval between overhauls.
That figure is even lower. And it doesn't matter what kind of aircooled engine
we're talking about -- Pratt-Whitney or Weedeater, the laws of thermodynamics
apply.

They say you can't cheat an honest man. The same 'they' also tells us that a
fool and his gold are soon parted. American aviators tend toward the foolish
side of the bell curve when it comes to flying Volkswagens, preyed upon by
slick hustlers chanting peak horsepower figures.

Every fly a Piet? (The two-holer, not the other one.) Didja notice the prop
is mounted to the clutch-end of the Model A's crankshaft? Now go look at the
typical flying VW, with the prop on the pulley-hub, a fragile little protrusion
barely three-quarters of an inch long, less than an inch and a half in
diameter, hollowed out with metric threads (the valley comes to a point...
makes a dandy stress-riser) and the circumference notched with a Woodruff
keyway that comes to within sixty thou of those nice, pointy threads.

Look at all the VW's you want. Note the fantastic schemes -- fantastic and
EXPENSIVE schemes -- that are used to try and put a band-aid on a case of
terminal cancer, in engineering terms.

The late Steve Wittman knew his onions when it came to engines. He put the
prop on the other end of the crankshaft and blew away the competition. (We got
on like a house afire when we discovered we both built our engines
ass-backwards :-)

Why'd they even do it to begin with? Because with a 20hp 985cc engine (ie, out
of the original Kublewagen; it didn't get the Big Engine until 1943 and if the
early ones never came back to the factory for overhaul, they never got one
installed) you could bolt the engine directly to the firewall and do away with
the engine mount. And the pulley hub was good for about 200 hours if the load
was less than 25hp... no problem when you could replace the crankshaft for $17
every winter... while the Gentleman Aviators were up at the club house getting
sloshed.

Remember N7EZ and its "68hp" VW engine? I asked Burt where he was going to
find such a thing. From my competitor, of course :-)

Truth is, from 1300 on up, all Type I's use the same heads -- same amount of
fin area. And most of the after-market 'racing' heads have even LESS. (Go
measure it; work it out for yourself. Increase the thickness of the casting
REDUCES the available fin area.) Hottest part of a VW engine is around the
exhaust ports. VW engineers did a superb job of controlling the air PRESSURE
within the plenum to force the maximum amount of air down thru the finned areas
adjacent to exhaust stacks.

Aluminum is a 'white-short' metal. All metals are mallable. Heat most metals,
they go through a plastic stage before they melt. But heat aluminum or
magnesium, before it melts it will go through a fragmiable stage during which
any stress will cause it to fracture. ( Foundrymen call that 'white shortness'
and treat their aluminum castings with care as they cool.)

The fact aluminim is fragmiable at elevated temperatures is why we pay so much
attention to CHT on our aircraft engines. And VW's. And Porsches. And
anything else with AIR-COOLED aluminum heads. (Liquid cooled engines are
another planet. Don't even think of trying to transfer your zillion years of
Ford V8 experience to a VW unless you've got a death wish or get off on looking
foolish.) 450 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale is the lower edge of the plastic
range for aluminum. Being slightly denser, forgings can go a little higher but
castings -- such as the VW head -- may be at risk at even LOWER temps -- it all
depends on the alloy and where you monitor the temperature. The hottest part
of the head is the area around the exhaust stack (which is where VW measures
CHT on their fuel injected engines). The classic ring-type thermocouple under
a spark plug can read just about anything, depending on how much air you blow
on it.

As every parent knows, where you stick the thermometer has a lot to do with the
reading. One of the best jokes in aviaition is all the guys flying around with
their oil temp sensor screwed into the wall of the CRANKCASE. As you can
guess, they never have problems with high oil temps :-) (Volkswagen inserts
the OT sensor in the flow of oil entering the oil pump. Readings at that point
typically run about 100 degrees higher than at the dip stick and as much as 150
more than the sump plate or crankcase.)

Keeping the oil cool in your flying VW is a no-brainer. Just treat it like an
aircraft engine. The cooling arrangement used in CAR engines is of the by-pass
type, meaning things have to get pretty hot before any cooling takes place.
With airplanes you pre-configure the cooling system prior to take-off, in
anticipation of maximum need. Once you get up to altitude you get things back
into the green then close the shutters enough to keep it there. Alas, trying
to use the car cooling system in a VW powered airplane is almost universal and
like putting the prop on the pulley hub, equally dumb.

Big-Bore Storker! Wow! Over 150hp @ 5000 rpm for an all-up weight of less
than 200 pounds.

And as useless as tits on a boar, with regard to airplanes.

Because it uses the same heads, that's why. Same fin area. Same maximum
cooling co-efficient. Same maximum SUSTAINABLE OUTPUT... which is about 45hp,
depending on the weather.

Sure, more cubes will get you out of the weeds faster. But you'd damn well be
flying the gauges AND have designed your cooling system accordingly. Because
no matter what the displacement or peak output, your life literally depends on
keeping the CHT within bounds.

So it runs your dune buggy all day at 4000 rpm. What's your manifold pressure?
How often do you do the valves. The same rpm does NOT mean the same power
output, no matter what they taught you in Auto Shop. The closest match between
a VW engine in a vehicle and one in a plane is to load your VW bus with about
two tons of cargo then go climb the steepest hill you can manage. Forever.

Time has taught me it's pretty much a waste of time to try and explain flying
Volkswagens. People want to be deluded and their wants are catered to by a
host of marvelously successful hucksters. Those who discover they've been lied
to -- and survive -- tend to be a tad shy. No one likes to look foolish;
obviously the fault must lay with the engine rather than in themselves.

VW is a car engine. You can convert it to a reliable, durable aircraft engine,
typically better in output and durability than say an A40-4. But the odd thing
is that so few people do. Instead, they turn it into a dune buggy engine and
screw a fan on the pulley hub. Go figger.

-R.S.Hoover

[G. A. Loeffler]

"RU ok" > wrote in message
...
> OK...
> For the sake of discussion, consider the amateurs eliminated.
>
> Who is left with a reputation of converting and selling hundreds
> of VW engines that yield PROVEN equal reliability, performance
> at a significantly lower overall LONG TERM cost than suitably
> rebuilt aircraft engines... like the 65 hp Continental, for example?

Great Plains maybe?
or Revmaster ?
Aero Vee comes to mind...

have a look here for German requirements to automotive engine conversions

http://www.loeff.de/eng-test.html


-loef (www.loeff.de)

[Richard Lamb]

May I (respectfully) request that you go back and read MY posts
on on MY big bore stroker?


Also Bob, the word is fraNGiable - from the Latin frangere - to break.


Richard (just another dumb American)

[Veeduber]

>Also Bob, the word is fraNGiable - from the Latin frangere - to break.
>
>
>Richard (just another dumb American)

-----------------------------------------------------------

I prefer fragmiable. More descriptive. As in, to frag -- from the two tours
in I Corp -- to blow that mutha AWAY.

As for the dumb part... Hey bro, I wasn't the only guy to give you a heads-up
on your first engine -- the blocked cooling channels and that power-robbing
exhaust system.

After leading the horse to water the rest of the job is up to the horse, hoss.

-R.S.Hoover

[Jerry Springer]

Leon McAtee wrote:
> RU ok > wrote in message >...
>
>
>>Who is left with a reputation of converting and selling hundreds
>>of VW engines that yield PROVEN equal reliability, performance
>>at a significantly lower overall LONG TERM cost than suitably
>>rebuilt aircraft engines... like the 65 hp Continental, for example?
>>
>>Nobody, if you 'axe' me.
>
>
> And how many hundreds of Lycosaurs were around in, say, 1930 that
> would yield PROVEN reliable performance? You have to start somewhere
> if you want to improve things.

> Leon McAtee.................looking for the end of the rainbow

VWs have been used in aircraft for years, so your "start somewhere" comment
does not seem to apply here because VWs are no better now than they were
in the early 70's when I used them in an aircraft.

Jerry

[Richard Lamb]

Richard Lamb wrote:
>
> May I (respectfully) request that you go back and read MY posts
> on on MY big bore stroker?
>
> Also Bob, the word is fraNGiable - from the Latin frangere - to break.
>
> Richard (just another dumb American)

I hate when that happens...

Frangi(no freakin A)ble

[Richard Lamb]

Veeduber wrote:
>
> >Also Bob, the word is fraNGiable - from the Latin frangere - to break.
> >
> >
> >Richard (just another dumb American)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I prefer fragmiable. More descriptive. As in, to frag -- from the two tours
> in I Corp -- to blow that mutha AWAY.
>
> As for the dumb part... Hey bro, I wasn't the only guy to give you a heads-up
> on your first engine -- the blocked cooling channels and that power-robbing
> exhaust system.
>

Yep. And that'e exactly what happened too. Both heads cracked about
the same time.
Just after the first turn into the pattern (so yes, on take off).
It just went blaaaaaagghhghhhh.


> After leading the horse to water the rest of the job is up to the horse, hoss.
>
> -R.S.Hoover


My Grandad used to day that too.

Must be true.


I don't believe in two seat VW powered planes.

Even with the prop on the "right" end, it just doesn't have the
displacement,
nor the cooling capacity to sustain more than 40 horse - at sea level.

Pity.


Well, so let's see what the alternatives are?

Rotax 503?

[Richard Lamb]

Jerry Springer wrote:
>
> Leon McAtee wrote:
> > RU ok > wrote in message >...
> >
> >
> >>Who is left with a reputation of converting and selling hundreds
> >>of VW engines that yield PROVEN equal reliability, performance
> >>at a significantly lower overall LONG TERM cost than suitably
> >>rebuilt aircraft engines... like the 65 hp Continental, for example?
> >>
> >>Nobody, if you 'axe' me.
> >
> >
> > And how many hundreds of Lycosaurs were around in, say, 1930 that
> > would yield PROVEN reliable performance? You have to start somewhere
> > if you want to improve things.
>
> > Leon McAtee.................looking for the end of the rainbow
>
> VWs have been used in aircraft for years, so your "start somewhere" comment
> does not seem to apply here because VWs are no better now than they were
> in the early 70's when I used them in an aircraft.
>
> Jerry

Da. Same engine, just new newbies?

[Veeduber]

>
>Yep. And that'e exactly what happened too. Both heads cracked about
>the same time.
>Just after the first turn into the pattern (so yes, on take off).
>It just went blaaaaaagghhghhhh.
>
----------------------------------------------------

BT, DT, got the T-shirt. Expensive education: I'm glad you survived the
lesson.
----------------------------------------------------

>I don't believe in two seat VW powered planes.
>
---------------------------------------------------

Like the folks who don't believe the world is round, a lot depends on your
perspective. Lotsa dwarfs out there eager to 'prove' their 2-seater flys jus'
fine :-)

(Cub flew with the A40. Sorta :-)

Light & clean, give it enough wing, two of you can get there behind a big VW.
Not 'big' because you get any more out of it, but Big because lots of
displacement and a chugger cam allows your torque to come in at a speed that
lets you swing a really efficient stick.

Not fast, of course. Hold their feet to the fire, the fast VW crowd will tell
you tales of 10 hours (!!) between valve jobs and pounding out the center-main
in less than 200 hours. Not a problem if you got deep pockets but they tend to
ignore that point when talking to the newbies. Or trying to sell you something
:-)

Engines live according to a rigid set of rules, most of which were defined more
than eighty years ago. Engines are also incapable of lying.

Most folks never quite Get It when it comes to things like thermal limitations,
specific fuel consumption, volumetric efficiency and so on. All they want to
hear is Horsepower... and they don't even understand that.

I've seen hucksters stand right there behind the podium and tell the crowd
their 80hp, normally aspirated converted VW engine only burns three gallons per
hour. The crowd always give you lots of angry looks when you walk out of the
tent laughing. They don't realize they've been listening to the best Stand-Up
Comic since Robin Williams. :-)

-R.S.Hoover

[Richard Lamb]

Now, on the other hand, Bruce King has over 200 hours on his modified
Hummelbird (Great Plains 1835 - full 4 cylinder)

OVER 1000 landings.

Last week he finally went out and really investigated the low speed
handling.

Deep stalled, the airplane shows a marked dutch roll.
But it isn't extreme, and the airplane shows no divergence in pitch.
Altitude loss depends on power setting.
Power back, deep stalled decending.
Power up, deep stalled climbing?

It sounds like an interesting ride, but he said it was a lot tamer
than he expected. Maybe I'll get to fly it some day after all?!?


His fist long cross country was San Antonio to Sun N Fun last year.

Then, turned around and flew it to Oshkosh.

Cruise is about 107 without fairings and spats.

Climb is 750 fpm plus.

Taking what HE'S learned, he is finishing up his own first
origional design low wing, all metal VW touring airplane.

I got to look it over last week.
It is a very interesting little airplane.
It growed some compared to the HB, but it is not really a HB
knockoff. Note, the _total parts count_ is 1/3 of the HB.

Way more cockpit room (the HB you wear like Speedos).
8 sq ft more wing area ( 76 sq ft total area?)

Here is a fellow who studied all the previous art that he could
on VW aero engined (including V Dubwer homself)
and decided that the 1/2 VW engine on a Hummel wasn't gonna get it.
So he used the whole mill and has been happy as a camper can be.

I'd call it one of the most sucessful VW projects in a long time.




Richard

[RU ok]

>> Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight
>
>Which means exactly "Squat". In the bell curve of life some are going
>to reach this milestone through nothing more than dumb luck. That
>just a simple statistical fact.
>
>Leon McAtee.................looking for the end of the rainbow
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA.
You really have your head up your 'bell shaped' ass.
No question in my mind.....

If *YOU* survive 50 years of flight --
It will indisputably be because of DUMB LUCK.

You continue to exemplify nothing more than
a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.


Barnyard BOb --

[RU ok]

Richard Lamb > wrote:

>I don't believe in two seat VW powered planes.
>
>Even with the prop on the "right" end, it just doesn't have the
>displacement,
>nor the cooling capacity to sustain more than 40 horse - at sea level.
>
>Pity.
>
>
>Well, so let's see what the alternatives are?
>
>Rotax 503?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Richard:

I thoroughly enjoy the exchanges between
you and Veeduber concerning VW engines.

What's wrong with me? <g>


Barnyard BOb -- luv my Lycoming

[Big John]

R.S.

Was that the 37 HP, single ignition, A-40 in the Taylor E-2 like I
flew?

I and my cigar smoking instructor didn't weigh 200 lbs total and bird
flew pretty good.

Big John

----clip----

(Cub flew with the A40. Sorta :-)

----clip----

R.S.Hoover

[Richard Lamb]

RU ok wrote:
>
> Richard Lamb > wrote:
>
> >I don't believe in two seat VW powered planes.
> >
> >Even with the prop on the "right" end, it just doesn't have the
> >displacement,
> >nor the cooling capacity to sustain more than 40 horse - at sea level.
> >
> >Pity.
> >
> >
> >Well, so let's see what the alternatives are?
> >
> >Rotax 503?
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Richard:
>
> I thoroughly enjoy the exchanges between
> you and Veeduber concerning VW engines.
>
> What's wrong with me? <g>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- luv my Lycoming


Now THAT'S a leading question!

:)

Richard

[Morgans]

"RU ok" > wrote

> HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA.
> You really have your head up your 'bell shaped' ass.
> No question in my mind.....
>
> If *YOU* survive 50 years of flight --
> It will indisputably be because of DUMB LUCK.
>
> You continue to exemplify nothing more than
> a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --
>
He He He. I'm even enjoying this one. If it looks like an airplane engine,
it ain't no damn good! <g>

I will be the proud "past owner" of a 72 Beetle, as of 8:30 tonight. Damn
thing ate as much gas as my 350 ci. Chevy, and could not pull its' own way
out of a wet paper bag. I won't even start on reliability.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.608 / Virus Database: 388 - Release Date: 3/3/2004

[ET]

(Veeduber) wrote in
:

> Flying Volkswagens are a bit like Texas midgets. Everything's bigger
> in Texas, right? Even their midgets are six feet tall :-)
>
> The VW Myth was spawned following WWII by those Gentleman Aviators of
> a literary bent who, after winning the Battle of Britian decided to
> tell everyone about it via articles in the aviation magazines. Of
> course, twelve issues a year, your sea stories start getting a bit
> stale the n-th time they're told so they extended their imaginary
> expertise to other areas, such those niffty little flying machines
> coming out of Europe.
>
> You know the ones I mean: Kubelwagen engine with a prop on one end
> and a Jodel on the other.
>
> Marvelous machine. Fly for pennies. Never a bit of trouble and the
> engines were always good for at least a thousand hours.
>
> All that from the Gentleman Aviator's single hop around the pea-patch
> followed by a lengthy visit to the club house. No mention of the
> erks. Gentleman Aviators do not associate with Other Ranks. Which is
> why they failed to mention the annual overhaul, frequent valve jobs
> and dismally short service life of those marvelous little engines.
> (Another round? Why not!)
>
> Most Americans are dumber than stumps when it comes to engines and
> American aviators are among the dumbest of the breed with the Internet
> providing daily evidence of their failing. (Yes, you can check the
> oil. No, you can't adjust the valves. If you want to watch, go stand
> over there.)
>
> It's all about torque and waste heat but to the idiots it's all about
> horsepower and top speed.
>
> PEAK output of an engine can be... just about anything. You can see
> 300hp from an aircooled "Volkswagen" engine for a few seconds (and
> note the quotes). But if you're smart enough not to pee on your shoes
> you'll pay more attention to the maximum SUSTAINABLE output. As with
> all aircooled engines the sustainable output is a function of the
> engine's ability to cool itself. But don't get it confused with the
> output that gives the greatest interval between overhauls. That figure
> is even lower. And it doesn't matter what kind of aircooled engine
> we're talking about -- Pratt-Whitney or Weedeater, the laws of
> thermodynamics apply.
>
> They say you can't cheat an honest man. The same 'they' also tells us
> that a fool and his gold are soon parted. American aviators tend
> toward the foolish side of the bell curve when it comes to flying
> Volkswagens, preyed upon by slick hustlers chanting peak horsepower
> figures.
>
> Every fly a Piet? (The two-holer, not the other one.) Didja notice
> the prop is mounted to the clutch-end of the Model A's crankshaft?
> Now go look at the typical flying VW, with the prop on the pulley-hub,
> a fragile little protrusion barely three-quarters of an inch long,
> less than an inch and a half in diameter, hollowed out with metric
> threads (the valley comes to a point... makes a dandy stress-riser)
> and the circumference notched with a Woodruff keyway that comes to
> within sixty thou of those nice, pointy threads.
>
> Look at all the VW's you want. Note the fantastic schemes --
> fantastic and EXPENSIVE schemes -- that are used to try and put a
> band-aid on a case of terminal cancer, in engineering terms.
>
> The late Steve Wittman knew his onions when it came to engines. He
> put the prop on the other end of the crankshaft and blew away the
> competition. (We got on like a house afire when we discovered we both
> built our engines ass-backwards :-)
>
> Why'd they even do it to begin with? Because with a 20hp 985cc engine
> (ie, out of the original Kublewagen; it didn't get the Big Engine
> until 1943 and if the early ones never came back to the factory for
> overhaul, they never got one installed) you could bolt the engine
> directly to the firewall and do away with the engine mount. And the
> pulley hub was good for about 200 hours if the load was less than
> 25hp... no problem when you could replace the crankshaft for $17 every
> winter... while the Gentleman Aviators were up at the club house
> getting sloshed.
>
> Remember N7EZ and its "68hp" VW engine? I asked Burt where he was
> going to find such a thing. From my competitor, of course :-)
>
> Truth is, from 1300 on up, all Type I's use the same heads -- same
> amount of fin area. And most of the after-market 'racing' heads have
> even LESS. (Go measure it; work it out for yourself. Increase the
> thickness of the casting REDUCES the available fin area.) Hottest
> part of a VW engine is around the exhaust ports. VW engineers did a
> superb job of controlling the air PRESSURE within the plenum to force
> the maximum amount of air down thru the finned areas adjacent to
> exhaust stacks.
>
> Aluminum is a 'white-short' metal. All metals are mallable. Heat
> most metals, they go through a plastic stage before they melt. But
> heat aluminum or magnesium, before it melts it will go through a
> fragmiable stage during which any stress will cause it to fracture. (
> Foundrymen call that 'white shortness' and treat their aluminum
> castings with care as they cool.)
>
> The fact aluminim is fragmiable at elevated temperatures is why we pay
> so much attention to CHT on our aircraft engines. And VW's. And
> Porsches. And anything else with AIR-COOLED aluminum heads. (Liquid
> cooled engines are another planet. Don't even think of trying to
> transfer your zillion years of Ford V8 experience to a VW unless
> you've got a death wish or get off on looking foolish.) 450 degrees
> on the Fahrenheit scale is the lower edge of the plastic range for
> aluminum. Being slightly denser, forgings can go a little higher but
> castings -- such as the VW head -- may be at risk at even LOWER temps
> -- it all depends on the alloy and where you monitor the temperature.
> The hottest part of the head is the area around the exhaust stack
> (which is where VW measures CHT on their fuel injected engines). The
> classic ring-type thermocouple under a spark plug can read just about
> anything, depending on how much air you blow on it.
>
> As every parent knows, where you stick the thermometer has a lot to do
> with the reading. One of the best jokes in aviaition is all the guys
> flying around with their oil temp sensor screwed into the wall of the
> CRANKCASE. As you can guess, they never have problems with high oil
> temps :-) (Volkswagen inserts the OT sensor in the flow of oil
> entering the oil pump. Readings at that point typically run about 100
> degrees higher than at the dip stick and as much as 150 more than the
> sump plate or crankcase.)
>
> Keeping the oil cool in your flying VW is a no-brainer. Just treat it
> like an aircraft engine. The cooling arrangement used in CAR engines
> is of the by-pass type, meaning things have to get pretty hot before
> any cooling takes place. With airplanes you pre-configure the cooling
> system prior to take-off, in anticipation of maximum need. Once you
> get up to altitude you get things back into the green then close the
> shutters enough to keep it there. Alas, trying to use the car cooling
> system in a VW powered airplane is almost universal and like putting
> the prop on the pulley hub, equally dumb.
>
> Big-Bore Storker! Wow! Over 150hp @ 5000 rpm for an all-up weight of
> less than 200 pounds.
>
> And as useless as tits on a boar, with regard to airplanes.
>
> Because it uses the same heads, that's why. Same fin area. Same
> maximum cooling co-efficient. Same maximum SUSTAINABLE OUTPUT...
> which is about 45hp, depending on the weather.
>
> Sure, more cubes will get you out of the weeds faster. But you'd damn
> well be flying the gauges AND have designed your cooling system
> accordingly. Because no matter what the displacement or peak output,
> your life literally depends on keeping the CHT within bounds.
>
> So it runs your dune buggy all day at 4000 rpm. What's your manifold
> pressure?
> How often do you do the valves. The same rpm does NOT mean the same
> power
> output, no matter what they taught you in Auto Shop. The closest
> match between a VW engine in a vehicle and one in a plane is to load
> your VW bus with about two tons of cargo then go climb the steepest
> hill you can manage. Forever.
>
> Time has taught me it's pretty much a waste of time to try and explain
> flying Volkswagens. People want to be deluded and their wants are
> catered to by a host of marvelously successful hucksters. Those who
> discover they've been lied to -- and survive -- tend to be a tad shy.
> No one likes to look foolish; obviously the fault must lay with the
> engine rather than in themselves.
>
> VW is a car engine. You can convert it to a reliable, durable
> aircraft engine, typically better in output and durability than say an
> A40-4. But the odd thing is that so few people do. Instead, they
> turn it into a dune buggy engine and screw a fan on the pulley hub.
> Go figger.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

I'm curious on your take on the AeroVee ???

I have not experience or opinions here, just am contimplating building a
Sonex with the AeroVee engine.

Have they done anything to aleviate any of the issues you've mentioned???

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[RU ok]

"Morgans" wrote:

>He He He. I'm even enjoying this one. If it looks like an airplane engine,
>it ain't no damn good! <g>


>I will be the proud "past owner" of a 72 Beetle, as of 8:30 tonight. Damn
>thing ate as much gas as my 350 ci. Chevy, and could not pull its' own way
>out of a wet paper bag. I won't even start on reliability.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sounds a bit like my '48 Hardly-Go-Davidson murdercycle, too.


Barnyard BOb --

[Ghost]

ET wrote:
>> (Veeduber) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Flying Volkswagens are a bit like Texas midgets. Everything's bigger
>>> in Texas, right? Even their midgets are six feet tall :-)
>>>
>>> The VW Myth was spawned following WWII by those Gentleman Aviators of
>>> a literary bent who, after winning the Battle of Britian decided to
>>> tell everyone about it via articles in the aviation magazines. Of
>>> course, twelve issues a year, your sea stories start getting a bit
>>> stale the n-th time they're told so they extended their imaginary
>>> expertise to other areas, such those niffty little flying machines
>>> coming out of Europe.
>>> VW is a car engine. You can convert it to a reliable, durable
>>> aircraft engine, typically better in output and durability than say an
>>> A40-4. But the odd thing is that so few people do. Instead, they
>>> turn it into a dune buggy engine and screw a fan on the pulley hub.
>>> Go figger.
>>>
>>> -R.S.Hoover
>>
>> I'm curious on your take on the AeroVee ???
>>
>> I have not experience or opinions here, just am contimplating building a
>> Sonex with the AeroVee engine.
>>
>> Have they done anything to aleviate any of the issues you've mentioned???
>>
>> --
>> ET >:)

Might want to take a look at Del Magsum and his Corvair powered Sonex..
was the way I was headed before having to give it a pass due to health...

http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID=53

--
Slainte! __________________________
C D Patterson, Langford. BC -
Les's Artist Site - http://members.shaw.ca/leszlee
Available in eight languages - New & Sale Items
________________________________________
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia.
Let them walk to school like I did."
— Yogi Berra

[Veeduber]

>
>Was that the 37 HP, single ignition, A-40 in the Taylor E-2 like I
>flew?
>

--------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

That was the engine (although there were something like seven variants) but I
was speaking of the J-2 Cub. That's when they tarted it up with an enclosed
cockpit and all that. The higher turtleback and side windows definitely
improved the cruise & comfort but it added quite a bit of weight. On a hot day
you really didn't want to try it with two full-scale adults and a full tank of
gas.

Continental finally threw out the A40 with its three-bearing design (same as
the VW; that fourth 'main bearing' in the Volkswagen isn't. They added it when
they found the asymmetric load of the blower was wearing out the nose of the
crankcase [it didn't have inserts back then]).

Ed Heath and some others raced behind the A40 and their engine failures were
remarkably similar to the faults suffered by the VW, with the thrust bearing on
the opposite end of the crank from the prop and so forth.

The A50 changed all that. The A50 is the grandfather of the O-200 and was
designed from the ground up to an aircraft powerplant. The A40 started out as
the engine for a railroad service car, with a huge flywheel that served as the
cooling air blower. It did pretty well in those little putt-putts but was
something of a dog as an airplane engine. TBO was 200hrs, by the way, mostly
due to the exposed valves.

-R.S.Hoover

PS -- I never piloted an E2 but I think I flew in one as a kid -- open parasol
type thingee, goggles & all. The fact I was allowed to ride in the FRONT SEAT
really impressed me :-)

[Veeduber]

>
>I'm curious on your take on the AeroVee ???
>
>I have not experience or opinions here, just am contimplating building a
>Sonex with the AeroVee engine.
>
>Have they done anything to aleviate any of the issues you've mentioned???
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Anonymous Poster,

I really wouldn't know. John kicked me off the Aero-vee mailing list :-)

I suggest you read John's comments on the AirVW Group, do a bit of research
into the need for longer rods with stroker cranks and so forth. You may find
the cam data files in the AirVW (files) archive of interest, along with the
recommended break-in procedures for flying Volkswagens and so forth. Also see
the infomercial/article in 'Sport Aviation.' (A truly hilarious read for any
mechanic :-)

Best advice I can offer is to gather all the information you can, verify it
against other sources and then think for yourself.

-R.S.Hoover

[Big John]

R.S.

Single ignition. You ran up on R/W as you started to roll. If you got
the spec'd rpm (forget figure) then all four were firing and you
continued.

Bird had a tail skid (no tail wheel or brakes). To turn sharp you put
full forward stick and full rudder the way you wanted to turn and then
burped the engine. Prop wash picked the tail up and also turned the
bird by hitting on the rudder.

T/O. Things sure were simple in those days <G>

I was Air Advisor to the Maine Guard in Bangor in the early 60's and
outside of town an old codger had an E-2 tied up to the ceiling in his
barn. I dickered with him until I got shipped to Panama with no
success. He's probably dead now and his kids have sold or junked it?
:o(

Big John

On 04 Mar 2004 02:33:01 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:
[i]
>>
>>Was that the 37 HP, single ignition, A-40 in the Taylor E-2 like I
>>flew?
>>
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>Dear John,
>
>That was the engine (although there were something like seven variants) but I
>was speaking of the J-2 Cub. That's when they tarted it up with an enclosed
>cockpit and all that. The higher turtleback and side windows definitely
>improved the cruise & comfort but it added quite a bit of weight. On a hot day
>you really didn't want to try it with two full-scale adults and a full tank of
>gas.
>
>Continental finally threw out the A40 with its three-bearing design (same as
>the VW; that fourth 'main bearing' in the Volkswagen isn't. They added it when
>they found the asymmetric load of the blower was wearing out the nose of the
>crankcase ).
>
>Ed Heath and some others raced behind the A40 and their engine failures were
>remarkably similar to the faults suffered by the VW, with the thrust bearing on
>the opposite end of the crank from the prop and so forth.
>
>The A50 changed all that. The A50 is the grandfather of the O-200 and was
>designed from the ground up to an aircraft powerplant. The A40 started out as
>the engine for a railroad service car, with a huge flywheel that served as the
>cooling air blower. It did pretty well in those little putt-putts but was
>something of a dog as an airplane engine. TBO was 200hrs, by the way, mostly
>due to the exposed valves.
>
>-R.S.Hoover
>
>PS -- I never piloted an E2 but I think I flew in one as a kid -- open parasol
>type thingee, goggles & all. The fact I was allowed to ride in the FRONT SEAT
>really impressed me :-)

[ET]

(Veeduber) wrote in
:

>>
>>I'm curious on your take on the AeroVee ???
>>
>>I have not experience or opinions here, just am contimplating building
>>a Sonex with the AeroVee engine.
>>
>>Have they done anything to aleviate any of the issues you've
>>mentioned???
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Anonymous Poster,
>
> I really wouldn't know. John kicked me off the Aero-vee mailing list
> :-)
>
> I suggest you read John's comments on the AirVW Group, do a bit of
> research into the need for longer rods with stroker cranks and so
> forth. You may find the cam data files in the AirVW (files) archive
> of interest, along with the recommended break-in procedures for flying
> Volkswagens and so forth. Also see the infomercial/article in 'Sport
> Aviation.' (A truly hilarious read for any mechanic :-)
>
> Best advice I can offer is to gather all the information you can,
> verify it against other sources and then think for yourself.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

So he kicked you off the list and deleted your messages eh?

Interesting reading so far..... thanks for keeping me up reading for 2
hrs of sleep time and counting <grin>

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[ET]

ET > wrote in news:Xns94A217B59D7EEviltwigcom@
140.99.99.130:

> (Veeduber) wrote in
> :
>
>>>
>>>I'm curious on your take on the AeroVee ???
>>>
>>>I have not experience or opinions here, just am contimplating building
>>>a Sonex with the AeroVee engine.
>>>
>>>Have they done anything to aleviate any of the issues you've
>>>mentioned???
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Dear Anonymous Poster,
>>
>> I really wouldn't know. John kicked me off the Aero-vee mailing list
>> :-)
>>
>> I suggest you read John's comments on the AirVW Group, do a bit of
>> research into the need for longer rods with stroker cranks and so
>> forth. You may find the cam data files in the AirVW (files) archive
>> of interest, along with the recommended break-in procedures for flying
>> Volkswagens and so forth. Also see the infomercial/article in 'Sport
>> Aviation.' (A truly hilarious read for any mechanic :-)
>>
>> Best advice I can offer is to gather all the information you can,
>> verify it against other sources and then think for yourself.
>>
>> -R.S.Hoover
>
> So he kicked you off the list and deleted your messages eh?
>
> Interesting reading so far..... thanks for keeping me up reading for 2
> hrs of sleep time and counting <grin>
>

I'll also add, that since I plan to scratch build a sonex, and havnt even
ordered plans yet, Ill have several years of watching to see if aerovees
are falling out of the sky before I have to make an engine decision
<grin>

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Veeduber]

>
>So he kicked you off the list and deleted your messages eh?
>

----------------------------------------------------------

As best I can recall I never posted anything to John's list. I only subscribed
because I was invited to do so by one of his customers.

As for reports of Aero-vees falling from the skies, let's hope not. The VW is
an inherently robust design. Even when assembled from a kit of parts by
someone other than a mechanic, it usually gives lots of warning before any
engine-related failure. That assumes the engine is properly instrumented and
cooled and that the pilot is capable of recognizing what the engine has to say.

I suspect the success of the Aero-vee will hinge more on economics than
aeronautics. The Sonex is a relatively clean design that has demonstrated its
ability to perform equally well with other powerplants. The few that are
powered by the Aero-vee do not appear to have shown any advantage over less
expensive alternatives, some of which are fitted with oil filters and will
probably prove more durable because of it.

-R.S.Hoover

[ET]

(Veeduber) wrote in
:

>>
>>So he kicked you off the list and deleted your messages eh?
>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> As best I can recall I never posted anything to John's list. I only
> subscribed because I was invited to do so by one of his customers.
>
> As for reports of Aero-vees falling from the skies, let's hope not.
> The VW is an inherently robust design. Even when assembled from a kit
> of parts by someone other than a mechanic, it usually gives lots of
> warning before any engine-related failure. That assumes the engine is
> properly instrumented and cooled and that the pilot is capable of
> recognizing what the engine has to say.
>
> I suspect the success of the Aero-vee will hinge more on economics
> than aeronautics. The Sonex is a relatively clean design that has
> demonstrated its ability to perform equally well with other
> powerplants. The few that are powered by the Aero-vee do not appear
> to have shown any advantage over less expensive alternatives, some of
> which are fitted with oil filters and will probably prove more durable
> because of it.
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>

Your not missing much on the AeroVee list, there is very little discussion
happening there.....

Well, what attracted me to the AeroVee initially was the advertised
performance for the money....several people who have flown the sonex with
this installation have confirmed that it meets the advertised numbers (not
the hype, but the numbers) and the "all in one package" kit which seems to
be ready to go and within my capabilities. You can bet I will be
investigating other options as time goes on, I just like the fact that
everything was in one package, and designed to go together, and I don't
have to re-invent the wheel.

If money wasn't as big an issue, I would most likly be leaning to the
Jabaru 3300, but if money wasn't as big an issue, I would MORE likely be
leaning to an RV6! .... so that brings this discussion back around then
doesn't it...

I have read extensively on Del's Corvair installation and have had
fantasies of going that direction, but that MAY be just too much "hunting
and gathering" and perhaps too much opportunity to mess something up in the
process. It seems there is quite a bit to do to get the Corvair down to
weight... and alot of time to do it.

My engine building experience is limited to replacing short and long block
chevy engines in 4 vehicles over the years and taking the major parts to
engine rebuilding shops (i.e. I've never done a valve job, I would just
take the entire head to an engine shop to be done, then bolt it back on) so
I suppose part of my reluctance to undertake a "pieces and parts" engine
project is a feeling of lack of competence....

There is someone else on the Sonex list that has begun his plane and plans
to build the entire plane for less than $15K, that is my goal as well... so
obviously if a quality engine can be built with the same or better power as
the AeroVee and perhaps better reliability for less money I'm all for it.
One actual advantage to the "pieces and parts" method is not having to come
up with a $5K+ chunk of change all at once as well.

Does the AeroVee use the pulley side for the prop??

From about 4 hrs of reading the archives of the VW list last night, (thanks
for the bags under my eyes this morning Bob <grin>) my take on the cooling
issue, is that John M perhaps made a compromise and decided that getting
more air to the rear cylinders was more important than cooling the full
width of cooling below the plugs etc. Of course it would be nice if he
actually came out and admitted that I guess. I suppose only time will tell
if this compromise is valid. The discussion of rod lengths is WAY out of
my league... so much so, I don't even feel qualified to ask a question.

I had already read enough of Junior's posts on the Sonex list to get the
impression that he is just immature, gets defensive WAY too fast, and needs
to read his posts AFTER he cools off.. BEFORE posting. (or better yet let
his mommy approve every post before he's allowed to respond to the list >:)
)

How much "should" a good VW installation cost someone?? (Assuming the "hunt
and gather" method, and someone who would probably have to outsource any
machining)

I know your a VW guy, but what is your take on the reliability of the
Corvair??


--
ET >:)

PS before you assume someone may be a troll ... (referencing your "dear
anonymous poster") a quick google of posts may be in order. I'm relatively
new to aviation groups, but have been a regular in home-brewing groups for
some time under the same assumed email. My apologies if my take on that
was incorrect.



"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Veeduber]

>
>Well, what attracted me to the AeroVee initially was the advertised
>performance for the money....
several people who have flown the sonex with
>this installation have confirmed that it meets the advertised numbers (not
>the hype, but the numbers) and the "all in one package" kit which seems to
>be ready to go and within my capabilities. You can bet I will be
>investigating other options as time goes on, I just like the fact that
>everything was in one package, and designed to go together, and I don't
>have to re-invent the wheel.

---------------------------------------------------

Your conclusion embodies the assumption that your assembled kit of engine
parts will perform at least as well as the engine in the factory demo ( ...and
that your scratch-built airframe will have the same weight & rigging).

Having built a few engines I suggest this is wishful thinking. I've received
messages from a number of engine-kit assemblers (including the Aero-vee)
seeking help for problems not covered in the assembly manual nor explained by
the kit supplier. The critical path in engine assembly is relatively short for
the VW but that assumes zero problems. A manual covering the entire decision
tree -- explaining what to do in every possible case -- would be the size of a
New York city phone book. The key point here is that it takes only one
deviation from the critical path -- even something as simple as a buggered
thread -- to bring the novice builder to a stand still.

----------------------------------------------------------
>
I would MORE likely be
>leaning to an RV6! .... so that brings this discussion back around then
>doesn't it...

---------------------------------------------------------

As a point of interest, when folks ask my advice about basic works covering
construction of aluminum aircraft I always point them toward Van's manual for
the RV-3, so complete that at least one builder used it scratch-build the
entire airframe.

----------------------------------------------------------

>
>Does the AeroVee use the pulley side for the prop??
>
---------------------------------------------------------

Yes. Using a shrink-fit hub. (This is another case of confusing the strength
in the fit of the hub to the crankshaft with the load-bearing limitations of
the crankshaft itself.)

-----------------------------------------------------------

>From about 4 hrs of reading the archives of the VW list last night, (thanks
>for the bags under my eyes this morning Bob <grin>) my take on the cooling
>issue, is that John M perhaps made a compromise and decided that getting
>more air to the rear cylinders was more important than cooling the full
>width of cooling below the plugs etc. Of course it would be nice if he
>actually came out and admitted that I guess. I suppose only time will tell
>if this compromise is valid.

------------------------------------------------------------

I believe your interpretation of the point in question is flawed. Volkswagen
took exceptional pains to ensure the bulk of the cooling air was directed to
the hottest parts of the engine. Jeremy blocks ALL air flow to those parts...
then stated publicly that Volkswagen did the same, a factual error easily
refuted by the photos and drawings provided by myself and others having VW
engine experience.

If by 'cylinders' you mean the cast iron barrels, they account for only 17% of
the waste heat budget, a pittance compared to the waste heat that appears in
the vicinity of the exhaust stacks and which must be managed.

----------------------------------------------------------

> The discussion of rod lengths is WAY out of
>my league...

----------------------------------------------------------

Jeremy's too, appareantly :-)

Back around the turn of the century a fellow named Harry Ricardo discovered
that the connecting rods in an internal combustion engine had to be of a
certain minimum length. Too short and the side-loads increased according to
one of those horrendous inverse-cube rules.

Harry went on to become Sir Harry (author of 'The High Speed Internal
Combustion Engine' [about 1920] ) and today the Ricardo Rule for rod length vs
stroke is embodied in every internal combustion engine. Except the Aero-vee
:-)

VW rods of stock length are suitable for crankshafts having a stroke of 73.8mm.
Use an 82mm crank, you need longer rods.

Jeremy takes a stock rod, rounds off the corners and calls it a 'stroker' rod.
For a real stroker rod, check with any after-market supplier.
------------------------------------------------------------

>
>How much "should" a good VW installation cost someone?? (Assuming the "hunt
>and gather" method, and someone who would probably have to outsource any
>machining)
>
------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know. Too many variables. Other than rods and cranks I do my own
machine work. Even then, I may have to sort through half a dozen sets of rods
to find four that meet specs and the situation with regard to crankshafts is
truly dismal, rejecting about 3 out of 4 for even before magnafluxing, for
visible flaws or dimensional deviations.

Most other engine builders insist such attention to detail is a waste of time
and money.
---------------------------------------------------------

>I know your a VW guy, but what is your take on the reliability of the
>Corvair??
---------------------------------------------------------

I've only flown behind one and it was not modified other than having a prop
fitted to the clutch-end of the crank. I was impressed by the smoothness.
(In a Pietenpol, near Merced, early 1970's)

The Corvair is a modern engine. The VW is not.

As with any auto engine converted to flight, I assume it will give adequate
service so long as it is operated within its limitations. It won't be, of
course :-) The Horsepower Myth applies.

------------------------------------------------------------

>PS before you assume someone may be a troll ... (referencing your "dear
>anonymous poster") a quick google of posts may be in order.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I'm really not interested in performing a quick google in order to respond to
someone who feels they must conceal their identity.

On the internet perception is reality. If you act like a troll, child, drunk,
idiot or sociopath then that is how you should expect to be treated, even if
your sig line sez you're a Fellow of the Royal Society of Thoratic Surgeons.

-R.S.Hoover

[ET]

(Veeduber) wrote in
:

>>
>>Well, what attracted me to the AeroVee initially was the advertised
>>performance for the money....
> several people who have flown the sonex with
>>this installation have confirmed that it meets the advertised numbers
>>(not the hype, but the numbers) and the "all in one package" kit which
>>seems to be ready to go and within my capabilities. You can bet I
>>will be investigating other options as time goes on, I just like the
>>fact that everything was in one package, and designed to go together,
>>and I don't have to re-invent the wheel.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Your conclusion embodies the assumption that your assembled kit of
> engine parts will perform at least as well as the engine in the
> factory demo ( ...and that your scratch-built airframe will have the
> same weight & rigging).
>
> Having built a few engines I suggest this is wishful thinking. I've
> received messages from a number of engine-kit assemblers (including
> the Aero-vee) seeking help for problems not covered in the assembly
> manual nor explained by the kit supplier. The critical path in engine
> assembly is relatively short for the VW but that assumes zero
> problems. A manual covering the entire decision tree -- explaining
> what to do in every possible case -- would be the size of a New York
> city phone book. The key point here is that it takes only one
> deviation from the critical path -- even something as simple as a
> buggered thread -- to bring the novice builder to a stand still.
>

Well I suppose that is true with anything you build eh??


> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
> I would MORE likely be
>>leaning to an RV6! .... so that brings this discussion back around
>>then doesn't it...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> As a point of interest, when folks ask my advice about basic works
> covering construction of aluminum aircraft I always point them toward
> Van's manual for the RV-3, so complete that at least one builder used
> it scratch-build the entire airframe.
>

I don't doubt that at all, I'm not sure I see the point though...Many
folks have/are scratch building the Sonex and other planes from scrach...

> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>>
>>Does the AeroVee use the pulley side for the prop??
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes. Using a shrink-fit hub. (This is another case of confusing the
> strength in the fit of the hub to the crankshaft with the load-bearing
> limitations of the crankshaft itself.)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>>From about 4 hrs of reading the archives of the VW list last night,
>>(thanks for the bags under my eyes this morning Bob <grin>) my take on
>>the cooling issue, is that John M perhaps made a compromise and
>>decided that getting more air to the rear cylinders was more important
>>than cooling the full width of cooling below the plugs etc. Of course
>>it would be nice if he actually came out and admitted that I guess. I
>>suppose only time will tell if this compromise is valid.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I believe your interpretation of the point in question is flawed.
> Volkswagen took exceptional pains to ensure the bulk of the cooling
> air was directed to the hottest parts of the engine. Jeremy blocks
> ALL air flow to those parts... then stated publicly that Volkswagen
> did the same, a factual error easily refuted by the photos and
> drawings provided by myself and others having VW engine experience.
>
> If by 'cylinders' you mean the cast iron barrels, they account for
> only 17% of the waste heat budget, a pittance compared to the waste
> heat that appears in the vicinity of the exhaust stacks and which must
> be managed.
>

Well it was just my take on a new subject learned. I seriously doubt
that John M is THAT foolish to purposly sabotage his own engine. I'm not
certain about Jr, but I honestly belive he is just the "marketing
department" and has limited technicle knowledge compared to his father.


> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>> The discussion of rod lengths is WAY out of
>>my league...
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jeremy's too, appareantly :-)
>
> Back around the turn of the century a fellow named Harry Ricardo
> discovered that the connecting rods in an internal combustion engine
> had to be of a certain minimum length. Too short and the side-loads
> increased according to one of those horrendous inverse-cube rules.
>
> Harry went on to become Sir Harry (author of 'The High Speed Internal
> Combustion Engine' [about 1920] ) and today the Ricardo Rule for rod
> length vs stroke is embodied in every internal combustion engine.
> Except the Aero-vee
>:-)
>
> VW rods of stock length are suitable for crankshafts having a stroke
> of 73.8mm.
> Use an 82mm crank, you need longer rods.
>
> Jeremy takes a stock rod, rounds off the corners and calls it a
> 'stroker' rod. For a real stroker rod, check with any after-market
> supplier. ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>
>>How much "should" a good VW installation cost someone?? (Assuming the
>>"hunt and gather" method, and someone who would probably have to
>>outsource any machining)
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't know. Too many variables. Other than rods and cranks I do my
> own machine work. Even then, I may have to sort through half a dozen
> sets of rods to find four that meet specs and the situation with
> regard to crankshafts is truly dismal, rejecting about 3 out of 4 for
> even before magnafluxing, for visible flaws or dimensional deviations.
>
> Most other engine builders insist such attention to detail is a waste
> of time and money.
> ---------------------------------------------------------

hrm, ok.. so in your opinion does any vender build a reliable VW aero
engine???

>
>>I know your a VW guy, but what is your take on the reliability of the
>>Corvair??
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> I've only flown behind one and it was not modified other than having a
> prop fitted to the clutch-end of the crank. I was impressed by the
> smoothness. (In a Pietenpol, near Merced, early 1970's)
>
> The Corvair is a modern engine. The VW is not.
>
> As with any auto engine converted to flight, I assume it will give
> adequate service so long as it is operated within its limitations. It
> won't be, of course :-) The Horsepower Myth applies.

I'm actually impressed with the "prevaling wisdom" in this respect. It
seems that the most respected designer of these takes an engine that
"could" be souped up to 330+hp for auto use and builds it with the
expectation of around 100-120hp.. "seems" reasonable, at least in this
stage in my research.


>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>PS before you assume someone may be a troll ... (referencing your
>>"dear anonymous poster") a quick google of posts may be in order.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm really not interested in performing a quick google in order to
> respond to someone who feels they must conceal their identity.
>
> On the internet perception is reality. If you act like a troll,
> child, drunk, idiot or sociopath then that is how you should expect to
> be treated, even if your sig line sez you're a Fellow of the Royal
> Society of Thoratic Surgeons.
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>
Well now that I have read many many posts you've made in the yahoo groups
I can actually see why you suspected I was a troll, since your opinion on
aerovee engines is clear, but don't assume that everyone who chooses to
use a "handle" is a troll.

From the things you have written it's actually hard to figuire out if you
advocate the VW engine for aircraft at all actually...

I suppose I'm just a bit paranoid about my name being just "out there"...
same reason I do not allow my childrens pictures to be posted on the
school website.. paranoid?? maybe... but that's just the way I am I
suppose...



--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Veeduber]

>----------
>>>
>> I would MORE likely be
>>>leaning to an RV6! .... so that brings this discussion back around
>>>then doesn't it...
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> As a point of interest, when folks ask my advice about basic works
>> covering construction of aluminum aircraft I always point them toward
>> Van's manual for the RV-3, so complete that at least one builder used
>> it scratch-build the entire airframe.
>>
>
>I don't doubt that at all, I'm not sure I see the point though...Many
>folks have/are scratch building the Sonex and other planes from scrach...
>
-----------------------------------------------------------

Van has been building and selling the same basic design for more than thirty
years. The sample manual, which contains a full set of reduced-scale plans,
sells for about $45 and is so complete that it has been used to fabricate an
airframe, although that was not its intended purpose. Van has a factory and a
staff. They'll sell you a rivet or a whole airplane.

The point is that you've expressed an interest in building a Sonex from plans.
You have also made it clear that cost is a major consideration. I should think
the consideration of an RV as an alternative would be obvious, especially given
the cost of the Sonex plans and of the Aero-vee KIT OF PARTS as compared to a
run-out or high-time aircraft engine.
----------------------------------------------------------


>
>Well it was just my take on a new subject learned. I seriously doubt
>that John M is THAT foolish to purposly sabotage his own engine.
--------------------------------------------------------

Don't get your hopes up :-)


>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>hrm, ok.. so in your opinion does any vender build a reliable VW aero
>engine???
----------------------------------------------------------

You'll have to define your terms. I've already pointed out the distinction
between peak output, maximum sustainable output and the level of output which
gives maximum service life. Then comes Type and configuration. Type I or
Type IV? Magnesium case or aluminum? Special crankshaft? Oil filter?
By-pass or full-flow oil cooling? Then comes Design, for want of a better
term. The Type IV is of modern design, the Type I is not the features that
make the Type IV a modern design may be retro-fitted to the Type I. Are they?
In most cases, they are not. After that comes size -- the displacement of the
engine and if larger than stock, how the increase is achieved, followed by the
power band -- the engine's compression ratio and cam timing -- followed by
method of induction... is it carburetted or supercharged with a host of
definitions for each.

And I haven't even gotten to ignition methods, exhaust manifolding and so on
:-)

When I was in the Navy I ran into guys from the east coast who had never owned
a car and didn't even know how to drive. To them all cars were just.... cars.
In the same vein, to some people all VW engines are just... VW engines.

Flying Volkswagens do not have Type Certificates. They come in an almost
infinite variety of displacements and configurations. Your question is simply
too broad to merit a concise answer.

But having said all that, the answer by default is Great Plains, simply because
Aero-vee does not sell assembled engines (ie, you use of the term 'build') and
the claims made by Bradley and Able are simply not credible (ie, horsepower in
excess of 100, specific fuel consumption under .28, etc.)

----------------------------------------------------------
>
>I'm actually impressed with the "prevaling wisdom" in this respect. It
>seems that the most respected designer of these takes an engine that
>"could" be souped up to 330+hp for auto use and builds it with the
>expectation of around 100-120hp.. "seems" reasonable, at least in this
>stage in my research.

----------------------------------------------------------

Like I said, don't get your hopes up :-)

After all is said and done, the engine itself will have the final say.

------------------------------------------------------------

>
>From the things you have written it's actually hard to figuire out if you
>advocate the VW engine for aircraft at all actually...
>
----------------------------------------------------------

The Horton brothers used one of the first (985cc) VW's in one of their flying
wings. That was in 1937. From that day to this 'VW' powered aircraft have
been flying around the globe, including crossing the Atlantic (the RF-4's
ferried home by Mira Slovak were powered by Limbach engines, a variant of the
VW design). This should provide ample evidence as to its practicality.
Personally, I think the VW is the best option for true grass-roots aviation
applications. But it isn't the only option.

The limitations of powerplants based on VW components have been clearly
defined. When properly assembled and operated within those limitations it has
proven it to be a reliable engine, as history clearly shows. My main concern is
the false expectations instilled by those catering to technologically naive
would-be aviators. Think for YOURSELF. It is not only your money, it is
literally your life.

-R.S.Hoover

[Tony Shennan]

Richard

Have a VW in my BEACH BOY...

How are you?

Tony Shennan


Richard Lamb wrote:

> I'm just kinda curious about who here might be flying
> (or building?)
> a VW powered airplane?
>
> Richard

[Richard Lamb]

Tony Shennan wrote:
>
> Richard
>
> Have a VW in my BEACH BOY...
>
> How are you?
>
> Tony Shennan
>
> Richard Lamb wrote:
>
> > I'm just kinda curious about who here might be flying
> > (or building?)
> > a VW powered airplane?
> >
> > Richard

Futzing with mechanical brakes.

[Ken W]

Hi...Im considering using VW power...due to your strong feelings, Id really
like to know specifically
what engine problems you had ...so I can make more informed decision.
thanks Ken
"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
link.net...
> VW let me down twice, would not fly behind one again even if it meant
> I had to give up flying forever, which I almost did flying behind a VW.
> When I first got into homebuilt aircraft there were many airplanes using
> VW's, you do not see many anymore for a reson. YMMV
>
> Jerry
>

[Frank Stutzman]

Richard Lamb > wrote:
> Now, on the other hand, Bruce King has over 200 hours on his modified
> Hummelbird (Great Plains 1835 - full 4 cylinder)

> OVER 1000 landings.

200 hours and 1000 landings? That means his average flight time has been
12 minutes?


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:15:41 +0000 (UTC), Frank Stutzman
> wrote:

>Richard Lamb > wrote:
>> Now, on the other hand, Bruce King has over 200 hours on his modified
>> Hummelbird (Great Plains 1835 - full 4 cylinder)
>
>> OVER 1000 landings.
>
>200 hours and 1000 landings? That means his average flight time has been
>12 minutes?

As long as it isn't his MTBF. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Richard Lamb]

Frank Stutzman wrote:
>
> Richard Lamb > wrote:
> > Now, on the other hand, Bruce King has over 200 hours on his modified
> > Hummelbird (Great Plains 1835 - full 4 cylinder)
>
> > OVER 1000 landings.
>
> 200 hours and 1000 landings? That means his average flight time has been
> 12 minutes?
>
> --
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
> Hood River, OR


It only takes about 3 minutes to go around...

[Richard Lamb]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:15:41 +0000 (UTC), Frank Stutzman
> > wrote:
>
> >Richard Lamb > wrote:
> >> Now, on the other hand, Bruce King has over 200 hours on his modified
> >> Hummelbird (Great Plains 1835 - full 4 cylinder)
> >
> >> OVER 1000 landings.
> >
> >200 hours and 1000 landings? That means his average flight time has been
> >12 minutes?
>
> As long as it isn't his MTBF. :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Bruce is on AOL, and I guess that's a problem somehow getting the
news groups. So he can't jump in here and defend his bird.

On that subject, are there any AOL readers here that might offer help?


He has had one engine related problem that happened early on - at maybe
10 or 12 hours.

The ignition system has dual motorcycle coils and a modified
distributor. Each coil has two leads and fires two plugs, so it
fires on the exhaust stroke too. Seemed to work fine.

But the motorcycle coils didn't care for the heat where they were
mounted and one day they just melted. (not a good thing)

One shorted and quit completely, which resulted in a 1/2 VW limp
home mode that actually did get him home ok.
Humm, a 1/2 VW Hummelbird? What will they think of next?

Other than that it has been a perfectly dependable plant.

Change the oil and check valve lash every 25 hours.
(But that's hardly a "valve job".

FILTER the gas from ANY gas can.

Drain ALL yer sumps before boarding (one way to remember?)

Run it regularly.

Have fun,

Richard

[Veeduber]

>
>200 hours and 1000 landings? That means his average flight time has been
>12 minutes?

---------------------------------------------------------

I've been known to make more than one touch-down per landing... but I usually
don't log them :-)

-R.S.Hoover

[Rick Sine]

Just wondering if anyone has checked into Hummel Engines about their VW??
Like price to compare?


"Ken W" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi...Im considering using VW power...due to your strong feelings, Id
really
> like to know specifically
> what engine problems you had ...so I can make more informed decision.
> thanks Ken
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > VW let me down twice, would not fly behind one again even if it meant
> > I had to give up flying forever, which I almost did flying behind a VW.
> > When I first got into homebuilt aircraft there were many airplanes using
> > VW's, you do not see many anymore for a reson. YMMV
> >
> > Jerry
> >
>
>