Texas Parasol and 1/2 VW Engine......

[WC]

I originaly posted this to rec.av.ultralights but thought you folks might
have useful iformation and insights....

I'm contemplating building this combination and would love opinions. The
reasons for this choice is combination of price (I would like to keep as low
as possible) and my ability to construct most of it. Opinions and links to
information would be appreciated. If you have other ideas please let me
know.

Thanks;
WayneC

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:39:04 -0400, "WC" > wrote:

>I originaly posted this to rec.av.ultralights but thought you folks might
>have useful iformation and insights....
>
>I'm contemplating building this combination and would love opinions. The
>reasons for this choice is combination of price (I would like to keep as low
>as possible) and my ability to construct most of it. Opinions and links to
>information would be appreciated. If you have other ideas please let me
>know.
>
>Thanks;
> WayneC
>
Make sure you build the upgraded wing - as per plans is BORDERLINE.
You will also be making mods as you go, As Per Plans does not work.
Half VW will be heavy for the power you get. Not 103 legal in the US -
may as well put on a whole 1200 or 1500 and have adequate power.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[WC]

<clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:39:04 -0400, "WC" > wrote:
>
>>I originaly posted this to rec.av.ultralights but thought you folks might
>>have useful iformation and insights....
>>
>>I'm contemplating building this combination and would love opinions. The
>>reasons for this choice is combination of price (I would like to keep as
>>low
>>as possible) and my ability to construct most of it. Opinions and links to
>>information would be appreciated. If you have other ideas please let me
>>know.
>>
>>Thanks;
>> WayneC
>>
> Make sure you build the upgraded wing - as per plans is BORDERLINE.
> You will also be making mods as you go, As Per Plans does not work.
> Half VW will be heavy for the power you get. Not 103 legal in the US -
> may as well put on a whole 1200 or 1500 and have adequate power.


Thanks for the reply.
The plans I have (.pdf file) are the second edition revised 4/2000.
Would that include the "Upgraded" wing?
Looking at the Rotax 447 w/exhaust and air-filter, no electric but with
B-Drive it looks like 82 lbs. for 39.6 hp.
Hummel's engines are running (according to their website) 37 and 45 hp
at 85 and 84 lbs (is this with exhaust? Can you hand crank the VW? How much
does electric start add to weight? )
Is there a better choice of engine for this plane?

Thanks again.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"WC" > wrote

> Hummel's engines are running (according to their website) 37 and 45 hp
> at 85 and 84 lbs (is this with exhaust?

According to some, a _full_ VW, with stock heads, putting out a constant 45
HP will melt it's valves in somewhat over 5 minutes.

Can a VW be hand cranked?

Yes.

How much does electric start add to weight?

Too much for a Texas Parasol.

Best advice out there? Look for a plan that has many copies flying, that
you can walk up to, and look at, and fly. Talk to the people who have built
them.

My guess is that the Texas Parasol plans that you have downloaded will lose
on at least one of these requirements.
--
Jim in NC

[WC]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "WC" > wrote
>
>> Hummel's engines are running (according to their website) 37 and 45 hp
>> at 85 and 84 lbs (is this with exhaust?
>
> According to some, a _full_ VW, with stock heads, putting out a constant
> 45 HP will melt it's valves in somewhat over 5 minutes.

I'll ask Scott Casler (Hummel Engines) about that. Anyone out there run a
Hummel 1/2 VW?


> Best advice out there? Look for a plan that has many copies flying, that
> you can walk up to, and look at, and fly. Talk to the people who have
> built them.
>
> My guess is that the Texas Parasol plans that you have downloaded will
> lose on at least one of these requirements.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>


Found a thread posted hear in early '06 that raised some issues about the
Texas Parasol plans. One was the issue of wing strength. I'm thinking that
as I'm trying to keep 103 leagle (as close as possible) I should end up near
the estimated safe gross of 500#. I'm also thinking a substitute of 2024T3
instead of 6061T6 might be a good idea on the 2" spar.

The other problem of longeron/ landing gear yoke placement I guess will take
some thought. Has anyone come up with correct measurments?

One suggestion that the 1/2 VW generates too much vibration for such a light
frame seems valid. I'm begining to believe I'm going to have to abandon my
hope to use the 1/2 vw for a 103 leagle aircraft.

A friend had recomended the Texas Parasol to me as it met many of my desires
and he said there was a lot of people who have built them and a lot online
resource. I havent been able to find the people or the online
resources.......

Looks like I may have to find a new design (haven't completly given up on
this yet however). Would love to hear from people built and flown these
(especially near 103 leagle weight).

[Djani B]

Please try here:

http://www.geocities.com/kw_raa/parasol.html

and here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texasparasol/

I am not yet "The builder" but considering to become one soon,
please look on RAA section all metal wing on top link

BRG
Djani from 9A

"WC" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "WC" > wrote
> >
> >> Hummel's engines are running (according to their website) 37 and 45
hp
> >> at 85 and 84 lbs (is this with exhaust?
> >
> > According to some, a _full_ VW, with stock heads, putting out a constant
> > 45 HP will melt it's valves in somewhat over 5 minutes.
>
> I'll ask Scott Casler (Hummel Engines) about that. Anyone out there run a
> Hummel 1/2 VW?
>
>
> > Best advice out there? Look for a plan that has many copies flying,
that
> > you can walk up to, and look at, and fly. Talk to the people who have
> > built them.
> >
> > My guess is that the Texas Parasol plans that you have downloaded will
> > lose on at least one of these requirements.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
> >
> >
>
>
> Found a thread posted hear in early '06 that raised some issues about the
> Texas Parasol plans. One was the issue of wing strength. I'm thinking that
> as I'm trying to keep 103 leagle (as close as possible) I should end up
near
> the estimated safe gross of 500#. I'm also thinking a substitute of 2024T3
> instead of 6061T6 might be a good idea on the 2" spar.
>
> The other problem of longeron/ landing gear yoke placement I guess will
take
> some thought. Has anyone come up with correct measurments?
>
> One suggestion that the 1/2 VW generates too much vibration for such a
light
> frame seems valid. I'm begining to believe I'm going to have to abandon my
> hope to use the 1/2 vw for a 103 leagle aircraft.
>
> A friend had recomended the Texas Parasol to me as it met many of my
desires
> and he said there was a lot of people who have built them and a lot online
> resource. I havent been able to find the people or the online
> resources.......
>
> Looks like I may have to find a new design (haven't completly given up on
> this yet however). Would love to hear from people built and flown these
> (especially near 103 leagle weight).
>
>
>

[John Kimmel]

I once sat in a 1/2vw Legal Eagle. I was about a foot too tall and
50lbs too big for comfort, at 6'/210lbs.

I fit quite well in my half vw powered Preceptor Pup. The Pup is 47 lbs
overweight with an aluminum wing and heavy fabric, but according to
Preceptor it can be built within part 103 limits.

--
John Kimmel


I think it will be quiet around here now. So long.

[cavelamb himself]

>
> Found a thread posted hear in early '06 that raised some issues about the
> Texas Parasol plans. One was the issue of wing strength. I'm thinking that
> as I'm trying to keep 103 leagle (as close as possible) I should end up near
> the estimated safe gross of 500#. I'm also thinking a substitute of 2024T3
> instead of 6061T6 might be a good idea on the 2" spar.
>
> The other problem of longeron/ landing gear yoke placement I guess will take
> some thought. Has anyone come up with correct measurments?
>
> One suggestion that the 1/2 VW generates too much vibration for such a light
> frame seems valid. I'm begining to believe I'm going to have to abandon my
> hope to use the 1/2 vw for a 103 leagle aircraft.
>
> A friend had recomended the Texas Parasol to me as it met many of my desires
> and he said there was a lot of people who have built them and a lot online
> resource. I havent been able to find the people or the online
> resources.......
>
> Looks like I may have to find a new design (haven't completly given up on
> this yet however). Would love to hear from people built and flown these
> (especially near 103 leagle weight).
>
>
>

A couple of things that you should know...

The 1/2 VW is not going to make a happy airplane.

One was built, and it flew fairly well, but it was underpowered as hell.
Not exactly the thing for an inexperienced pilot operating out of a
short field.

Best engine IMHO is indeed a Rotax 477 or 503. Lots of performance in a
very light weight package.

There was a lot of ugly noise about the wing not being strong enough.

As drawn, it has worked perfectly well in over 75 airplanes built by
Chuck Beeson, myself, and a bunch of others.

But it _is_ on the light side.

It works well because the airplane is draggy, slow, and simply cannot
command enough energy to produce high Gs.

If you are worried about the wing strength (even though there has never
been a structural failure in ANY of them - even in the early .035 wall
spars!) simply substitute 2-1/4" dia spar tubes and use 2-1/8" dia
sleeves. It will add weight and cost, but it will result in an
"acceptable" wing.

Lastly, I doubt you'll make a 103.7 legal ultralight.
If it were possible, I'd build one myself and be flying again.

Lightest one like this I've personally seen was 303 pounds.

Beeson has papers for a 103.7 legal machine - but it was a completely
different structure - much like the Aerotique Parasol.
1/2" square aluminum tube structure, gussets, and pop rivets.

If you can, deop in and visit Chuck at Zuehl Field (1TE4).
Just south of I-10 between San Antonio and Seguin.

It's a better machine that the reputation here indicates.
(Sadly)


All the best,

Richard

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 07:44:26 -0400, "WC" > wrote:

>
> The plans I have (.pdf file) are the second edition revised 4/2000.
>Would that include the "Upgraded" wing?
No, the supplier of the plans denies there is a problem.
> Looking at the Rotax 447 w/exhaust and air-filter, no electric but with
>B-Drive it looks like 82 lbs. for 39.6 hp.
> Hummel's engines are running (according to their website) 37 and 45 hp
>at 85 and 84 lbs (is this with exhaust? Can you hand crank the VW? How much
>does electric start add to weight? )
Half of a 40HP VW engine will give you 20HP at full rated RPM, which
you will NOT reach with a direct drive prop.
Using a larger engine gives the same results. If an 1825cc 4 gives
65HP at 4200 RPM, half that engine will produce about 37 at 4200 RPM,
and only about 24 HP at 3000 RPM. Do the math.

Fly a full VW and count on a maximum sustained power of 40HP, with
higher power available for short term (takeoff) use.
> Is there a better choice of engine for this plane?
>
>Thanks again.
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Morgans[_2_]]

> Fly a full VW and count on a maximum sustained power of 40HP, with
> higher power available for short term (takeoff) use.
>> Is there a better choice of engine for this plane?

I'm beginning to warm up to a Harley-Davidson conversion.

The output of the crank is designed for the loads of a drive belt, to mount
a PSRU. The right cam will put out a bunch of torque at a reasonable RPM,
and there is a newer engine with a counter balance shaft.

http://www.skyray.us/index.htm
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> > Fly a full VW and count on a maximum sustained power of 40HP, with
> > higher power available for short term (takeoff) use.
> >> Is there a better choice of engine for this plane?
>
> I'm beginning to warm up to a Harley-Davidson conversion.
>
> The output of the crank is designed for the loads of a drive belt, to
mount
> a PSRU. The right cam will put out a bunch of torque at a reasonable RPM,
> and there is a newer engine with a counter balance shaft.
>
> http://www.skyray.us/index.htm
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
Perhaps, but I have heard that the primary drive on a Harley may still be
chain--only the final drive is a cog belt to eliminate the source of
external dripping.

Personally, I would be a little concerned about the extreme side loads that
I have heard quoted for some cog belt systems; and might be willing to
accept the losses of a multiple vee-belt system in order to mitigate the
stress level. But this might also be a good question for the Engine Guys at
EAA Sport Pilot Magazine--who probably have the actual experience that I do
not.

Of course, there is the automatic "cool factor" of the Harley engine; which
implicitly authorizes the use of the Harley Logo on the engine cowling, the
pilot, and even the pilot's girl-friend's tush...

Peter :-)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> Perhaps, but I have heard that the primary drive on a Harley may still be
> chain--only the final drive is a cog belt to eliminate the source of
> external dripping.

Many primary drives on Harleys are cog belts, and wide ones, at that. If
they are running the reccomended tension for the primary, and the width is
about the same, the load should be the same, be it a 32" long belt, or a 64
inch long belt.

Haven't you ever watched any of the chopper building shows on the discovery
channel? <g> Most of them use cogs belts for the primary drives.

> Personally, I would be a little concerned about the extreme side loads
> that
> I have heard quoted for some cog belt systems; and might be willing to
> accept the losses of a multiple vee-belt system in order to mitigate the
> stress level. But this might also be a good question for the Engine Guys
> at
> EAA Sport Pilot Magazine--who probably have the actual experience that I
> do
> not.

The guy marketing the Air Harley system says the engine is designed for the
loads, and from the bike shows I have seen, that would be supported. The
crankshafts on Harleys are massive, and so are the main bearings.

> Of course, there is the automatic "cool factor" of the Harley engine;
> which
> implicitly authorizes the use of the Harley Logo on the engine cowling,
> the
> pilot, and even the pilot's girl-friend's tush...

No doubt! <ggg>
--
Jim in NC