Serious STOL fun

[[email protected]]

I'm probably going to get this DVD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbBb_IuT1_o

I've GOT to build this plane. ;)

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbBb_IuT1_o
>
> I've GOT to build this plane. ;)

If only it weren't so damn UGLY ! <g>

It does fit the mission, though, I guess.

Hey, I found this on the same page, about a VW miracle engine.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4zSld30cmw&feature=related>

It claims 211 HP out of a modified VW engine.

Very interesting.

If you buy that one, I have a bridge to sell you. It's right next to the
ocean-front property in Arizona.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

> Hey, I found this on the same page, about a VW miracle engine.
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4zSld30cmw&feature=related>
>
> It claims 211 HP out of a modified VW engine.
>
> Very interesting.
>
> If you buy that one, I have a bridge to sell you. *It's right next to the
> ocean-front property in Arizona.
> --
> Jim in NC

It is possible to build VW engines that have much higher HP than that.
Some racing engines top 400, I think.

Of course, they don't last very long. Like maybe a quarter of a
mile ...

www.aircooled.net

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

wrote in news:5929b616-fa26-4bd1-acde-baf81ddc4b29
@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

>> Hey, I found this on the same page, about a VW miracle engine.
>>
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4zSld30cmw&feature=related>
>>
>> It claims 211 HP out of a modified VW engine.
>>
>> Very interesting.
>>
>> If you buy that one, I have a bridge to sell you. *It's right next to th
> e
>> ocean-front property in Arizona.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> It is possible to build VW engines that have much higher HP than that.
> Some racing engines top 400, I think.


I wouldn't be surpised if you couldn't get more than that, even. Blown F1
engines based on engines almsot as simple ( the BMW M10, for instane) were
knocking on 1,000 HP thirty years ago.
Wouldnt like to fly behind one though!

Even a bit over a hundred has to be the limit for a reliable VW engine, and
even then it's not going to be very torquey.



Bertie>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

It is possible to build VW engines that have much higher HP than that.
Some racing engines top 400, I think.

Of course, they don't last very long. Like maybe a quarter of a
mile ...
****************************
Reply:

Yes, but in this context, it is to be an airplane engine.

Not much call out there for 20 second airplane engines, are there?

Oh yeah! Rotax fits that description! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 27, 1:08*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> > wrote>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbBb_IuT1_o
>
>
>
> > I've GOT to build this plane. ;)
>
> *If only it weren't so damn UGLY ! *<g>
>
> It does fit the mission, though, I guess.
>
> Hey, I found this on the same page, about a VW miracle engine.
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4zSld30cmw&feature=related>
>
> It claims 211 HP out of a modified VW engine.
>
> Very interesting.
>
> If you buy that one, I have a bridge to sell you. *It's right next to the
> ocean-front property in Arizona.
> --
> Jim in NC

C'on Jim, it's not so ugly. Looks like a Jeep Willy of the sky to me,
and I think the Willy's jeeps look great. My plan is to one day get a
C150, I'm leaning towards building the 701 now. Maybe with a 582 or
if finances allow, a 912.

Wil

[[email protected]]

> C'on Jim, it's not so ugly. *Looks like a Jeep Willy of the sky to me,
> and I think the Willy's jeeps look great. *My plan is to one day get a
> C150, I'm leaning towards building the 701 now. *Maybe with a 582 or
> if finances allow, a 912.
>
> Wil-

For a while I thought more HP would be better for the 701, 100 instead
of 80.

After reading a detailed pilot report of it with 100, I've decided 80
is fine. I'm going for a VW, 2149 cc. Nitrided crank. "Geared down"
with one of Great Plain's pulleys. More thrust, power 80 to 100

[oilsardine[_2_]]

After reading a detailed pilot report of it with 100, I've decided 80
is fine. I'm going for a VW, 2149 cc. Nitrided crank. "Geared down"
with one of Great Plain's pulleys. More thrust, power 80 to 100

80 to 100? - not on this planet

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> wrote in news:5929b616-fa26-4bd1-acde-baf81ddc4b29
> @s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> Hey, I found this on the same page, about a VW miracle engine.
>>>
>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4zSld30cmw&feature=related>
>>>
>>> It claims 211 HP out of a modified VW engine.
>>>
>>> Very interesting.
>>>
>>> If you buy that one, I have a bridge to sell you. It's right next to th
>> e
>>> ocean-front property in Arizona.
>>> --
>>> Jim in NC
>>
>> It is possible to build VW engines that have much higher HP than that.
>> Some racing engines top 400, I think.
>
>
> I wouldn't be surpised if you couldn't get more than that, even. Blown F1
> engines based on engines almsot as simple ( the BMW M10, for instane) were
> knocking on 1,000 HP thirty years ago.
> Wouldnt like to fly behind one though!
>
> Even a bit over a hundred has to be the limit for a reliable VW engine,
> and
> even then it's not going to be very torquey.
>
>
>
> Bertie>
>>
>
This is the wrong NG to really attract a firestorm on this subject; however
I am really inclined to agree with you about the practical limit for a VW.
However, there is a major caveat--according to sources that I trust, ram air
will not provide enough cooling during climb for more than about half of
that. Therefore, in addition to the obvious of a PSRU, a high horsepower VW
would also require a relatively high pressure cooling fan and the attendant
machinery to regulate it. And that is still no guarantee of a successfull
outcome.

There is also a second point about automotive racing engines that is
frequently overlooked: I don't have any source of real numbers, but an
occasional few minutes of "standing by the fence and watching the cars pass
by" has convinced me that that road racing averages out to around 30 to 35%
of maximum horsepower--although some oval track racing on super speedways
should be a much higher percentage of power. In any case, the design life
expectancy (and reliability) of an engine for endurance road racing is
obviously far less than I would consider acceptable for flying--with the
obvious exception of air racing.

When you add it all up, a good conservative automotive conversion can save
money at the expense of performance; but a purpose designed aircraft engine
is still the least expensive source of reliable lightweight power. I am not
happy about that, and I keep looking, but around 70 to 75% of the power that
an engine developed for its original (factory warranteed) application still
looks like a practical limit.

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> wrote in
>> news:5929b616-fa26-4bd1-acde-baf81ddc4b29
>> @s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> Hey, I found this on the same page, about a VW miracle engine.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4zSld30cmw&feature=related>
>>>>
>>>> It claims 211 HP out of a modified VW engine.
>>>>
>>>> Very interesting.
>>>>
>>>> If you buy that one, I have a bridge to sell you. It's right next
>>>> to th
>>> e
>>>> ocean-front property in Arizona.
>>>> --
>>>> Jim in NC
>>>
>>> It is possible to build VW engines that have much higher HP than
>>> that. Some racing engines top 400, I think.
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't be surpised if you couldn't get more than that, even.
>> Blown F1 engines based on engines almsot as simple ( the BMW M10, for
>> instane) were knocking on 1,000 HP thirty years ago.
>> Wouldnt like to fly behind one though!
>>
>> Even a bit over a hundred has to be the limit for a reliable VW
>> engine, and
>> even then it's not going to be very torquey.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie>
>>>
>>
> This is the wrong NG to really attract a firestorm on this subject;
> however I am really inclined to agree with you about the practical
> limit for a VW. However, there is a major caveat--according to sources
> that I trust, ram air will not provide enough cooling during climb for
> more than about half of that. Therefore, in addition to the obvious
> of a PSRU, a high horsepower VW would also require a relatively high
> pressure cooling fan and the attendant machinery to regulate it. And
> that is still no guarantee of a successfull outcome.
>
> There is also a second point about automotive racing engines that is
> frequently overlooked: I don't have any source of real numbers, but
> an occasional few minutes of "standing by the fence and watching the
> cars pass by" has convinced me that that road racing averages out to
> around 30 to 35% of maximum horsepower--although some oval track
> racing on super speedways should be a much higher percentage of power.
> In any case, the design life expectancy (and reliability) of an
> engine for endurance road racing is obviously far less than I would
> consider acceptable for flying--with the obvious exception of air
> racing.
>
> When you add it all up, a good conservative automotive conversion can
> save money at the expense of performance; but a purpose designed
> aircraft engine is still the least expensive source of reliable
> lightweight power. I am not happy about that, and I keep looking, but
> around 70 to 75% of the power that an engine developed for its
> original (factory warranteed) application still looks like a practical
> limit.

Yeah, an automotive conversion really doesn;t appeal to me for a lot of
reasons. Some VW designs are realyl fun though! And breaths there a
pilot with a soul so dead as to not turn and look at a nice model A
poswered Piet?

Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> wrote in
>>> news:5929b616-fa26-4bd1-acde-baf81ddc4b29
>>> @s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>>> Hey, I found this on the same page, about a VW miracle engine.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4zSld30cmw&feature=related>
>>>>>
>>>>> It claims 211 HP out of a modified VW engine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you buy that one, I have a bridge to sell you. It's right next
>>>>> to th
>>>> e
>>>>> ocean-front property in Arizona.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jim in NC
>>>>
>>>> It is possible to build VW engines that have much higher HP than
>>>> that. Some racing engines top 400, I think.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't be surpised if you couldn't get more than that, even.
>>> Blown F1 engines based on engines almsot as simple ( the BMW M10, for
>>> instane) were knocking on 1,000 HP thirty years ago.
>>> Wouldnt like to fly behind one though!
>>>
>>> Even a bit over a hundred has to be the limit for a reliable VW
>>> engine, and
>>> even then it's not going to be very torquey.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie>
>>>>
>>>
>> This is the wrong NG to really attract a firestorm on this subject;
>> however I am really inclined to agree with you about the practical
>> limit for a VW. However, there is a major caveat--according to sources
>> that I trust, ram air will not provide enough cooling during climb for
>> more than about half of that. Therefore, in addition to the obvious
>> of a PSRU, a high horsepower VW would also require a relatively high
>> pressure cooling fan and the attendant machinery to regulate it. And
>> that is still no guarantee of a successfull outcome.
>>
>> There is also a second point about automotive racing engines that is
>> frequently overlooked: I don't have any source of real numbers, but
>> an occasional few minutes of "standing by the fence and watching the
>> cars pass by" has convinced me that that road racing averages out to
>> around 30 to 35% of maximum horsepower--although some oval track
>> racing on super speedways should be a much higher percentage of power.
>> In any case, the design life expectancy (and reliability) of an
>> engine for endurance road racing is obviously far less than I would
>> consider acceptable for flying--with the obvious exception of air
>> racing.
>>
>> When you add it all up, a good conservative automotive conversion can
>> save money at the expense of performance; but a purpose designed
>> aircraft engine is still the least expensive source of reliable
>> lightweight power. I am not happy about that, and I keep looking, but
>> around 70 to 75% of the power that an engine developed for its
>> original (factory warranteed) application still looks like a practical
>> limit.
>
> Yeah, an automotive conversion really doesn;t appeal to me for a lot of
> reasons. Some VW designs are realyl fun though! And breaths there a
> pilot with a soul so dead as to not turn and look at a nice model A
> poswered Piet?
>
> Bertie
>
Very true!

Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Yeah, an automotive conversion really doesn;t appeal to me for a lot of
> reasons.

Depends on the auto engine, to me. IF all of the other things like the
ignition, fuel system, cooling and prop speed reducer are done right on the
right engine, there are many auto engines that have not been babied in and
airplane and have done quite well, for 2000 hours plus. That's the gottcha;
all of the other stuff on the engine.

It helps if the engine has been raced in some class. The GM 4.3 and the
Ford 3.8 earned their wings in NASCAR, before they went back to the V-8's.

> Some VW designs are realyl fun though!

Yes, but show me a standard VW head that does not melt down at more than an
honest 50 HP continuous, and I'll change my tune. I don't think I'll have
to buy a new songbook anytime soon! They just can not get rid of any more
waste heat than that.

> And breaths there a pilot with a soul so dead as to not turn and look at a
> nice model A
> poswered Piet?

Yep, they sound and look really unique. They hark back to an earlier time
in history, and that "poppity pop" just can not be duplicated.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"William Hung" > wrote

C'on Jim, it's not so ugly. Looks like a Jeep Willy of the sky to me,
and I think the Willy's jeeps look great. My plan is to one day get a
C150, I'm leaning towards building the 701 now. Maybe with a 582 or
if finances allow, a 912.

Yeah, I guess it isn't all that ugly; but it looks "bulldog ugly"; its
straight out top just has no streamlined look to it, I think.

Put a Jubaru 3300 on it, if you want to do it right. None of the sewing
machine Rotax engines, for me.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

After reading a detailed pilot report of it with 100, I've decided 80
is fine. I'm going for a VW, 2149 cc. Nitrided crank. "Geared down"
with one of Great Plain's pulleys. More thrust, power 80 to 100

You need to do some reading over in rec.aviation.homebuilt. A guy over
there will tell you that a VW can not do that many HP continuous, and for
good reason, I think.

Try this link, <http://bobhooversblog.blogspot.com> and read "The Christmas
Engine" (I think that is the name of the article)
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>

> It helps if the engine has been raced in some class. The GM 4.3 and
> the
> Ford 3.8 earned their wings in NASCAR, before they went back to the
> V-8's.
>
>> Some VW designs are realyl fun though!
>
> Yes, but show me a standard VW head that does not melt down at more
> than an honest 50 HP continuous, and I'll change my tune. I don't
> think I'll have to buy a new songbook anytime soon! They just can not
> get rid of any more waste heat than that.



Mmm.yeah, that sounds about right. I have to say, if I was going for a
Sonex, I think I'd go for a Rotax 912 in it rather than a VW
>
>> And breaths there a pilot with a soul so dead as to not turn and look
>> at a nice model A
>> poswered Piet?
>
> Yep, they sound and look really unique. They hark back to an earlier
> time in history, and that "poppity pop" just can not be duplicated.


They just look so cool.
That engine was actually certified at one point. I think the only
certified airplane with the model A was the Wiley Post. The Model B made
it into the early Funks and the V8 into a at least one certified
aircraft as well.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in news:Pxsnj.56$zV2.27
@newsfe06.lga:

>
> "William Hung" > wrote
>
> C'on Jim, it's not so ugly. Looks like a Jeep Willy of the sky to me,
> and I think the Willy's jeeps look great. My plan is to one day get a
> C150, I'm leaning towards building the 701 now. Maybe with a 582 or
> if finances allow, a 912.
>
> Yeah, I guess it isn't all that ugly; but it looks "bulldog ugly"; its
> straight out top just has no streamlined look to it, I think.
>
> Put a Jubaru 3300 on it, if you want to do it right. None of the sewing
> machine Rotax engines, for me.

In fact, I've heard the opposite, that the Jabirus seldom make it past 500
hours and often a lot less before needing a rebuild..

Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Yeah, an automotive conversion really doesn;t appeal to me for a lot of
>> reasons.
>
> Depends on the auto engine, to me. IF all of the other things like the
> ignition, fuel system, cooling and prop speed reducer are done right on
> the right engine, there are many auto engines that have not been babied in
> and airplane and have done quite well, for 2000 hours plus. That's the
> gottcha; all of the other stuff on the engine.
>
> It helps if the engine has been raced in some class. The GM 4.3 and the
> Ford 3.8 earned their wings in NASCAR, before they went back to the V-8's.
>
>> Some VW designs are realyl fun though!
>
> Yes, but show me a standard VW head that does not melt down at more than
> an honest 50 HP continuous, and I'll change my tune. I don't think I'll
> have to buy a new songbook anytime soon! They just can not get rid of any
> more waste heat than that.
>
The VP-1, KR-1, and a number of others fly quite well on that--and flew well
enough on the earlier and smaller VWs as well.

>> And breaths there a pilot with a soul so dead as to not turn and look at
>> a nice model A
>> poswered Piet?
>
> Yep, they sound and look really unique. They hark back to an earlier time
> in history, and that "poppity pop" just can not be duplicated.
> --
I have never personally seen nor heard one, but I'm still watching and
listening.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
>
> After reading a detailed pilot report of it with 100, I've decided 80
> is fine. I'm going for a VW, 2149 cc. Nitrided crank. "Geared down"
> with one of Great Plain's pulleys. More thrust, power 80 to 100
>
> You need to do some reading over in rec.aviation.homebuilt. A guy over
> there will tell you that a VW can not do that many HP continuous, and for
> good reason, I think.
>
> Try this link, <http://bobhooversblog.blogspot.com> and read "The
> Christmas Engine" (I think that is the name of the article)
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
I also believe that he is about the best source--if you want th fly behind a
VW and also live to be quite old.

Peter

[Edward A. Falk]

What do you suppose the life expectancy is of someone who flies like
that routinely?
--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

(Edward A. Falk) wrote in news:fnls60$a77$2
@blue.rahul.net:

> What do you suppose the life expectancy is of someone who flies like
> that routinely?

Like any other kind of flying it depends.

if you do it shirt tail out without seperating the unnecesary risks from
the necessary ones and setting up a series of checks and balances as you go
along, not long.
if you do, then as experience builds ( hopefully without too many bent
airplanes) then you'll probably die in your own bed at a ripe old age.
It's all dangerous and in a way, it's all pushing it. You identify the
risks and approach them intelligently adn there's no reason why you can't
do anything that;s physically possible,


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> In fact, I've heard the opposite, that the Jabirus seldom make it past 500
> hours and often a lot less before needing a rebuild..

Yeah, I've heard that is about right for the early ones.

The scuttlebutt is that they learned some lessons, and redesigned some
things, and that their power and reliability is now much, much improved.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> In fact, I've heard the opposite, that the Jabirus seldom make it
>> past 500 hours and often a lot less before needing a rebuild..
>
> Yeah, I've heard that is about right for the early ones.
>
> The scuttlebutt is that they learned some lessons, and redesigned some
> things, and that their power and reliability is now much, much
> improved.

Well, they'r nice looking little thnkgs and the power to weight is really
impressive!

I hope they do establish themselves There's a big market for them...

Bertie

[[email protected]]

> You need to do some reading over in rec.aviation.homebuilt. *A guy over
> there will tell you that a VW can not do that many HP continuous, and for
> good reason, I think.
>
> Try this link, <http://bobhooversblog.blogspot.com> and read "The Christmas
> Engine" (I think that is the name of the article)
> --
> Jim in NC

Well, I didn't say it could.

I've read that too, and I don't doubt it.

[[email protected]]

> You need to do some reading over in rec.aviation.homebuilt. *A guy over
> there will tell you that a VW can not do that many HP continuous, and for
> good reason, I think.
>
> Try this link, <http://bobhooversblog.blogspot.com> and read "The Christmas
> Engine" (I think that is the name of the article)
> --
> Jim in NC

Well, there's always a guy somewhere on the internet that will tell
you something for free.

I don't like articles about car engines that try to draw analogies to
sex. That doesn't tell you jack-all from a technical standpoint.
Absolutely worth zero except yah, if you build an engine yourself you
can expect to maintain it yourself, and you'll have to put in a lot of
hours -- it's like changing diapers. Not quite the same, in my view. I
like working on engines but surely did not like changing diapers. If
you're the builder, and you're the one who does the maintenance on the
engine, you're going to be working on it regardless of what kind it
is.

Technical matters demand a technical approach, not weak analogies. The
kind of technical writing on the internet that I respect is the kind
of stuff William Wynn puts out about Corvairs, for instance.

[[email protected]]

> Try this link, <http://bobhooversblog.blogspot.com> and read "The Christmas
> Engine" (I think that is the name of the article)
> --
> Jim in NC

Okay, found the Christmas Engine.

Much better!

[[email protected]]

>
> Yes, but show me a standard VW head that does not melt down at more than an
> honest 50 HP continuous, and I'll change my tune. *I don't think I'll have
> to buy a new songbook anytime soon! *They just can not get rid of any more
> waste heat than that.
> --
> Jim in NC

Hoover write's about thrust being more important that HP. That jibes
with other stuff I've read.

The christmas engine blog sounds like he's doing all this direct
drive?

Can you really get max HP out of an automobile engine at lower RPMs
required for a prop not to spin too fast? Don't you pretty much have
to have a PSRU to match max auto engine HP to sub-sonic prop RPM?

Well, okay this should be asked over on homebuilts. Anyway the OP was
all about having fun in low n slow. I think these guys are
outrageously low n slow.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

Hoover write's about thrust being more important that HP. That jibes
with other stuff I've read.

The christmas engine blog sounds like he's doing all this direct
drive?

Since HP (and therefore heat) is the limiting factor with VW, you can easily
hit the maximum thermal HP and still keep the engine at low prop RPM's. No
need to rev fast with a PSRU and be limited to part throttle to keep it
cool. It would just mean more weight to haul around.

Can you really get max HP out of an automobile engine at lower RPMs
required for a prop not to spin too fast? Don't you pretty much have
to have a PSRU to match max auto engine HP to sub-sonic prop RPM?

No, if you go direct drive with most auto engines, you are being satisfied
with lower HP levels than would be possible with a reduction unit. It still
would be a sizeable amount of HP, but less HP per pound than airplane
engines, since auto engine blocks are usually so massive.

You look at an engine torque and HP graph produced from a dyno, and where
the torque curve crosses the HP curve is usually close to the ideal speed to
run the engine for maximum power and thrust. At those RPM's at wide open
throttle, the HP per weight is in line with conventional airplane engines,
and probably a little better.

Many times, you will see people run a little lower RPM than that
intersection, for noise, fuel economy, and for engine longetivity.

Well, okay this should be asked over on homebuilts. Anyway the OP was
all about having fun in low n slow. I think these guys are
outrageously low n slow.

Yep. If you want to learn more, there are many people over there that know
their stuff, and still quite a few that are anti auto engine maniacs. Like
always, you sort through it and use what you can.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Well, they'r nice looking little thnkgs and the power to weight is really
> impressive!
>
> I hope they do establish themselves There's a big market for them...

Yep. I hope the world beats a path to their doors.

Have you seen the 8 cylinder that they are about to put out?

Can you imagine how that thing must sound? Sweet! I'll bet it is smooth,
too.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Well, they'r nice looking little thnkgs and the power to weight is
>> really impressive!
>>
>> I hope they do establish themselves There's a big market for them...
>
> Yep. I hope the world beats a path to their doors.
>
> Have you seen the 8 cylinder that they are about to put out?

Well, pics of it in SA or kitplanes or something.
>
> Can you imagine how that thing must sound? Sweet! I'll bet it is
> smooth, too.


It's nice to see the future is being assured somehow!

I was looking at one of the Aussie Rotecs. Still might, but there's a new
Czech radial that also looks interesting. OTOH I might just keeep the old
radial!

Bertie

[Veeduber]

> Yeah, an automotive conversion really doesn;t appeal to me for a lot of
> reasons. Some VW designs are realyl fun though! And breaths there a
> pilot with a soul so dead as to not turn and look at a nice model A
> poswered Piet?
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are any number of modern industrial engines, some weighing less
than the Model A, that produce an honest 65 to 85 hp at 1800 to 2200
rpm.

-R.S.Hoover

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Veeduber > wrote in news:f2b41c11-2f54-4847-8e2c-
:

>
>> Yeah, an automotive conversion really doesn;t appeal to me for a lot of
>> reasons. Some VW designs are realyl fun though! And breaths there a
>> pilot with a soul so dead as to not turn and look at a nice model A
>> poswered Piet?
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are any number of modern industrial engines, some weighing less
> than the Model A, that produce an honest 65 to 85 hp at 1800 to 2200
> rpm.
>

Really? Name a few?

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 29, 7:18*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Veeduber > wrote in news:f2b41c11-2f54-4847-8e2c-
> :
>
>
>
> >> Yeah, an automotive conversion really doesn;t appeal to me for a lot of
> >> reasons. Some VW designs are realyl fun though! And breaths there a
> >> pilot with a soul so dead as to not turn and look at a nice model A
> >> poswered Piet?
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > There are any number of modern industrial engines, some weighing less
> > than the Model A, that produce an honest 65 to 85 hp at 1800 to 2200
> > rpm.
>
> Really? Name a few?
>
> Bertie

Yeah I'd like to know too.

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 28, 4:56*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "William Hung" > wrote
>
> C'on Jim, it's not so ugly. *Looks like a Jeep Willy of the sky to me,
> and I think the Willy's jeeps look great. *My plan is to one day get a
> C150, I'm leaning towards building the 701 now. *Maybe with a 582 or
> if finances allow, a 912.
>
> Yeah, I guess it isn't all that ugly; but it looks "bulldog ugly"; its
> straight out top just has no streamlined look to it, I think.
>
> Put a Jubaru 3300 on it, if you want to do it right. *None of the sewing
> machine Rotax engines, for me.
> --
> Jim in NC

Why the Jabiru Jim?

WIl

[Larry Stimely]

William Hung wrote:
> On Jan 28, 4:56 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "William Hung" > wrote
>>
>> C'on Jim, it's not so ugly. Looks like a Jeep Willy of the sky to me,
>> and I think the Willy's jeeps look great. My plan is to one day get a
>> C150, I'm leaning towards building the 701 now. Maybe with a 582 or
>> if finances allow, a 912.
>>
>> Yeah, I guess it isn't all that ugly; but it looks "bulldog ugly"; its
>> straight out top just has no streamlined look to it, I think.
>>
>> Put a Jubaru 3300 on it, if you want to do it right. None of the sewing
>> machine Rotax engines, for me.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> Why the Jabiru Jim?
>
> WIl

Sorry to say, but Jabiru Jim sounds like a character at Busch Gardens.

LS

[Morgans[_2_]]

"William Hung" > wrote

Why the Jabiru Jim?

You probably have noticed that I have no love for Rotax; so that is why
#1 - It isn't a Rotax.
#2 - Direct drive, so it eliminates another possible failure point.
#3 - It has a realistic HP to weight ratio, so it is not terribly
overstressed like Rotax
#4 - They have been though some of a learning curve, have had some problems
that they admitted to, and actively worked to correct.
#5 - They offer some different sizes to fit your needs - another one will be
out soon, I believe. It will be an 8 cylinder, and it plain "looks cool!"
#6 - Not many other offerings that are modern engines, not from the ancient
Lycoming-Continental gene pool.
#7 - Cost is somewhat reasonable.
#8 - It isn't a Rotax
#9 - It isn't a Rotax
#10- It isn't a Rotax

I personally will probably go with an auto conversion, but I realize that
some people do not have the ability or the desire to do something like that.
I do, on both accounts. I very much enjoy playing with things like
perfecting an engine conversion.

The plan is to get a conversion rigged up, and make a relatively cheap
plywood airboat, and run the hell out of it, while enjoying the time playing
with a unique boat on the lake. My thought is that it lives through the
gyroscopic loads of rapid hard pounding on a boat, it will survive quite
well in an airplane.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Larry Stimely" > wrote

> Sorry to say, but Jabiru Jim sounds like a character at Busch Gardens.

<chuckle> Good one, Larry. :-)
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Logajan]

"Morgans" > wrote:
> #5 - They offer some different sizes to fit your needs - another one
> will be out soon, I believe. It will be an 8 cylinder, and it plain
> "looks cool!"

I presume you mean the Jabiru 5100. I believe it has been available for a
while - though my understanding is that they had so much demand for the
lower HP versions of their engines that production of 5100s was made a
lower priority. Anyway, according to their web site they must have managed
to catch up with demand since it says 5100s are now in stock:

http://www.jabiru.net.au/

[Veeduber]

On Jan 29, 5:18 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> Really? Name a few?

Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volvo, Holden, Renault... Volkswagen :-)

http://www.gm.com/explore/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/specialized/industrial/industrial_engines.jsp

Every major automobile manufacturer offers a line of industrial
engines. There is also an extensive network of professional over-haul
shops that specialize in industrial engines.

For 2008 GM is introducing lighter weight Brazilian built utility
engines to replace the all-cast-iron models that have been standard
since the late 1940's.

The world can't run without utility engines for deep-well pumps, air
compressors, portable arc welders, orchard sprayers, fork lifts, all
manner of farm equipment... Many of these engines are an EXACT match
for the Model A but being of modern design, they offer better
durability and reduced fuel consumption, typically at less weight.

-RS.Hoover

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Veeduber > wrote in
:

> On Jan 29, 5:18 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> Really? Name a few?
>
> Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volvo, Holden, Renault... Volkswagen :-)
>
> http://www.gm.com/explore/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/specialized/i
> ndustrial/industrial_engines.jsp
>
> Every major automobile manufacturer offers a line of industrial
> engines. There is also an extensive network of professional over-haul
> shops that specialize in industrial engines.
>
> For 2008 GM is introducing lighter weight Brazilian built utility
> engines to replace the all-cast-iron models that have been standard
> since the late 1940's.
>
> The world can't run without utility engines for deep-well pumps, air
> compressors, portable arc welders, orchard sprayers, fork lifts, all
> manner of farm equipment... Many of these engines are an EXACT match
> for the Model A but being of modern design, they offer better
> durability and reduced fuel consumption, typically at less weight.
>

INteresting. The only one I know of commonly used for aviation is that
little 2 cyl Onan they put on Quickies. I know some ultralight guys use the
little Continental 084s as well.


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote
>
> I presume you mean the Jabiru 5100. I believe it has been available for a
> while - though my understanding is that they had so much demand for the
> lower HP versions of their engines that production of 5100s was made a
> lower priority. Anyway, according to their web site they must have managed
> to catch up with demand since it says 5100s are now in stock:
>
> http://www.jabiru.net.au/

I had not paid much attention, since I don't have the need for one. They do
look cool, though.

Thanks for the correction.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Veeduber > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Jan 29, 5:18 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Really? Name a few?
>>
>> Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volvo, Holden, Renault... Volkswagen :-)
>>
>> http://www.gm.com/explore/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/specialized/i
>> ndustrial/industrial_engines.jsp
>>
>> Every major automobile manufacturer offers a line of industrial
>> engines. There is also an extensive network of professional over-haul
>> shops that specialize in industrial engines.
>>
>> For 2008 GM is introducing lighter weight Brazilian built utility
>> engines to replace the all-cast-iron models that have been standard
>> since the late 1940's.
>>
>> The world can't run without utility engines for deep-well pumps, air
>> compressors, portable arc welders, orchard sprayers, fork lifts, all
>> manner of farm equipment... Many of these engines are an EXACT match
>> for the Model A but being of modern design, they offer better
>> durability and reduced fuel consumption, typically at less weight.
>>
>
> INteresting. The only one I know of commonly used for aviation is that
> little 2 cyl Onan they put on Quickies. I know some ultralight guys use
> the
> little Continental 084s as well.
>
>
> Bertie

Not sure whether the little Onan boxer is still in production. Most of the
little opposed cylinder flat heads have been replaced with overhead valve
Vee-twins. I strongly suspect that the switch to Vee configuration was to
fit the new engines within the width of the equipment that the older flat
head engines typically powered--but I really don't know with any certainty.

I looked for a little info on the Continental O-84 and could only find that
it is a 4 cylinder of 21 cubic inches per cylinder. From that, I would
expect a power rating of 40 to 50 HP and a weight of 90 to 105 pounds, which
would be appropriate for a single seat LSA with a gross weight of 600 to 650
pounds. But, I don't know the actual specs and am curious to learn more.

Peter

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 29, 8:08*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "William Hung" > wrote
>
> Why the Jabiru Jim?
>
> You probably have noticed that I have no love for Rotax; so that is why
> #1 - *It isn't a Rotax.
> #2 - Direct drive, so it eliminates another possible failure point.
> #3 - It has a realistic HP to weight ratio, so it is not terribly
> overstressed like Rotax
> #4 - They have been though some of a learning curve, have had some problems
> that they admitted to, and actively worked to correct.
> #5 - They offer some different sizes to fit your needs - another one will be
> out soon, I believe. *It will be an 8 cylinder, and it plain "looks cool!"
> #6 - Not many other offerings that are modern engines, not from the ancient
> Lycoming-Continental gene pool.
> #7 - Cost is somewhat reasonable.
> #8 - It isn't a Rotax
> #9 - It isn't a Rotax
> #10- It isn't a Rotax
>
> I personally will probably go with an auto conversion, but I realize that
> some people do not have the ability or the desire to do something like that.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Veeduber > wrote in
>> news:4e7dc1fd-653d-4c18-8e93-601b1a908203
@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 5:18 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? Name a few?
>>>
>>> Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volvo, Holden, Renault... Volkswagen :-)
>>>
>>>
http://www.gm.com/explore/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/specialized
>>> /i ndustrial/industrial_engines.jsp
>>>
>>> Every major automobile manufacturer offers a line of industrial
>>> engines. There is also an extensive network of professional
>>> over-haul shops that specialize in industrial engines.
>>>
>>> For 2008 GM is introducing lighter weight Brazilian built utility
>>> engines to replace the all-cast-iron models that have been standard
>>> since the late 1940's.
>>>
>>> The world can't run without utility engines for deep-well pumps, air
>>> compressors, portable arc welders, orchard sprayers, fork lifts, all
>>> manner of farm equipment... Many of these engines are an EXACT
>>> match for the Model A but being of modern design, they offer better
>>> durability and reduced fuel consumption, typically at less weight.
>>>
>>
>> INteresting. The only one I know of commonly used for aviation is
>> that little 2 cyl Onan they put on Quickies. I know some ultralight
>> guys use the
>> little Continental 084s as well.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Not sure whether the little Onan boxer is still in production. Most
> of the little opposed cylinder flat heads have been replaced with
> overhead valve Vee-twins. I strongly suspect that the switch to Vee
> configuration was to fit the new engines within the width of the
> equipment that the older flat head engines typically powered--but I
> really don't know with any certainty.

Yeah, I saw one of those being peddled as an ultrlight engine a few
years ago. V twons haven;t done well as airplane engines. I can't recall
seeing many installed.
>
> I looked for a little info on the Continental O-84 and could only find
> that it is a 4 cylinder of 21 cubic inches per cylinder. From that, I
> would expect a power rating of 40 to 50 HP and a weight of 90 to 105
> pounds, which would be appropriate for a single seat LSA with a gross
> weight of 600 to 650 pounds. But, I don't know the actual specs and
> am curious to learn more.
>

I saw a website about converting them some time ago. There's a slightly
smaller twin as well.I know that at least a fw airplanes have been
successfully flown behind the 084. there is a guy who sells them new,
surplus for only about $800. There's a bit of work to be done to make
them usable as an airplane engine, but nothing crazy. Just a prop
flange, cut off the ole shroud and mess aroudn with the inlet manifold
so the carb isn't in yor windscreen.

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

William Hung > wrote in
:

> On Jan 29, 8:08*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "William Hung" > wrote
>>
>> Why the Jabiru Jim?
>>
>> You probably have noticed that I have no love for Rotax; so that is
>> why #1 - *It isn't a Rotax.
>> #2 - Direct drive, so it eliminates another possible failure point.
>> #3 - It has a realistic HP to weight ratio, so it is not terribly
>> overstressed like Rotax
>> #4 - They have been though some of a learning curve, have had some
>> problem
> s
>> that they admitted to, and actively worked to correct.
>> #5 - They offer some different sizes to fit your needs - another one
>> will
> be
>> out soon, I believe. *It will be an 8 cylinder, and it plain "looks
>> cool
> !"
>> #6 - Not many other offerings that are modern engines, not from the
>> ancien
> t
>> Lycoming-Continental gene pool.
>> #7 - Cost is somewhat reasonable.
>> #8 - It isn't a Rotax
>> #9 - It isn't a Rotax
>> #10- It isn't a Rotax
>>
>> I personally will probably go with an auto conversion, but I realize
>> that some people do not have the ability or the desire to do
>> something like tha
> t.
>> I do, on both accounts. *I very much enjoy playing with things like
>> perfecting an engine conversion.
>>
>> The plan is to get a conversion rigged up, and make a relatively
>> cheap plywood airboat, and run the hell out of it, while enjoying the
>> time playi
> ng
>> with a unique boat on the lake. *My thought is that it lives through
>> the
>
>> gyroscopic loads of rapid hard pounding on a boat, it will survive
>> quite well in an airplane.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> Do you have any particular engine in mind for your conversion?
> Someone somewhere used a Harley engine. I also have read somewhere of
> a Yamaha Virago powered airplane and a BMW powered one even.
>

Wel, Steve Wittman used a harley in one of his first homebuilts in
something like 1921. he called it the Hardly Ableson and it didn't fly
so good! I don't think it's been a very popular engine with homebuilders
over the years. Ben a good few bike engines used, though. A few have
used BMWs and Moto Guzzis, not to mention various rice burners. The
Henderson conversion was popular in the 1930s.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "William Hung" > wrote
>
> Do you have any particular engine in mind for your conversion?
> Someone somewhere used a Harley engine. I also have read somewhere of
> a Yamaha Virago powered airplane and a BMW powered one even.
>
> A Harley engine looks neat, but I don't like the vibration factor of
> most of them.


Tha'd certanly put me off. I can see it being a weld cracking experience!

Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> INteresting. The only one I know of commonly used for aviation is
>>> that little 2 cyl Onan they put on Quickies. I know some ultralight
>>> guys use the
>>> little Continental 084s as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Not sure whether the little Onan boxer is still in production. Most
>> of the little opposed cylinder flat heads have been replaced with
>> overhead valve Vee-twins. I strongly suspect that the switch to Vee
>> configuration was to fit the new engines within the width of the
>> equipment that the older flat head engines typically powered--but I
>> really don't know with any certainty.
>
> Yeah, I saw one of those being peddled as an ultrlight engine a few
> years ago. V twons haven;t done well as airplane engines. I can't recall
> seeing many installed.

Yeah, the Vee twins look like a poor compromise to me as well--so long as
anything better is still available. I would expect a lot more vibration and
the crank position is wrong for most designs unless you do a lot of work.
>>
>> I looked for a little info on the Continental O-84 and could only find
>> that it is a 4 cylinder of 21 cubic inches per cylinder. From that, I
>> would expect a power rating of 40 to 50 HP and a weight of 90 to 105
>> pounds, which would be appropriate for a single seat LSA with a gross
>> weight of 600 to 650 pounds. But, I don't know the actual specs and
>> am curious to learn more.
>>
>
> I saw a website about converting them some time ago. There's a slightly
> smaller twin as well.I know that at least a fw airplanes have been
> successfully flown behind the 084. there is a guy who sells them new,
> surplus for only about $800. There's a bit of work to be done to make
> them usable as an airplane engine, but nothing crazy. Just a prop
> flange, cut off the ole shroud and mess aroudn with the inlet manifold
> so the carb isn't in yor windscreen.
>
> Bertie
>>
>
I found one web site mentioning them, but not much in the way of pics or
data. I'll watch for them as a curiosity.

Thanks,
Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> INteresting. The only one I know of commonly used for aviation is
>>>> that little 2 cyl Onan they put on Quickies. I know some ultralight
>>>> guys use the
>>>> little Continental 084s as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Not sure whether the little Onan boxer is still in production. Most
>>> of the little opposed cylinder flat heads have been replaced with
>>> overhead valve Vee-twins. I strongly suspect that the switch to Vee
>>> configuration was to fit the new engines within the width of the
>>> equipment that the older flat head engines typically powered--but I
>>> really don't know with any certainty.
>>
>> Yeah, I saw one of those being peddled as an ultrlight engine a few
>> years ago. V twons haven;t done well as airplane engines. I can't
>> recall seeing many installed.
>
> Yeah, the Vee twins look like a poor compromise to me as well--so long
> as anything better is still available. I would expect a lot more
> vibration and the crank position is wrong for most designs unless you
> do a lot of work.


Well, there's one guy who seems to have come up with a solution!

I'll make a seperate post wth an attachment.
>>>
>>> I looked for a little info on the Continental O-84 and could only
>>> find that it is a 4 cylinder of 21 cubic inches per cylinder. From
>>> that, I would expect a power rating of 40 to 50 HP and a weight of
>>> 90 to 105 pounds, which would be appropriate for a single seat LSA
>>> with a gross weight of 600 to 650 pounds. But, I don't know the
>>> actual specs and am curious to learn more.
>>>
>>
>> I saw a website about converting them some time ago. There's a
>> slightly smaller twin as well.I know that at least a fw airplanes
>> have been successfully flown behind the 084. there is a guy who sells
>> them new, surplus for only about $800. There's a bit of work to be
>> done to make them usable as an airplane engine, but nothing crazy.
>> Just a prop flange, cut off the ole shroud and mess aroudn with the
>> inlet manifold so the carb isn't in yor windscreen.
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>
> I found one web site mentioning them, but not much in the way of pics
> or data. I'll watch for them as a curiosity.

I thkn there was something like a JN-1 for sale on Barnstormers with one
of those on it. I thnk it might have been the same guy

Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Veeduber > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 5:18 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Really? Name a few?
>>> Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volvo, Holden, Renault... Volkswagen :-)
>>>
>>> http://www.gm.com/explore/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/specialized/i
>>> ndustrial/industrial_engines.jsp
>>>
>>> Every major automobile manufacturer offers a line of industrial
>>> engines. There is also an extensive network of professional over-haul
>>> shops that specialize in industrial engines.
>>>
>>> For 2008 GM is introducing lighter weight Brazilian built utility
>>> engines to replace the all-cast-iron models that have been standard
>>> since the late 1940's.
>>>
>>> The world can't run without utility engines for deep-well pumps, air
>>> compressors, portable arc welders, orchard sprayers, fork lifts, all
>>> manner of farm equipment... Many of these engines are an EXACT match
>>> for the Model A but being of modern design, they offer better
>>> durability and reduced fuel consumption, typically at less weight.
>>>
>> INteresting. The only one I know of commonly used for aviation is that
>> little 2 cyl Onan they put on Quickies. I know some ultralight guys use
>> the
>> little Continental 084s as well.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Not sure whether the little Onan boxer is still in production. Most of the
> little opposed cylinder flat heads have been replaced with overhead valve
> Vee-twins. I strongly suspect that the switch to Vee configuration was to
> fit the new engines within the width of the equipment that the older flat
> head engines typically powered--but I really don't know with any certainty.
>
> I looked for a little info on the Continental O-84 and could only find that
> it is a 4 cylinder of 21 cubic inches per cylinder. From that, I would
> expect a power rating of 40 to 50 HP and a weight of 90 to 105 pounds, which
> would be appropriate for a single seat LSA with a gross weight of 600 to 650
> pounds. But, I don't know the actual specs and am curious to learn more.

Is this it?

http://sacramento.craigslist.org/for/554471936.html

Looks like this guy has been picking them up
surplus for quite a while and flipping them
on craigslist.

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>
> You have to wonder "why?"
>
>
> Bertei
>
>
Indeed. It really leaves me speechless.

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in news:k9soj.87574$L%6.20853
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>>
>> You have to wonder "why?"
>>
>>
>> Bertei
>>
>>
> Indeed. It really leaves me speechless.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>

Clever use of the gearbox. Wonder how it stand up to the thrust and
precessional loads.

Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Veeduber > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Jan 29, 5:18 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Really? Name a few?
>>>> Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volvo, Holden, Renault... Volkswagen :-)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gm.com/explore/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/specialized/i
>>>> ndustrial/industrial_engines.jsp
>>>>
>>>> Every major automobile manufacturer offers a line of industrial
>>>> engines. There is also an extensive network of professional over-haul
>>>> shops that specialize in industrial engines.
>>>>
>>>> For 2008 GM is introducing lighter weight Brazilian built utility
>>>> engines to replace the all-cast-iron models that have been standard
>>>> since the late 1940's.
>>>>
>>>> The world can't run without utility engines for deep-well pumps, air
>>>> compressors, portable arc welders, orchard sprayers, fork lifts, all
>>>> manner of farm equipment... Many of these engines are an EXACT match
>>>> for the Model A but being of modern design, they offer better
>>>> durability and reduced fuel consumption, typically at less weight.
>>>>
>>> INteresting. The only one I know of commonly used for aviation is that
>>> little 2 cyl Onan they put on Quickies. I know some ultralight guys use
>>> the
>>> little Continental 084s as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Not sure whether the little Onan boxer is still in production. Most of
>> the little opposed cylinder flat heads have been replaced with overhead
>> valve Vee-twins. I strongly suspect that the switch to Vee configuration
>> was to fit the new engines within the width of the equipment that the
>> older flat head engines typically powered--but I really don't know with
>> any certainty.
>>
>> I looked for a little info on the Continental O-84 and could only find
>> that it is a 4 cylinder of 21 cubic inches per cylinder. From that, I
>> would expect a power rating of 40 to 50 HP and a weight of 90 to 105
>> pounds, which would be appropriate for a single seat LSA with a gross
>> weight of 600 to 650 pounds. But, I don't know the actual specs and am
>> curious to learn more.
>
> Is this it?
>
> http://sacramento.craigslist.org/for/554471936.html
>
> Looks like this guy has been picking them up
> surplus for quite a while and flipping them
> on craigslist.
>
Yes, it appears to be.

I had located just enough info to find that there was an 8 cid per cylinder
version and a 21 cid per cylinder version; but I did not realize that the 8
cid per cylinder was also a 4 banger. In any case, both appear to be
intriguing and probably very smooth for their power levels.

Thanks again for the update.

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Veeduber > wrote in
>>>> news:4e7dc1fd-653d-4c18-8e93-601b1a908203
@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.co
>>>> m:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 29, 5:18 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? Name a few?
>>>>> Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volvo, Holden, Renault... Volkswagen :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.gm.com/explore/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/specializ
>>>>> ed/i ndustrial/industrial_engines.jsp
>>>>>
>>>>> Every major automobile manufacturer offers a line of industrial
>>>>> engines. There is also an extensive network of professional
>>>>> over-haul shops that specialize in industrial engines.
>>>>>
>>>>> For 2008 GM is introducing lighter weight Brazilian built utility
>>>>> engines to replace the all-cast-iron models that have been
>>>>> standard since the late 1940's.
>>>>>
>>>>> The world can't run without utility engines for deep-well pumps,
>>>>> air compressors, portable arc welders, orchard sprayers, fork
>>>>> lifts, all manner of farm equipment... Many of these engines are
>>>>> an EXACT match for the Model A but being of modern design, they
>>>>> offer better durability and reduced fuel consumption, typically at
>>>>> less weight.
>>>>>
>>>> INteresting. The only one I know of commonly used for aviation is
>>>> that little 2 cyl Onan they put on Quickies. I know some ultralight
>>>> guys use the
>>>> little Continental 084s as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Not sure whether the little Onan boxer is still in production. Most
>>> of the little opposed cylinder flat heads have been replaced with
>>> overhead valve Vee-twins. I strongly suspect that the switch to Vee
>>> configuration was to fit the new engines within the width of the
>>> equipment that the older flat head engines typically powered--but I
>>> really don't know with any certainty.
>>>
>>> I looked for a little info on the Continental O-84 and could only
>>> find that it is a 4 cylinder of 21 cubic inches per cylinder. From
>>> that, I would expect a power rating of 40 to 50 HP and a weight of
>>> 90 to 105 pounds, which would be appropriate for a single seat LSA
>>> with a gross weight of 600 to 650 pounds. But, I don't know the
>>> actual specs and am curious to learn more.
>>
>> Is this it?
>>
>> http://sacramento.craigslist.org/for/554471936.html
>>
>> Looks like this guy has been picking them up
>> surplus for quite a while and flipping them
>> on craigslist.
>>
> Yes, it appears to be.
>
> I had located just enough info to find that there was an 8 cid per
> cylinder version and a 21 cid per cylinder version; but I did not
> realize that the 8 cid per cylinder was also a 4 banger. In any case,
> both appear to be intriguing and probably very smooth for their power
> levels.
>
> Thanks again for the update.
>

IIRC there is also a fairly powerful twin which I think might be a
better airplanr engine than the four.
>
>
>

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 30, 7:48*pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:27*pm, William Hung > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 8:08*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
> > > "William Hung" > wrote
>
> > > Why the Jabiru Jim?
>
> > > You probably have noticed that I have no love for Rotax; so that is why
> > > #1 - *It isn't a Rotax.
> > > #2 - Direct drive, so it eliminates another possible failure point.
> > > #3 - It has a realistic HP to weight ratio, so it is not terribly
> > > overstressed like Rotax
> > > #4 - They have been though some of a learning curve, have had some problems
> > > that they admitted to, and actively worked to correct.
> > > #5 - They offer some different sizes to fit your needs - another one will be
> > > out soon, I believe. *It will be an 8 cylinder, and it plain "looks cool!"
> > > #6 - Not many other offerings that are modern engines, not from the ancient
> > > Lycoming-Continental gene pool.
> > > #7 - Cost is somewhat reasonable.
> > > #8 - It isn't a Rotax
> > > #9 - It isn't a Rotax
> > > #10- It isn't a Rotax
>
> > > I personally will probably go with an auto conversion, but I realize that
> > > some people do not have the ability or the desire to do something like that.
> > > I do, on both accounts. *I very much enjoy playing with things like
> > > perfecting an engine conversion.
>
> > > The plan is to get a conversion rigged up, and make a relatively cheap
> > > plywood airboat, and run the hell out of it, while enjoying the time playing
> > > with a unique boat on the lake. *My thought is that it lives through the
> > > gyroscopic loads of rapid hard pounding on a boat, it will survive quite
> > > well in an airplane.
> > > --
> > > Jim in NC
>
> > Do you have any particular engine in mind for your conversion?
> > Someone somewhere used a Harley engine.
>
> I can't help but wonder, did they also add tassels or studs to their
> flying jacket?
>
> Cheers- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Probably studs. lol

Wil

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 30, 8:38*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "William Hung" > wrote
>
> Do you have any particular engine in mind for your conversion?
> Someone somewhere used a Harley engine. *I also have read somewhere of
> a Yamaha Virago powered airplane and a BMW powered one even.
>
> A Harley engine looks neat, but I don't like the vibration factor of most of
> them. *Plus column includes many aftermarket parts available, and the form
> of not having the gearbox as part of the engine case.
>
> Most motorcycle engines have the bike's transmission as part of the
> crankcase. *That causes it to be heavy, and very difficult to get the power
> coming straight from the crankshaft. *Some have use the bike gears, but
> using a lower gear , like 3rd gear (or something-take your pick) is
> problematic, because they will not usually hold up to the punishment. *It
> has been done by some people, but not by me. <g>
>
> The Subaru engines have a long history of being good engines, and some seem
> to have "gotten it right."
>
> There are some other engines that look interesting, like some straight 4
> cylinder engines. *Honda engines have been successfully converted. *I think
> some kind of straight 4 is my current choice. *They have a nice slim form
> that would look pretty good, I think. *I probably would go with a cog drive
> belt, since they avoid a lot of pitfalls with chain or gear slap from those
> types of prop reduction drive units.
>
> I'm still a year or so away from getting serious with that type of
> experimenting. *When it gets closer, I'll get serious about some
> investigating.
> --
> Jim in NC

I'm about two years away from starting ort buying my plane. I'm OK
with the Rotax engines, will probably go with the four stroke 912. If
I do build, it will either be the Rans S-7 or the Zenith/Zenair 701.

Wil

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Tha'd certanly put me off. I can see it being a weld cracking experience!

I think (don't quote me on this) that some of them have balance shafts, so
are smoother.

There would certainly need to be extra attention given to engine mount
bushings.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Tha'd certanly put me off. I can see it being a weld cracking
>> experience!
>
> I think (don't quote me on this) that some of them have balance
> shafts, so
> are smoother.


I know some three or less cyl rice rockets have these, allright. I have no
idea about v twins, though.
>
> There would certainly need to be extra attention given to engine mount
> bushings.


He he. yeah!


Bertie

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 28, 7:26*am, wrote:
> > C'on Jim, it's not so ugly. *Looks like a Jeep Willy of the sky to me,
> > and I think the Willy's jeeps look great. *My plan is to one day get a
> > C150, I'm leaning towards building the 701 now. *Maybe with a 582 or
> > if finances allow, a 912.
>
> > Wil-
>
> For a while I thought more HP would be better for the 701, 100 instead
> of 80.
>
> After reading a detailed pilot report of it with 100, I've decided 80
> is fine. I'm going for a VW, 2149 cc. Nitrided crank. "Geared down"
> with one of Great Plain's pulleys. More thrust, power 80 to 100

What are the goods and the bads of having it 80hp and 100 hp? Are you
going for the folding wing option?

Wil

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 4, 10:51*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote :
>
>
>
> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
> >> Tha'd certanly put me off. I can see it being a weld cracking
> >> experience!
>
> > *I think (don't quote me on this) that some of them have balance
> > *shafts, so
> > are smoother.
>
> I know some three or less cyl rice rockets have these, allright. I have no
> idea about v twins, though.
>
>
>
> > There would certainly need to be extra attention given to engine mount
> > bushings.
>
> He he. yeah!
>
> Bertie

What am I missing here? The Harley's welds seam to be holding up ok.

Wil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

William Hung > wrote in
:

> On Feb 4, 10:51*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Morgans" > wrote
>> innews:Udvpj.1189$az7.292@newsf
> e07.lga:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>>
>> >> Tha'd certanly put me off. I can see it being a weld cracking
>> >> experience!
>>
>> > *I think (don't quote me on this) that some of them have balance
>> > *shafts, so
>> > are smoother.
>>
>> I know some three or less cyl rice rockets have these, allright. I
>> have no
>
>> idea about v twins, though.
>>
>>
>>
>> > There would certainly need to be extra attention given to engine
>> > mount bushings.
>>
>> He he. yeah!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> What am I missing here? The Harley's welds seam to be holding up ok.

Yeah on milder steel about four times the thinckness of aircraft tubing!

Bertie

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 4, 9:07*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> William Hung > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 10:51*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Morgans" > wrote
> >> innews:Udvpj.1189$az7.292@newsf
> > e07.lga:
>
> >> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
> >> >> Tha'd certanly put me off. I can see it being a weld cracking
> >> >> experience!
>
> >> > *I think (don't quote me on this) that some of them have balance
> >> > *shafts, so
> >> > are smoother.
>
> >> I know some three or less cyl rice rockets have these, allright. I
> >> have no
>
> >> idea about v twins, though.
>
> >> > There would certainly need to be extra attention given to engine
> >> > mount bushings.
>
> >> He he. yeah!
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > What am I missing here? *The Harley's welds seam to be holding up ok.
>
> Yeah on milder steel about four times the thinckness of aircraft tubing!
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ah...

Wil