STOL Plans

[M.]

Hi,

Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries from
the designer. Any other suggestions or references?

TIA

Mike

[Gig Giacona]

The Zenith 701 or 801 might fill the bill. www.zenithair.com




"M." > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
> Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries
> from
> the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
>
> TIA
>
> Mike
>
>

[ET]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in news:10ppf4rpj79cj88
@corp.supernews.com:

> The Zenith 701 or 801 might fill the bill. www.zenithair.com
>
>
>
>
> "M." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
>> Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries
>> from
>> the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>
>

Buttercup

www.luceair.com

Not affiliated blah blah blah

ET

[Shelly]

M. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
> Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries from
> the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
>
> TIA
>
> Mike

Pegazair - we're scratchbuilding from plans.
(http://www.tapanee.com/)

Shelly

[Lou Parker]

ET > wrote in message >...
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in news:10ppf4rpj79cj88
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
> > The Zenith 701 or 801 might fill the bill. www.zenithair.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "M." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
> >> Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries
> >> from
> >> the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
> >>
> >> TIA
> >>


Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
http://www.sky-rider.net/

> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> Buttercup
>
> www.luceair.com
>
> Not affiliated blah blah blah
>
> ET

[Gig Giacona]

"Lou Parker" > wrote in message
m...
> ET > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in news:10ppf4rpj79cj88
>> @corp.supernews.com:
>>
>> > The Zenith 701 or 801 might fill the bill. www.zenithair.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "M." > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering
>> >> the
>> >> Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries
>> >> from
>> >> the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
>> >>
>> >> TIA
>> >>
>
>
> Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
> http://www.sky-rider.net/
>
>> >> Mike
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Buttercup
>>
>> www.luceair.com
>>
>> Not affiliated blah blah blah
>>
>> ET

That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.

[Charlie]

M. wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
> Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries from
> the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
>
> TIA
>
> Mike
>
>
Is the Bearhawk too big? It's an impressive plane, both in its specs &
in person. 4 seats or the new 2 seat version.

http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com/

Charlie

[Jean-Paul Roy]

FWIW, my understanding is that Chris Heinz sold the rights to a Brazilian
company that after experiencing some financial problems, sold those rights
to ICP in Italia.

Jean-Paul
"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lou Parker" > wrote in message
> m...
> > ET > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in
news:10ppf4rpj79cj88
> >> @corp.supernews.com:
> >>
> >> > The Zenith 701 or 801 might fill the bill. www.zenithair.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "M." > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering
> >> >> the
> >> >> Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my
enquiries
> >> >> from
> >> >> the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
> >> >>
> >> >> TIA
> >> >>
> >
> >
> > Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
> > http://www.sky-rider.net/
> >
> >> >> Mike
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Buttercup
> >>
> >> www.luceair.com
> >>
> >> Not affiliated blah blah blah
> >>
> >> ET
>
> That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
> understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.
>
>
>

[Lou Parker]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message >...
> "Lou Parker" > wrote in message
> m...
> > ET > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in news:10ppf4rpj79cj88
> >> @corp.supernews.com:
> >>
> >> > The Zenith 701 or 801 might fill the bill. www.zenithair.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "M." > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering
> >> >> the
> >> >> Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries
> >> >> from
> >> >> the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
> >> >>
> >> >> TIA
> >> >>
> >
> >
> > Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
> > http://www.sky-rider.net/
> >
> >> >> Mike
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Buttercup
> >>
> >> www.luceair.com
> >>
> >> Not affiliated blah blah blah
> >>
> >> ET
>
> That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
> understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.



I don't know either. Probebly the same reason Coke doesn't sue Pepsi,
Everedy doesn't sue Duracell, or Harley doesn't sue Yamaha. Quite
posibly because there is more to it than either you or I can see.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:53:06 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
> wrote:

>
>"Lou Parker" > wrote in message
m...
>> ET > wrote in message
>> >...
>>> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in news:10ppf4rpj79cj88
>>> @corp.supernews.com:
>>>
>>> > The Zenith 701 or 801 might fill the bill. www.zenithair.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "M." > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering
>>> >> the
>>> >> Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries
>>> >> from
>>> >> the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
>>> >>
>>> >> TIA
>>> >>
>>
>>
>> Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
>> http://www.sky-rider.net/
>>
>>> >> Mike
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> Buttercup
>>>
>>> www.luceair.com
>>>
>>> Not affiliated blah blah blah
>>>
>>> ET
>
>That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
>understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.
>
How about the Pegazair 100?

Building from plans.

[jls]

"Del Rawlins" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:53:06 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Lou Parker" > wrote in message
> >
> >> Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
> >> http://www.sky-rider.net/
> >
> >That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
> >understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.
>
> Why, so their respective lawyers can get rich?

The reason why no one has filed a lawsuit in such a case, aside from Deldo's
argument that lawyers shouldn't be allowed to make a living, is that an
aircraft's unique looks are not proprietary. Its name might be but not its
appearance.

Remember how H-D tried like hell, but in vain, to get an exclusive on the
sound of its engines? They needn't have worried. Every once in a while I
see a bike looking to be a Harley but the cheap shape of the breather cover
and the tenor farting of its engine always give it away as a piece of crap
from the orient.

[Del Rawlins]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:53:06 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
> wrote:

>
>"Lou Parker" > wrote in message
>
>> Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
>> http://www.sky-rider.net/
>
>That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
>understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.

Why, so their respective lawyers can get rich?

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

[Lou Parker]

"Jean-Paul Roy" > wrote in message >...
> FWIW, my understanding is that Chris Heinz sold the rights to a Brazilian
> company that after experiencing some financial problems, sold those rights
> to ICP in Italia.
>


I would really like to find out if there is truth to this. Where did
you come across this info?
Lou



>
> > That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
> > understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.
> >
> >
> >

[M.]

Thanks everybody for the input. I'm seriously looking at the Pegazair 100,
I't appears to have all the features that I'm looking for. I'll keep the
group posted on my descision, and I guess details of when I commence my
build.

Again, thank you all for your input

Mike Karsten
Invercargill
New Zealand

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:38:20 +1300, "M." >
wrote:

>Thanks everybody for the input. I'm seriously looking at the Pegazair 100,
>I't appears to have all the features that I'm looking for. I'll keep the
>group posted on my descision, and I guess details of when I commence my
>build.
>
>Again, thank you all for your input
>
>Mike Karsten
>Invercargill
>New Zealand
>
The beauty of the peg (over the Zen 701) is the chrome moly fuselage,
which means no "oil canning" and better surviveability and
repairability in case of a "hard landing". With the automatic slats it
is a bit faster on the same horsepower, and it is designed for a
greater FWF weight (300 lb limit) so a "real" aircraft engine can be
installed without making it into a single seater.

I was seriously thinking 701 a few years back (with a Soob) but I
found the soob was too heavy for my thinking on that plane - and the
Peg was a "similar mission".

[pete]

Before you decide, check out this site:
http://bearhawkpatrol.tripod.com/
Takes off in under 250' and has a useful load of around 1000 lbs. Plans
build, tube and fabric with a aluminum wing. Uses 150 to 180 HP engine. Two
seat, tandem. It's a smaller version of this:
http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com/

Peter

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:38:20 +1300, "M." >
> wrote:
>
> >Thanks everybody for the input. I'm seriously looking at the Pegazair
100,
> >I't appears to have all the features that I'm looking for. I'll keep the
> >group posted on my descision, and I guess details of when I commence my
> >build.
> >
> >Again, thank you all for your input
> >
> >Mike Karsten
> >Invercargill
> >New Zealand
> >
> The beauty of the peg (over the Zen 701) is the chrome moly fuselage,
> which means no "oil canning" and better surviveability and
> repairability in case of a "hard landing". With the automatic slats it
> is a bit faster on the same horsepower, and it is designed for a
> greater FWF weight (300 lb limit) so a "real" aircraft engine can be
> installed without making it into a single seater.
>
> I was seriously thinking 701 a few years back (with a Soob) but I
> found the soob was too heavy for my thinking on that plane - and the
> Peg was a "similar mission".

[[email protected]]

I am currently building a STOL King. I have a web site at
http://www.blackhillsairsports.com/STOL_King_Intro2.html

[Morgans]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I am currently building a STOL King. I have a web site at
> http://www.blackhillsairsports.com/STOL_King_Intro2.html
>
Nice web content, but you really need to make your buttons labels bigger,
and with a total change of colors. The contrast is terrible. Sorry.

[Christopher]

I also bought the plans for the STOL King but haven't received them yet. Although the general specs on this aircraft are enough for me to want to build one I have tried to get more detailed information about this aircrafts performance by emailing Preceptor aircraft twice and they will not respond other than to say thank you for the email and that they will get back with me later. I tried calling but it takes me to an answering machine telling me to call back at 2 PM their time when I am not able to call. Doesn't matter, due to never trusting a salesman (no slam on them and kind of moot considering I already bought the plans) I prefer finding someone independent of them who has built this aircraft themselves to answer the questions anyway.

Their specs say this aircraft will take off in 50 feet but no mention of whether the aircraft is lightly loaded or at gross weight or even which engine is needed for this performance. How about stall speed? Their specs say 15 MPH, I assume that is with power on and full flaps, anyone know?

Also, I found these numbers for the aircraft which differ by a large amount with what is currently on their web site: http://www.generalaviationnews.com/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-token.key=1021&-token.src=feature&-nothing

STOL King — (Preceptor Aircraft Corp.); monoplane, high; conventional gear; 75-120; empty wt: 675 lbs; gross wt: 1500 lbs; fabric, tubing; seats: 2; plans: none; kit price: $17,000

Obviously, this is an old spec because their kit is now 25 thousand dollars but why would the specs change, just to meet LSA or is the airframe much lighter now? Is there anyone here who knows anything about the real world performance of this plane?

Preceptors web page for the STOL King: http://www.preceptoraircraft.com/STOL%20King.htm

If anyone else is researching this I am putting links to all of the sites I can find about the STOL King and or Storch homebuilts plus a few others on a new yahoo group at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Extreme_STOL - there is no activity there but the links section of the group is full of lots of different homebuilt aircraft which will take off and land in 300 feet or less which is growing and may be helpful to others like myself who are deciding on which extreme STOL aircraft to build.

I have tried to get the opinion of CPotter (post above) and although very friendly and helpful in every other way he is reluctant to guess on the performance figures I am looking for because his project isn't finished yet. Anyone know someone who has one flying right now and how to contact them ?

[JKimmel]

Christopher wrote:
> I also bought the plans for the STOL King but haven't received them yet.
> Although the general specs on this aircraft are enough for me to want to
> build one I have tried to get more detailed information about this
> aircrafts performance by emailing Preceptor aircraft twice and they
> will not respond other than to say thank you for the email and that
> they will get back with me later. Phone calls to their number only
> takes me to an answering machine telling me to call back at 2 PM.
> Doesn't matter, I prefer finding someone independent of them who has
> built this aircraft themselves to answer the questions anyway.
>

You need to join Preceptorgroup on Yahoo.
--
J Kimmel

www.metalinnovations.com

"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - When you have
their full attention in your grip, their hearts and minds will follow.

[Christopher]

Did, no answer there either! But, lots of people were willinig to share photographs with me. I just need to have someone who knows the answer to come by and see my post, I guess.

Christopher wrote:
I also bought the plans for the STOL King but haven't received them yet.
Although the general specs on this aircraft are enough for me to want to
build one I have tried to get more detailed information about this
aircrafts performance by emailing Preceptor aircraft twice and they
will not respond other than to say thank you for the email and that
they will get back with me later. Phone calls to their number only
takes me to an answering machine telling me to call back at 2 PM.
Doesn't matter, I prefer finding someone independent of them who has
built this aircraft themselves to answer the questions anyway.


You need to join Preceptorgroup on Yahoo.
--
J Kimmel

www.metalinnovations.com

"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - When you have
their full attention in your grip, their hearts and minds will follow.

[Morgans]

"Christopher" > wrote

> I also bought the plans for the STOL King but haven't received them yet.
> Although the general specs on this aircraft are enough for me to want to
> build one I have tried to get more detailed information about this
> aircrafts performance by emailing Preceptor aircraft twice and they
> will not respond other than to say thank you for the email and that
> they will get back with me later.

> Also, I found these numbers for the aircraft which differ by a large
> amount with what is currently on their web site:
> http://tinyurl.com/n4m6v

> I have tried to get the opinion of CPotter (post above) and although
> very friendly and helpful in every other way he is reluctant to guess
> on the performance figures I am looking for because his project isn't
> finished yet. Anyone know someone who has one flying right now and how
> to contact them ?

There are BS flags all over the place, when looking at that web site. Turn
around, and walk, no, turn and run away!

Why does it have such long landing gear? To look like a storch. The
difference is, the storch has it to get prop clearance, for greaat big
props. BS alert!

Now for what told me to tell you to run away.

Did you see the HP rating for the VW engine they will sell you? THAT is a
good one! (joke, that is) A VW engine that is rated for 103 HP????????
Give me a break!! If you somehow were able to get that much power out of a
VW, the valves and head would be a big melted pile of aluminum and steel,
within 2 minutes, or less. Also you would have to run it at super high
RPM's, and that means you would need a small prop. Small props are only
good for poor take-off performance, and high cruise speed. Sound like a
STOL??? Nope. Run away!
--
Jim in NC

[Christopher]

The STOL King was based on the 3/4 Storch kit being offered by a fellow in Australia which I believe had its origins in Europe somewhere (aside from the original Fi 156 Storch). Essentially, I think it is the same aircraft but streamlined quite a bit. I had heard (web searches) that he had partnered with them but for some reason they went their own ways and thus this aircraft came out of it.

Although this gear isn't the original 'Storch' gear I believe it is that long because the slats on the wings produce the best climb vs distance when at a high angle of attack.

If this aircraft can get close to its claimed performance, even if not right on it, I would be happy and wouldn't have too much heartburn over the specs being fluffed a bit to keep up with all of the other fluffers but if they are far from unrealistic I would sure like to know before I invest more time and money into this.

If I could just find one person who is flying one who would be willing to share their experiences and opinions about its performance (and there are completed STOL Kings out there) I could clear this up in a hurry. I have a couple of leads through web seaches but not easy to find contact information.

Here is another kit version of the 3/4 scale Storch called the Criquet with performance figures similar to the STOL King but much heavier (Modified, modified 'Storch'): http://tinyurl.com/qupra

The statement that a "VW engine can produce 100 HP" is misleading because this engine is different. They manufacture new jugs with more coolant flow and use a special high volume pump to keep them cool. Here is a link to their web page http://tinyurl.com/pbwb7

Chris in Palmer, Alaska




There are BS flags all over the place, when looking at that web site. Turn
around, and walk, no, turn and run away!

Why does it have such long landing gear? To look like a storch. The
difference is, the storch has it to get prop clearance, for greaat big
props. BS alert!

Now for what told me to tell you to run away.

Did you see the HP rating for the VW engine they will sell you? THAT is a
good one! (joke, that is) A VW engine that is rated for 103 HP????????
Give me a break!! If you somehow were able to get that much power out of a
VW, the valves and head would be a big melted pile of aluminum and steel,
within 2 minutes, or less. Also you would have to run it at super high
RPM's, and that means you would need a small prop. Small props are only
good for poor take-off performance, and high cruise speed. Sound like a
STOL??? Nope. Run away!
--
Jim in NC

[JP]

The Australian manufacturer is propably Nestor Slepcev:

http://www.slepcevstorch.com/index.htm

JP


"Christopher" > wrote in
...
>
> The STOL King was based on the 3/4 Storch kit being offered by a fellow
> in Australia which I believe had its origins in Europe somewhere (aside
> from the original Fi 156 Storch). Essentially, I think it is the same
> aircraft but streamlined quite a bit. I had heard (web searches) that
> he had partnered with them but for some reason they went their own ways
> and thus this aircraft came out of it.

[Christopher]

I received an email response from Nestor for a quote:

Thank you for your inquiry, sorry for delay in answer, we had some technical problems here.

Interesting kits for you are Slepcev Storch and Slepcev Microlight Storch. They use ROTAX 912 ULS, 100hp engine. I find that ROTAX 912 is best engine for Slepcev Storch.

The SLEPCEV Storch Kits are fully welded, painted fuselage and empennage (chrome molly 4130) and come complete with upholstered seats, landing gear, wheels, and hydraulic disk brakes. The Kit has doors on both sides. Spars are Ribs are predrilled and lightening holes flanged.

Slepcev Storch MK4 - basic version of Storch is available in kit and ready to fly version. Slepcev Storch has metal covered wings. Its J.A.R.-V.L.A certified.

Kit version is available; Slepcev Storch kit is ROTAX 912 ULS, 100hp engine suitable. Price is 28.850USD. Approximate time for assembling is 800 - 1000 hours.

Slepcev Storch Microlight is slightly smaller than Slepcev Storch. It has fabric covered wings. Microlight is also available in kit or ready to fly version.

Storch Microlight kit is available, its Rotax 912 ULS, 100hp engine suitable, colored in standard colors, or in color of your choice. Price is 28.850 USD. Approximate time for assembling is 700 - 900 hours.

Please let me know.

Best regards

Nestor Slepčev

[JP]

There is also this nice looking Australian kit aircraft Hornet STOL
developed by the Australian Aircraft Kits. Required building time seems to
be quite reasonable.
I don't know is it included in any link sections somewhere.

http://www.aircraftkits.com.au/index.htm

JP


"Christopher" > wrote in
...
>
> If anyone else is researching this I am putting links to all of the
> sites I can find about the STOL King and or Storch homebuilts plus a
> few others on a new yahoo group at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Extreme_STOL - there is no activity there
> but the links section of the group is full of lots of different
> homebuilt aircraft which will take off and land in 300 feet or less
> which is growing and may be helpful to others like myself who are
> deciding on which extreme STOL aircraft to build.

[[email protected]]

Morgans wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Did you see the HP rating for the VW engine they will sell you? THAT is a
> good one! (joke, that is) A VW engine that is rated for 103 HP????????
> ..

Look again, Great Planes is claiming 120 HP:

http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html

As noted elsewhere in this thread, the conversion to liquid cooled
heads makes refering to it as a VW enigne questionable--sort of
like referring to a Lexus as a NIssan.

I don't see an estimate of total weight on that page, but it
seems that the power to weight ration may be a tad unrealistic.

--

FF

[cavelamb]

wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>
>>...
>>
>>Did you see the HP rating for the VW engine they will sell you? THAT is a
>>good one! (joke, that is) A VW engine that is rated for 103 HP????????
>>..
>
>
> Look again, Great Planes is claiming 120 HP:
>
> http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html
>
> As noted elsewhere in this thread, the conversion to liquid cooled
> heads makes refering to it as a VW enigne questionable--sort of
> like referring to a Lexus as a NIssan.
>
> I don't see an estimate of total weight on that page, but it
> seems that the power to weight ration may be a tad unrealistic.
>

or - that MTOH may be a bit short...

[Morgans]

> wrote \
>
> Look again, Great Planes is claiming 120 HP:
>
> http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html
>
> As noted elsewhere in this thread, the conversion to liquid cooled
> heads makes refering to it as a VW enigne questionable--sort of
> like referring to a Lexus as a NIssan.
>
> I don't see an estimate of total weight on that page, but it
> seems that the power to weight ration may be a tad unrealistic.

Yep, and that has been scoffed upon by those better in the know than me. <g>

I can also get over 750 HP out of a Chevy 350. Only one catch. It will
blow up after about 6 hours. Is that what you want out of an airplane
engine?

Those kind of figures for a VW are about as realistic. Granted, the liquid
cooled head may help get sustainable HP up from a realistic 45 to a bit
more, but not that far, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

[Christopher]

Having no experience with these modified VW engines myself I cannot defend their claims, nor can I deny them. Just thought I'd show what they have on their web site.

BTW: That 120 HP isn't sustained full power, just for takeoff.

IMO I wouldn't call it a VW engine anymore, not with all of the modifications they have done to it. The size of the jugs and all of the changes to the original engine (including vastly increased cooling) determines the power rating of the engine, not the crank shaft. That is, assuming both it and the other original components, what ever is left of them, can take the increased stresses.

[cavelamb]

Christopher wrote:

> Having no experience with these modified VW engines myself I cannot
> defend their claims, nor can I deny them. Just thought I'd show what
> they have on their web site.
>
> BTW: That 120 HP isn't sustained full power, just for takeoff.
>
>

Having a great deal of VW experience, I can say with full confidence -
BullS%!t...

[Christopher]

Look at this list of VW engines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_discontinued_Volkswagen_engines

[Lou]

cavelamb wrote:
> Christopher wrote:
>
> > Having no experience with these modified VW engines myself I cannot
> > defend their claims, nor can I deny them. Just thought I'd show what
> > they have on their web site.
> >
> > BTW: That 120 HP isn't sustained full power, just for takeoff.
> >
> >
>
> Having a great deal of VW experience, I can say with full confidence -
> BullS%!t...

I'm no expert, but I have been looking into different engines for my
plane over the years. If you take a stock VW and build it upto aircraft
ability, add whats needed for extra HP and through in a reduction drive
and radiator (filled), doesn't the weight come close to a corvair six
cylinder without all the extras? Wouldn't it also be a simpler design
with less to go wrong?
Lou

[Christopher]

I like that Corvair engine too, but I wonder if it can swing a 96 inch prop. Many of the individuals who are excited about the 103 HP VW engine are happy with it because of the amount of thrust it can produce swinging a big prop. Of course, most people don't want and don't need a prop that big, it causes the top end performance to suffer but for certain applications, wow.. some of those aircraft really hop off the ground:

http://www.culverprops.com/back-yard-flyer.htm

The firewall forward package for this backyard flyer is a 2276cc VW engine, 2.47:1 PSRU. I am still looking for the weight figures for this engine.

http://www.greatplainsas.com/lcred.jpeg
http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html

I wouldn't be as keen towards what I am seeing about this engine if it wasn't for the huge prop it can handle and my specific need for extreme STOL without high speed performance. I have been collecting links to as many extreme STOL aircraft as I can find and have listed them in the links section of the following yahoo group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Extreme_STOL - I am still undecided over which aircraft to build but I want something which has a takeoff roll of 100 feet or less which will handle a large adult with room for one average sized passenger. The CH 701 is too small, the STOL King looks good but so far I have not been able to find a second party (aside from the guy selling plans) who has built it to confirm the claimed performance.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

I think the prop weight might be too high with a 96" prop on a Corvair.


"Christopher" > wrote in message
...
>
> I like that Corvair engine too, but I wonder if it can swing a 96 inch
> prop. Many of the individuals who are excited about the 103 HP VW
> engine are happy with it because of the amount of thrust it can produce
> swinging a big prop. Of course, most people don't want and don't need a
> prop that big, it causes the top end performance to suffer but for
> certain applications, wow.. some of those aircraft really hop off the
> ground:
>
> http://www.culverprops.com/back-yard-flyer.htm
>
> The firewall forward package for this backyard flyer is a 2276cc VW
> engine, 2.47:1 PSRU. I am still looking for the weight figures for this
> engine.
>
> [image: http://www.greatplainsas.com/lcred.jpeg]
> http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html
>
> I wouldn't be as keen towards what I am seeing about this engine if it
> wasn't for the huge prop it can handle and my specific need for extreme
> STOL without high speed performance. I have been collecting links to as
> many extreme STOL aircraft as I can find and have listed them in the
> links section of the following yahoo group:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Extreme_STOL - I am still undecided over
> which aircraft to build but I want something which has a takeoff roll
> of 100 feet or less which will handle a large adult with room for one
> average sized passenger. The CH 701 is too small, the STOL King looks
> good but so far I have not been able to find a second party (aside from
> the guy selling plans) who has built it to confirm the claimed
> performance.
>
>
> --
> Christopher

[Morgans]

"Christopher" > wrote

>
> Many of the individuals who are excited about the 103 HP VW
> engine are happy with it because of the amount of thrust it can produce
> swinging a big prop.

Anyone trying to sell you a 100 HP VW is pulling your leg. (or your wallet)

Google "the Christmas Engine", with reference to this newsgroup.
--
Jim in NC

[Christopher]

Jim,

I have had more than one real world source separate from the people who are selling this engine confirm that this specific configuration with new jugs that have vastly increased cooling and other changes will produce over 100 HP to the prop for takeoff when coupled with the right reduction unit, see: http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html

http://www.greatplainsas.com/lcgraph1.jpeg

The LCCH (Liquid Cooled Cylinder Heads) have been under development for the last five years by Liquid Cooled One LLC. They have been Dyno tested and continue to be Dyno tested on a 2180cc Great Plains Aircraft Sport Aircraft Engine. The accompanying HP/RPM chart is direct from the Stuska Dynamometer.


Since this thread was started I have spoken with two independent engineers who have tested the engine and have done thrust measurements which could never have been produced without the available HP. I think your denial of being able to reach 100 peak HP on the original air cooled engine without a reduction unit is true... however, here are the specs for the 2180cc engines available horse power for takeoff when liquid cooled with redesigned jugs and a reduction drive:

http://www.greatplainsas.com/specsred.html

The continuous HP rating is 70 HP but I never implied it was spec'd to produce 103 HP on a continuous basis any more than you would want to run any piston aircraft engine at full power all of the time.

[Morgans]

"Christopher" > wrote in message
...
>
> Jim,
>
> Have you worked with *this* specific liquid cooled engine (not air
> cooled like the original) to be qualified to continue your stamp of
> disapproval and denial of both their and others test results for the
> engine? No, then why insist otherwise?

Hey, it's your butt. Go for it! Knock yourself out!

I wish you luck and long life.
--
Jim in NC

[Lou]

Chris,
Have you come across the total weight? I can't seem to find it.
Lou

[Morgans]

"Christopher" > wrote

>> THE LCCH (LIQUID COOLED CYLINDER HEADS) HAVE BEEN UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR
>> THE LAST FIVE YEARS BY LIQUID COOLED ONE LLC. THEY HAVE BEEN DYNO
>> TESTED AND CONTINUE TO BE DYNO TESTED ON A 2180CC GREAT PLAINS AIRCRAFT
>> SPORT AIRCRAFT ENGINE. THE ACCOMPANYING HP/RPM CHART IS DIRECT FROM THE
>> STUSKA DYNAMOMETER.
>>
>
> I would give you more credit on this issue as a mechanic who has worked
> on the original air cooled engine with different jugs but I have gone to
> two other individuals who have actually tested *this* highly refined and
> modified engine themselves who have also done thrust measurements which
> could never have been produced without the available HP.

Three questions.

1. How long is it capable of putting out the100 HP? That is important.

2. What HP level is it rated at, continuous.

3. What is it's TBO, given a cycle of 100 HP, cycled with the continuous
output?

I can make a weedeater engine put out 100 HP. How long it will do that is
another question. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[JP]

Go to the main page http://www.greatplainsas.com and just above the picture
of a KR1 there's "Download 2006 Catalog Here".

Look page 7 (Reduction Drive & Rear Drive Engine Specifications) and you
will find following information:

Type 1 - Liquid Reduction 2180

Take off HP, RPM MAX 120 @ 4400
Continuous HP, RPM 84 @ 3200
Weight in Pounds 200

(The maximum allowed continuous power setting is 70%)

JP


"Lou" > wrote in
groups.com...
> Chris,
> Have you come across the total weight? I can't seem to find it.
> Lou
>

[cavelamb]

JP wrote:
> Go to the main page http://www.greatplainsas.com and just above the picture
> of a KR1 there's "Download 2006 Catalog Here".
>
> Look page 7 (Reduction Drive & Rear Drive Engine Specifications) and you
> will find following information:
>
> Type 1 - Liquid Reduction 2180
>
> Take off HP, RPM MAX 120 @ 4400
> Continuous HP, RPM 84 @ 3200
> Weight in Pounds 200
>

Oh, Horse Feathers...

If it's a VW core with liquid cooled heads - it AIN'T no type 1 VW.
It is quite something else...
More like a drag motor - fitted out with a prop reducer.

At 120 HP, I'll lay odds it will not last long either.
The VW head studs won't take that for long without pulling out of the case.

And - just for the record - my electric start 2180 Air Cooled type 1
engine weighed 208 pounds.

So, before was all get real excited....

[Lou]

Ok, Caveman, slow down before you lose another hair. I was very
interested in the total weight. If your 2180 is 208 and a corvair is
around the same I can't see myself going the VW route. A corvair can
get me 110 hp on 6 cyl. This has got to be a smoother engine for the
same weight.
Lou

[cavelamb]

Lou wrote:
> Ok, Caveman, slow down before you lose another hair. I was very
> interested in the total weight. If your 2180 is 208 and a corvair is
> around the same I can't see myself going the VW route. A corvair can
> get me 110 hp on 6 cyl. This has got to be a smoother engine for the
> same weight.
> Lou
>

Yeah, Lou.

For 110 I'd rather try a Corvair too.
But I think it would last longer at 80-90.

I can't see the Corvair weighing any 208 pounds installed, either...
220 - 250, depending on what's involved. (Not a Pietenpol!)

Just my opinion.
as usual, YMMV...



Richard

(this message composed of 100% recycled electrons)

[Christopher]

Enough of that, lets move on, I made my point. Does anyone know if there are any other 100 HP engines which will turn a 96 inch wooden prop?

[Morgans]

"Christopher" > wrote in message
...
>
> Jim,
>
> Why do you persist, is your opinion attached to your ego? GO find the
> information yourself, you don't want to listen to me.

I have. I believe it is you who is not listening.

The output of the engine is over-stated, and the durability will not prove
to be what you would hope for. It is simply too much power to pull out of
an engine of that displacement, to get aircraft durability. Other engine
manufacturers are doing the same type of thing, most notably some of the
soob engine converters.

Other people have stated that they do not believe in the stated claims of
HP.

There is no ego involved. If you want to use this engine, go ahead.
Honestly, good luck. I will not join you. Where is there any ego involved
in that?

This is the last I will post on this thread. Good luck. I hope that you
get wise, and listen and believe what I and others are saying.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Christopher wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I would give you more credit on this issue as a mechanic who has worked
> on the original air cooled engine with different jugs but I have gone to
> two other individuals who have actually tested *this* highly refined and
> modified engine themselves who have also done thrust measurements which
> could never have been produced without the available HP.
>

Can you ask them for hard numbers on the thrust they measured, the
horsepower they inferred from it, and the engine weight?

If the HP/weight ratio is similar to aircraft engines designed from
scratch then we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. A much
higher weight efficiency would seem improbable though.

--

FF

[Jim Carriere]

wrote:
> If the HP/weight ratio is similar to aircraft engines designed from
> scratch then we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. A much
> higher weight efficiency would seem improbable though.

Well... using the 120hp takeoff rating and 200lbs, 0.6 hp/lb sounds
right as a takeoff rating. 84hp continuous seems like good,
conservative engineering.

Comparable popular engines of similar output like the O-235 (approx
0.55hp/lb), 912 (between 0.55-0.65 hp/lb depending mostly on which
version, 80hp or 100hp), Jabiru 3300 (approx 0.65 hp/lb).

Now, the devil is in the details. I suspect "200lbs" does not include
the radiators and plumbing. In the catalog (6MB download), cited
earlier in this thread by JP, down at the bottom of page 7, there is a
note about the engine weight figures (note, they do include reduction
drive). Anyway, leaving off the radiator weights makes the power:weight
figures less optimistic and more believable.

I think the major reasons for the improved output are
1) the liquid cooling allows a higher compression ratio
2) improved heat dissipation over the well known cooling fin limitation
on VW heads

Just my thoughts. My VW experience is that I rode in a Bug once or twice :)

[JP]

Correction to my earlier message:

Of course the more efficient combustion makes it possible to REDUCE the
ignition timing setting if preferred and this gives more safety margin.

Sorry about this lapse

JP


"JP" > wrote in
...
> Such liquid cooled cylinder heads offer some noteworthy benefits. I am not
> still saying that they are perfect or that this is an optimum VW engine
> solutions.
>
> These liquid cooled heads are equipped with dual sparkplugs. That means,
> the combustion process is initiated more rapidly and evenly. The engine in
> question does have two separate electronic ignition systems. They are
> superior to any conventional magneto ignition systems and much better than
> a point ignition system. That is why the ignition spark is more powerful
> and the matter comes back to the more rapid ignition process activation. I
> would imagine the combustion pressure build-up to be smoother and the
> combustion pressure to be higher. If so, then the smoother combustion may
> produce less than average shock loads to the cylinder studs and to the
> cylinder block and rotating parts in general. The combustion inside the
> cylinder is more complete and that is why the exhaust gas temperatures
> most probably are lower than usually seen, because less burning is taking
> place while the exhaust gas is moving to the exhaust system. That is why
> the heat load to the cylinder head exhaust ports is reduced (less head
> distortion load).
>
> The liquid cooled cylinder head runs cooler compared to an air cooled
> version. That is why the head is capable to absorb more efficiently heat
> flow from the exhaust valves and the valve temperatures are reduced. This
> is the major reason, why higher compression ratios can be used. That is
> also the reason, why more power can be taken out of the engine compared to
> the air (oil) cooled standard version. The liquid cooled head also absorbs
> more efficiently heat from the spark plugs, thus reducing (together with
> those reduced exhaust valve temperatures) a risk of pre-ignition under
> high power settings. The risk of detonation is reduced thanks to the dual
> spark plugs. This gives a possibility to increase ignition timing in order
> to get more power reliably. A cooler cylinder head may even act as a heat
> sink taking heat energy out of a cylinder barrel top part.
>
> Possibly there's even more explanations but these are the ideas surfacing
> right now.
>
> JP
>
> "Jim Carriere" > wrote in
> et...
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think the major reasons for the improved output are
>> 1) the liquid cooling allows a higher compression ratio
>> 2) improved heat dissipation over the well known cooling fin limitation
>> on VW heads
>
>

[cavelamb]

Christopher wrote:
> Enough of that, lets move on, I made my point. Does anyone know if there
> are any other 100 HP engines which will turn a 96 inch wooden prop?
>
>


Rotax 912

Pricy, but a real contender.

http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/zac-rtx912.html

[cavelamb]

Christopher wrote:

> Jim,
>
> Why do you persist, is your opinion attached to your ego? GO find the
> information yourself, you don't want to listen to me.
>
>

I beleive Jim soemtimes reverts to retorical form as irony?

I listen to him - sometimes...

Who are you?

Richard

This message composed of 100% recycled electrons.

[cavelamb]

Jim Carriere wrote:

> wrote:
>
>> If the HP/weight ratio is similar to aircraft engines designed from
>> scratch then we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. A much
>> higher weight efficiency would seem improbable though.
>
>
> Well... using the 120hp takeoff rating and 200lbs, 0.6 hp/lb sounds
> right as a takeoff rating. 84hp continuous seems like good,
> conservative engineering.
>
> Comparable popular engines of similar output like the O-235 (approx
> 0.55hp/lb), 912 (between 0.55-0.65 hp/lb depending mostly on which
> version, 80hp or 100hp), Jabiru 3300 (approx 0.65 hp/lb).
>
> Now, the devil is in the details. I suspect "200lbs" does not include
> the radiators and plumbing. In the catalog (6MB download), cited
> earlier in this thread by JP, down at the bottom of page 7, there is a
> note about the engine weight figures (note, they do include reduction
> drive). Anyway, leaving off the radiator weights makes the power:weight
> figures less optimistic and more believable.
>
> I think the major reasons for the improved output are
> 1) the liquid cooling allows a higher compression ratio
> 2) improved heat dissipation over the well known cooling fin limitation
> on VW heads
>
> Just my thoughts. My VW experience is that I rode in a Bug once or
> twice :)

A couple of points..

An engineer or designer would want to know the weight of the item by itself.
The rest is installation weight, and we'll weight them all up separately too.
Which will give not only the total weight, but the combined CG as well.

As for the improved output, don't forget that these ARE geared engines,
(weight of box included or not).


Richard

This message composed of 100% recycled electrons.

[Christopher]

I think Jim enjoys yanking peoples chains sometimes, especially when he just might be right about that VW engine.....

I've done alot more research since this thread started and a regular VW engine won't last at that HP rating but I still can't find anything about this particular remake of the VW engine with new heads, liquid cooling etc. etc. etc......

Anymore I am considering the Corvair or Jabiru.

Who AM I? An engineer in an unrelated field (I attach my ego to that) but not for piston engines, that's for sure!

BTW: I removed that post you quoted right after making it, seeing it as too harsh and, well... stupid. However, emails of the posts still go out.

Cheers!

Christopher wrote:

Jim,

Why do you persist, is your opinion attached to your ego? GO find the
information yourself, you don't want to listen to me.



I beleive Jim soemtimes reverts to retorical form as irony?

I listen to him - sometimes...

Who are you?

Richard

This message composed of 100% recycled electrons.