Which Corvair engine

[JSoar]

I am thinking about trying a one third Corvair engine in my
ultralight. I found a 1965 140 hp Corvair car and a 1964 turbocharged.
Or maybe the 110 hp would be best. Does anybody know which of the
Corvair engines would be best to start with? Thanks.

[James R. Freeman]

110 hp
"JSoar" > wrote in message
om...
> I am thinking about trying a one third Corvair engine in my
> ultralight. I found a 1965 140 hp Corvair car and a 1964 turbocharged.
> Or maybe the 110 hp would be best. Does anybody know which of the
> Corvair engines would be best to start with? Thanks.

[Rich S.]

"James R. Freeman" > wrote in message
...
> 110 hp
> "JSoar" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I am thinking about trying a one third Corvair engine in my
> > ultralight. I found a 1965 140 hp Corvair car and a 1964 turbocharged.
> > Or maybe the 110 hp would be best. Does anybody know which of the
> > Corvair engines would be best to start with? Thanks.

Yup. Stay away from the 140 hp heads - they easily drop valve seats. The '64
turbo is a hermaphroditic engine - some unique parts.

Rich S.

[Jerry Springer]

JSoar wrote:
> I am thinking about trying a one third Corvair engine in my
> ultralight. I found a 1965 140 hp Corvair car and a 1964 turbocharged.
> Or maybe the 110 hp would be best. Does anybody know which of the
> Corvair engines would be best to start with? Thanks.

Yup sure do...none of them.

[Jerry Wass]

Good thing you're only thinking about it.---You can't shorten the
crankshaft, or
crankcase, the crank throws are 60deg apart--to get 180deg firing(or
360deg)
you have to pick a pair that are offset at least one full cyl distance
apart-(from
front to back) this gives you a rocking couple--(horizontal twisting
motion)---
I was gonna use a 3 cyl -all on one side for a generator power plant--It
won't
work either.---The best engines are the 110 hp, '65 to '69--the Turbo Exh
valves are much better than std. Jerry

JSoar wrote:

> I am thinking about trying a one third Corvair engine in my
> ultralight. I found a 1965 140 hp Corvair car and a 1964 turbocharged.
> Or maybe the 110 hp would be best. Does anybody know which of the
> Corvair engines would be best to start with? Thanks.

[BD5ER]

>Good thing you're only thinking about it.---You can't shorten the
>crankshaft, or
>crankcase, the crank throws are 60deg apart--

>Good thing you're only thinking about it.---You can't shorten the
>crankshaft, or
>crankcase, the crank throws are 60deg apart--

It will still run. Just shake like one of those large American made scooters.

Kind of a waste of a 'vair.

[Barnyard BOb --]

(JSoar) wrote:

>I am thinking about trying a one third Corvair engine in my
>ultralight. I found a 1965 140 hp Corvair car and a 1964 turbocharged.
>Or maybe the 110 hp would be best. Does anybody know which of the
>Corvair engines would be best to start with? Thanks.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

William Wynne is your man @
http://www.flycorvair.com/

IMHO...
It would seem you are not only re-inventing
the wheel... but possibly making your ultra-light
heavier than legal in the process.


Barnyard BOb --

[Scott]

Why would you want to use a 1/3 Corvair? Why not the better half VW by
Len Milholland? A lot less weight than a whole corvair case with only
two active jugs on it...or do you plan to cut down the case? Check out
Len's VW at http://www.betterhalfvw.com/

It's about 80-85 pounds and approximately 30-35 HP according to Len.

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ParasolAirplanes
Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die!

JSoar wrote:
>
> I am thinking about trying a one third Corvair engine in my
> ultralight. I found a 1965 140 hp Corvair car and a 1964 turbocharged.
> Or maybe the 110 hp would be best. Does anybody know which of the
> Corvair engines would be best to start with? Thanks.

--

[BD5ER]

>Check out
>http://www.ultravair.com/

Nice looking, and the 'vair does have a fairly good track record. Don't know
why I fell for the 60 deg thing on an earlier post as I have a 'vair crank
setting on the floor in the shop. (the rod throws are 180 for each pair). I
also happen to have a 110 head with a bad center hole...........

Maybe my 1/2 VW is going to be history?

Thanks for the link.

[George A]

I wouldn't throw that 1/2VW away just yet.
The 1/3'vair looks neat but it has less cubic inches then the 1/2VW.
That equals less power. And is heavier.

--
George Allen
Harrisburg, PA

(Peitenpol builder)

"BD5ER" > wrote in message
...
> >Check out
>
> Maybe my 1/2 VW is going to be history?
>
> Thanks for the link.

[BD5ER]

>I wouldn't throw that 1/2VW away just yet.

Don't intend to. If I keep switching boats in the middle of the stream I may
never reach shore. But once the thing flies the way I want the 1/3 'Vair might
be an "upgrade". Even though I have lots of VW experience I see some
advantages to the "vair - like proven hydraulic valves and a better place for
the second plug. (IMHO there is NO good place for a second plug in a VW)

>The 1/3'vair looks neat but it has less cubic inches then the 1/2VW

Not if built with 103mm or 105mm VW TpIV pistons.

>And is heavier.

Probably. But how much heavier than a 1/2 VW made with the new all aluminum
case? I'd trade a few pounds of weight for a case that didn't crack or commit
suicide when it gets hot. Not that I ever intend for it to get that hot.....

And the heads are MUCH easier to modify.