VWs

[[email protected]]

I had posted a link to a vid of a 701 weaving through the trees over
on .piloting.

At some point down the line I expressed interest in a VW powered 701.

One guy said he figured a VW would melt down in an aircraft cowling
when producing no more that 50HP.

He provided a link to Bob Hoover's blog, which had an entry "The
Christmas Engine", in which he states pretty flatly that:

1) No way to get 80 (let alone 100) HP out of an aircooled VW for any
extended period of time.
2) No way to cool an engine at those HP values if you could get them,
so you either get meltdown or very low time between overhauls.

Bob's blog looks as though he's talking direct drive. That pretty much
lines up with what I've read on the Great Plains website. GP says you
can only get higher HP from the VW by PSRU. That I can believe, on the
general principle that any engine has higher HP at higher RPM. Since
the VW wasn't designed to spin propellers, well, the best HP values vs
RPM don't align nicely for a direct drive VW and a propeller, do they?
That stands to reason.

So I'm asking this: for you VW people builders, what about cooling,
and is there some dyno data available from VWs spinning props with
PSRUs and direct drive available? Something somebody has been willing
to publish?

What about meltdowns? Because if what Bob Hoover says is true then it
seems to me there's no way Great Plains should be making a living --
unless their customers never have checked the numbers they GP claims.
GP has a lot of customers. You'd think they'd be screaming bloody
murder if they couldn't at least get close to 80 for takeoff.

I'm more concerned with thrust and cooling, though, than some HP
number.

What gives? What's "the truth"?

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:40:25 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>I had posted a link to a vid of a 701 weaving through the trees over
>on .piloting.
>
>At some point down the line I expressed interest in a VW powered 701.
>
>One guy said he figured a VW would melt down in an aircraft cowling
>when producing no more that 50HP.
>
>He provided a link to Bob Hoover's blog, which had an entry "The
>Christmas Engine", in which he states pretty flatly that:
>
>1) No way to get 80 (let alone 100) HP out of an aircooled VW for any
>extended period of time.
>2) No way to cool an engine at those HP values if you could get them,
>so you either get meltdown or very low time between overhauls.
>
>Bob's blog looks as though he's talking direct drive. That pretty much
>lines up with what I've read on the Great Plains website. GP says you
>can only get higher HP from the VW by PSRU. That I can believe, on the
>general principle that any engine has higher HP at higher RPM. Since
>the VW wasn't designed to spin propellers, well, the best HP values vs
>RPM don't align nicely for a direct drive VW and a propeller, do they?
>That stands to reason.
>
>So I'm asking this: for you VW people builders, what about cooling,
>and is there some dyno data available from VWs spinning props with
>PSRUs and direct drive available? Something somebody has been willing
>to publish?
>
>What about meltdowns? Because if what Bob Hoover says is true then it
>seems to me there's no way Great Plains should be making a living --
>unless their customers never have checked the numbers they GP claims.
>GP has a lot of customers. You'd think they'd be screaming bloody
>murder if they couldn't at least get close to 80 for takeoff.
>
>I'm more concerned with thrust and cooling, though, than some HP
>number.
>
>What gives? What's "the truth"?

Doesn't matter what speed you run the V Dub, the stock cyl heads do
not have enough fin area to shed the heat of more than 40-50HP
longterm.. The mass of the heads allows short term higher output, but
the "thermal equalibrium" is reached just over 40HP.
If you thermal coat (ceramics) the combustion chamber and exhaust
ports, as well as the piston tops, you can likely push that 30% or
so..
You are still looking at a 50HP engine - and 50HP in a 701 is a
"ground hog". Just like the average dragonfly (although after off the
ground, a VW 'fly will REALLY go due to vastly superior aerodynamics.)

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

[[email protected]]

Old news.

As far back as Rockford, at least three builders of converted VW's
appealed to Pope Paul to use the EAA's bully pulpit for educating
homebuilders about the realities of automobile engine conversions. At
least two of us (me and Ted Barker) even offered to provide the
required torque-stand. But the EAA was (and is) more interested in
selling tent-space and full-page ads than in contributing to the basic
store of USEFUL homebuilt information.

My article you cited (The Christmas Engine) can be found at...

http://wapurl.co.uk/?IWL54GJ

....and I suggest you give it another read, paying particular attention
to the difference between PEAK and SUSTAINABLE output, and how long
you can expect to pull the former... if you're interested in a
reasonably long TBO.

As for the question of direct-drive vs a PSRU, I'm afraid you're a bit
behind the power curve, engineering-wise. Adding a PSRU does not
change the laws of physics which dictate the power & durability of an
engine. The use of a PSRU can allow a small engine, such as the
1300cc Rotax, to produce a prodigious amount of power, but only so
long as the waste heat is properly managed, which Rotax does by using
liquid-cooled heads... and lotsa money :-)

As for your expectation of discovering "the truth" by popping up on
the internet and polling the readers, you're about to get a valuable
lesson in human nature. After having paid $6000 US for what is
basically a $2500 dune buggy engine with a fan on the nose, an awful
lot of people are going to swear on a stack of Bibles that the
miraculous claims of power and durability that caused to spend that
amount of money are ALL TRUE. Never mind that their Specific Fuel
Consumption is 0.562 (or worse), or that they have to 'touch-up' the
valves now and then... because if that miraculous amount of power and
that remarkable TBO were NOT true... it would mean they were suckers,
being preyed upon by another EAA-endorsed huckster. And of course,
that can't be right.

For everyone else, as I said at the out-set this isn't a new topic.
Dig around, you'll find lots of valuable, quantified information here
and in the archives of the AirVW Group. You will also find lots of
the other kind of information as well, including full-page ads in
early issues of 'Sport Aviation,' along with infomercial 'articles.'
Read it. THINK FOR YOURSELF. Your life may literally depend upon it.

The saving grace in all this is the fact an engine is incapable of
lying. Build it, fly it, and what you see is what you get. Oddly
enough, what you get will come remarkably close to what physics,
thermodynamics and engineering has SAID you will get -- and have said
for the last hundred years.

-R.S.Hoover

[Charles Vincent]

wrote:

> What about meltdowns? Because if what Bob Hoover says is true then it
> seems to me there's no way Great Plains should be making a living --
> unless their customers never have checked the numbers they GP claims.
> GP has a lot of customers. You'd think they'd be screaming bloody
> murder if they couldn't at least get close to 80 for takeoff.
>
> I'm more concerned with thrust and cooling, though, than some HP
> number.
>
> What gives? What's "the truth"?

An 85 HP aircraft cylinder head:

http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/at/courses/aeml/powerplantimages/cylbarrel&head.jpg

A VW head:

http://www.allworldautomotive.com/photo_043-101-355_cylinder_head_11817-15127.jpg


Charles

[oilsardine[_2_]]

compared to the '85 HP aircraft cylinder head' the VW head doesn't look so
bad after all...


"Charles Vincent" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..
> wrote:
>
>> What about meltdowns? Because if what Bob Hoover says is true then it
>> seems to me there's no way Great Plains should be making a living --
>> unless their customers never have checked the numbers they GP claims.
>> GP has a lot of customers. You'd think they'd be screaming bloody
>> murder if they couldn't at least get close to 80 for takeoff.
>>
>> I'm more concerned with thrust and cooling, though, than some HP
>> number.
>>
>> What gives? What's "the truth"?
>
> An 85 HP aircraft cylinder head:
>
> http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/at/courses/aeml/powerplantimages/cylbarrel&head.jpg
>
> A VW head:
>
> http://www.allworldautomotive.com/photo_043-101-355_cylinder_head_11817-15127.jpg
>
>
> Charles

[[email protected]]

On Jan 29, 2:29 am, "oilsardine" > wrote:
> compared to the '85 HP aircraft cylinder head' the VW head doesn't look so
> bad after all...
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks can be deceiving.

The maximum output of the carburetted 1600cc VW engine was the 1971
model which could produce about 57bhp... for about ONE MINUTE.
Maximum SUSTAINED output (ie, CHT of <450F) was about 44bhp under
Standard Day conditions. At that level of output you could expect the
exhaust valves to drop out of spec after about 200 hours. NOMINAL
output of the 1600VW was about 15bhp, which allowed the exhaust valves
to survive for up to 1000 hours (although 600 t0 750 was more the
norm). After-market 'hot-rod' heads do even worse since they have
less fin area. Volkswagen dealers commonly swapped-out worn heads
without bothering to inform the owner, other than to list their
replacement in the 'OTHER SERVICE - AS REQUIRED' block on the work-
order.

To understand why the VW head does so poorly simply compare it to the
early 1500cc (85hp) Porsche heads. Then compare those to the Corvair.

-R.S.Hoover

PS -- Here in the States many VW owners insist their vehicle NEVER
required anything other than normal maintenance when in fact,
examination of its service records usually shows periodic replacement
of heads, carb, distributor, clutch and oil pump with rebuilt units,
all for a nominal charge, when the vehicle was brought in for service.

[Dale Alexander]

Hear! Hear!

Back in my miss-spent youth, I worked in a VW independent repair shop in San
Mateo, Ca. A place called Father Noel's. I rebuilt three engines a week and
saw it all. The same 47 reasons why the air-cooled VW needed "periodic
replacement of heads, carb, distributor, clutch and oil pump with rebuilt
units, all for a nominal charge, when the vehicle was brought in for
service."

Here is a partial list of what WILL go wrong with your fan drive up front
WITH A STOCK TYPE ENGINE ( for those about to flame me, please read that
last statement several times least you look foolish):

Exhaust valve stems stretch to the point of the valve heads breaking off and
trashing engine. You'll know when this is about to happen when your engine
won't hold a valve adjustment.
Cylinder heads crack between seats.
Cylinder heads crack to spark plug hole. You'll know this when the spark
plug seizes when being removed because of accumulated carbon in the threads.
And then the spark plugs blow out...
Valve guides that wear out as soon as engine starts (a lot like old Triumph
motorcycle engines)
Cylinder head sealing surface leaks due to case studs stripping threads out
of the case. You'll know this when your brand new muffler sounds like it is
falling off under acceleration.
Ever present oil leaks from the case crack developing in the number 3
cylinder area behind the flywheel (ok...prop drive).
Loss of oil pressure at low rpm due to case separating at the center main
bearing area.
Flat cams and worn lifters due to great German metallurgy.
New version of air-cooling when rod escapes confines of case.
And on...and on...and on...

Granted, all of these things can be fixed with a generous infusion of money,
maybe two shoe-boxes full of 20's will do the trick. But the basic idea is
that this engine isn't adequate to push around a 1500 pound car at part
throttle let alone an aircraft. And by the time it is capable, it is more a
Lycoming (no great accomplishment in itself) than a VW i.e. a horizontally
opposed four cylinder engine in the same vein as a water-cooled chevy based
aircraft engine is no more a chevy than a Nascar prepped race engine with
origins in a dozen speed part catalogs.

A common statement by some of the longer haired VW owners ( this was the
70's) was that VW's were great because they were easy to work on to which I
would reply that is fortunate as one works on them a lot. We made a lot of
money off those types. Now today, would the owner of a present day vehicle,
with all of the subsequent technology advances, put up with that repair
frequency? Oh wait! They do! They are called Volvo, Mercedes and BMW owners.

If you are going to rely on a VW or other small displacement engine to keep
your aircraft an aircraft and not a smoking hole full of parts, build it
with the best parts possible with the best information available and don't
skimp.

By the way, I'm have not been immune from thinking poorly or emotionally. In
the 80's, I raced a Ducati bevel-drive twin in AMA Twins. It developed
enough horsepower to break cases every two races. I welded a chain to it and
took it fishing once. When I was done fishing, I cut the anchor chain and
went home.

Gotta realize when you have gone down a road too far...

Ready for flames now...

Dale Alexander


> wrote in message
...
> On Jan 29, 2:29 am, "oilsardine" > wrote:
>> compared to the '85 HP aircraft cylinder head' the VW head doesn't look
>> so
>> bad after all...
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Looks can be deceiving.
>
> The maximum output of the carburetted 1600cc VW engine was the 1971
> model which could produce about 57bhp... for about ONE MINUTE.
> Maximum SUSTAINED output (ie, CHT of <450F) was about 44bhp under
> Standard Day conditions. At that level of output you could expect the
> exhaust valves to drop out of spec after about 200 hours. NOMINAL
> output of the 1600VW was about 15bhp, which allowed the exhaust valves
> to survive for up to 1000 hours (although 600 t0 750 was more the
> norm). After-market 'hot-rod' heads do even worse since they have
> less fin area. Volkswagen dealers commonly swapped-out worn heads
> without bothering to inform the owner, other than to list their
> replacement in the 'OTHER SERVICE - AS REQUIRED' block on the work-
> order.
>
> To understand why the VW head does so poorly simply compare it to the
> early 1500cc (85hp) Porsche heads. Then compare those to the Corvair.
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>
> PS -- Here in the States many VW owners insist their vehicle NEVER
> required anything other than normal maintenance when in fact,
> examination of its service records usually shows periodic replacement
> of heads, carb, distributor, clutch and oil pump with rebuilt units,
> all for a nominal charge, when the vehicle was brought in for service.

[[email protected]]

> My article you cited (The Christmas Engine) can be found at...
>
> http://wapurl.co.uk/?IWL54GJ
>
> ...and I suggest you give it another read, paying particular attention
> to the difference between PEAK and SUSTAINABLE output, and how long
> you can expect to pull the former... if you're interested in a
> reasonably long TBO.

I very much will.

> As for the question of direct-drive vs a PSRU, I'm afraid you're a bit
> behind the power curve, engineering-wise. *Adding a PSRU does not
> change the laws of physics which dictate the power & durability of an
> engine.

Hold on a second. First, I am behind the power curve, engineering-
wise. I'm not a mechanic engineer, nor have I tinkered with VW (or
other engines) for years. So that puts me behind.

> *The use of a PSRU can allow a small engine, such as the
> 1300cc Rotax, to produce a prodigious amount of power, but only so
> long as the waste heat is properly managed, which Rotax does by using
> liquid-cooled heads... and lotsa money :-)
>

This was the gist of my commen on PSRU. I wasn't speaking to the
cooling problem.

I notice that Great Plains offered liquid cooled heads in their 2007
catalog but not in their 2008. Hmm...

> As for your expectation of discovering "the truth" by popping up on
> the internet and polling the readers, you're about to get a valuable
> lesson in human nature. *After having paid $6000 US for what is
> basically a $2500 dune buggy engine with a fan on the nose, an awful
> lot of people are going to swear on a stack of Bibles that the
> miraculous claims of power and durability that caused to spend that
> amount of money are ALL TRUE. *Never mind that their Specific Fuel
> Consumption is 0.562 (or worse), or that they have to 'touch-up' the
> valves now and then... *because if that miraculous amount of power and
> that remarkable TBO were NOT true... it would mean they were suckers,
> being preyed upon by another EAA-endorsed huckster. *And of course,
> that can't be right.
>

I put "the truth" in quotation marks on purpose. For reasons you
allude to.

> For everyone else, as I said at the out-set this isn't a new topic.
> Dig around, you'll find lots of valuable, quantified information here
> and in the archives of the AirVW Group. *You will also find lots of
> the other kind of information as well, including full-page ads in
> early issues of 'Sport Aviation,' along with infomercial 'articles.'
> Read it. *THINK FOR YOURSELF. *Your life may literally depend upon it.

Thanks, I'll look for it.

> The saving grace in all this is the fact an engine is incapable of
> lying. *Build it, fly it, and what you see is what you get. *Oddly
> enough, what you get will come remarkably close to what physics,
> thermodynamics and engineering has SAID you will get -- and have said
> for the last hundred years.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

What are the best VW books in general? I'm working through the one by
Tom Wilson, but it doesn't cover these issues we're talking about.
Great Plains offers a VW conversion manual, is it good? I've looked
for VW aero-conversion books online but haven't found much.

[Charles Vincent]

oilsardine wrote:
> compared to the '85 HP aircraft cylinder head' the VW head doesn't look so
> bad after all...
>

Really? When I look at the VW head image, I see two cylinder heads cast
together in a manner that reduces the total fin area and obstructs
cooling flow. I see a cylinder head with cylinder stud bosses that not
only reduce fin area, but are actually blocking cooling air just where
it is needed. Same with the studs themselves. I see a cylinder head
with a single pompadour cooling fin in the extremely critical area
between the valves and spark plug boss. If you could actually hold a
C-85 and VW both in your hand the differences would be even more striking.

Charles

>
> "Charles Vincent" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> An 85 HP aircraft cylinder head:
>>
>> http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/at/courses/aeml/powerplantimages/cylbarrel&head.jpg
>>
>> A VW head:
>>
>> http://www.allworldautomotive.com/photo_043-101-355_cylinder_head_11817-15127.jpg
>>
>>
>> Charles
>
>

[[email protected]]

> Really? *When I look at the VW head image, I see two cylinder heads cast
> together in a manner that reduces the total fin area and obstructs
> cooling flow. *I see a cylinder head with cylinder stud bosses that not
> only reduce fin area, but are actually blocking cooling air just where
> it is needed. *Same with the studs themselves. *I see a cylinder head
> with a single pompadour cooling *fin in the extremely critical area
> between the valves and spark plug boss. *If you could actually hold a
> C-85 and VW both in your hand the differences would be even more striking.
>
> Charles

Has anyone ever tried adapting aero head designs to the VW block and
cylinders?

Yes I know that would be a considerable effort. I guess no one has
otherwise we'd see references to it. If I were really good with CAD I
would consider giving it a shot. I know a guy who has the CNC
equipment and could probably machine aero style heads (although I
don't know what would be the right material).

An interesting experiment if you had cash and time on your hands. It
seems from what veeduber writes that this is a matter of cooling
efficiency for durability, rather than HP or torque per se.

[Charles Vincent]

wrote:
> Has anyone ever tried adapting aero head designs to the VW block and
> cylinders?
>
> An interesting experiment if you had cash and time on your hands. It
> seems from what veeduber writes that this is a matter of cooling
> efficiency for durability, rather than HP or torque per se.
>
You would have to replace the jug and head to match the aero design. And
then why? So that you could mate you're new heads to a cylinder block
that has been known to crack just sitting on a shelf waiting to be
installed? The VW engine for aircraft is about simple and relatively
cheap power for simple and relatively cheap airplanes. Designing,
building and flying your own heads is not simple or cheap.

Charles

[[email protected]]

> You would have to replace the jug and head to match the aero design. And
> then why? So that you could mate you're new heads to a cylinder block
> that has been known to crack just sitting on a shelf waiting to be
> installed? *The VW engine for aircraft is about simple and relatively
> cheap power for simple and relatively cheap airplanes. *Designing,
> building and flying your own heads is not simple or cheap.
>
> Charles

Maybe this part of what I wrote didn't penetrate through your skull:

> > An interesting experiment if you had cash and time on your hands.

A VW conversion for flying is for whatever the hell you want it to be
for. Like experimenting -- if you've got the time and inclination.
I've got the inclination. When I want to know what *you* think is a
legitimate pursuit in the experimental aircraft arena I'll ask.

[Charles Vincent]

wrote:

>
> Maybe this part of what I wrote didn't penetrate through your skull:
>
>>> An interesting experiment if you had cash and time on your hands.

I got that point, but assumed your goal was a cost effective reliable
powerplant -- whatever the mission profile of your aircraft. These are
general goals within aviation, but you may set your own divergent goals
obviously.

>
> A VW conversion for flying is for whatever the hell you want it to be
> for. Like experimenting -- if you've got the time and inclination.
> I've got the inclination.

Great. It also takes skill and knowledge- otherwise you might as well
spend your time testing if twenty dollar bills burn faster than singles.
In your world it seems all it takes is someone good with CAD and a
friend with a CNC machine.

> When I want to know what *you* think is a
> legitimate pursuit in the experimental aircraft arena I'll ask.
>

Isn't that what you did? If not, why post the results of your mental
masturbation here? Or do you just have to have an audience to explore
your own ignorance? Veeduber has pointed out the VW design is thermally
limited. This does not mean it is not mechanically limited as well.
Figure out a way for the heads to sustain 80HP and see how long the
stock VW case hold up. Ever ask about what actually gets rebuilt when
you rebuild an 80HP flying VW?

Charles

[[email protected]]

On Jan 29, 5:54 am, " > wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2:29 am, "oilsardine" > wrote:
>
> > compared to the '85 HP aircraft cylinder head' the VW head doesn't look so
> > bad after all...
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Looks can be deceiving.
>
> The maximum output of the carburetted 1600cc VW engine was the 1971
> model which could produce about 57bhp... for about ONE MINUTE.
> Maximum SUSTAINED output (ie, CHT of <450F) was about 44bhp under
> Standard Day conditions. At that level of output you could expect the
> exhaust valves to drop out of spec after about 200 hours. NOMINAL
> output of the 1600VW was about 15bhp, which allowed the exhaust valves
> to survive for up to 1000 hours (although 600 t0 750 was more the
> norm). After-market 'hot-rod' heads do even worse since they have
> less fin area. Volkswagen dealers commonly swapped-out worn heads
> without bothering to inform the owner, other than to list their
> replacement in the 'OTHER SERVICE - AS REQUIRED' block on the work-
> order.
>
> To understand why the VW head does so poorly simply compare it to the
> early 1500cc (85hp) Porsche heads. Then compare those to the Corvair.
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>
> PS -- Here in the States many VW owners insist their vehicle NEVER
> required anything other than normal maintenance when in fact,
> examination of its service records usually shows periodic replacement
> of heads, carb, distributor, clutch and oil pump with rebuilt units,
> all for a nominal charge, when the vehicle was brought in for service.

I'm building or should be building) a Hummel Bird, which
uses a half-VW conversion. What's your take on these things, seeing
that you have lots of VW experience? My experience with VWs is limited
to my first car, a '62 Beetle that I spent lots of time fixing, and a
friend's '59 van. Ditto. Scott Casler claims 37 HP from a 1037 CC two-
banger. Sounds high.
For those interested, here's the website: http://www.hummelengines.com/
Click on the "Hummer 2 Cylinder VW"

Dan

[[email protected]]

> Isn't that what you did? If not, why post the results of your mental
> masturbation here?

Why are you being such an aggressive prick?

Can't you help yourself?

[Anthony W]

wrote:

> To understand why the VW head does so poorly simply compare it to the
> early 1500cc (85hp) Porsche heads. Then compare those to the Corvair.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

Out of curiosity what is your opinion of the Corvair engine?

Tony

[[email protected]]

> For everyone else, as I said at the out-set this isn't a new topic.
> Dig around, you'll find lots of valuable, quantified information here
> and in the archives of the AirVW Group. *You will also find lots of
> -R.S.Hoover

I'm not finding a way into AirVW group on yahoo. Members only -- and
no way to become a member!

Guess Yahoo doesn't want to maintain it.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 29, 3:39*pm, wrote:
> > For everyone else, as I said at the out-set this isn't a new topic.
> > Dig around, you'll find lots of valuable, quantified information here
> > and in the archives of the AirVW Group. *You will also find lots of
> > -R.S.Hoover
>
> I'm not finding a way into AirVW group on yahoo. Members only -- and
> no way to become a member!
>
> Guess Yahoo doesn't want to maintain it.

Nevermind I found it. There's a dash in there.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 29, 6:27*pm, cavalamb himself > wrote:
> wrote:
> >>Isn't that what you did? If not, why post the results of your mental
> >>masturbation here?
>
> > Why are you being such an aggressive prick?
>
> > Can't you help yourself?
>
> I think that's the question everybody here is asking about you.

Me?

Because I ask some questions this guy "Charles Vincent" berates me and
says I'm posting my mental masturbations because it's insane to spend
money putting aero engine type heads on a VW case (that cracks just
sitting on the shelf).

Fine. Whatever.

I'm not spewing off "facts" about VW engines. I'm not defending claims
of 80 to 100 HP engines. I'm asking questions. Not everybody has been
coming to rec.aviation.homebuilt for years on end, so they don't
necessarily know that VWs have heating problems when running 80HP, or
that this subject is old hat. You go to Great Plains and they *sure*
don't mention overheating. They talk about 80 to 100HP like it's
commonplace. Their 2007 catalog advertised "liquid cooled heads" that
generated 120 HP. Yeah, well.

I come here because I want to hear if that is so from people with
experience.

Luckily for me RS Hoover has taken the time to actually be helpful. He
sounds like he's been building VWs and messing with them in airplanes
for many years. It looks like Dale Alexander has had a lot of
experience with VWs too. I can't tell yet who else responding to this
thread actually has built or used VWs in airplanes. Those are the
people I'm interested in hearing from and whose opinions I'd like to
hear.

If you haven't actually built or flow a VW in an aircraft, then I'm
not soliciting your opinion.

Has "Charles Vincent" ever built VWs? Flown them in aircraft? I don't
know. His posts haven't been helpful at all. Just mean.

Does "cavelamb himself" have any experience building VWs? Flown them
in aircraft? I don't know. I can't tell.

All I was after in the OP was what RS Hoover has answered, and Dale
Alexander has expanded on.

Thanks, Bob. Thanks, Dale. I can actually learn things from people
like you. It's why I posted to begin with.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

> wrote in message
...
<...>

>Has anyone ever tried adapting aero head designs to the VW block and
>cylinders?


http://www.limflug.de/index.php?page=products&lang=eng

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Charles Vincent]

wrote:
> On Jan 29, 3:39 pm, wrote:
>>> For everyone else, as I said at the out-set this isn't a new topic.
>>> Dig around, you'll find lots of valuable, quantified information here
>>> and in the archives of the AirVW Group. You will also find lots of
>>> -R.S.Hoover
>> I'm not finding a way into AirVW group on yahoo. Members only -- and
>> no way to become a member!
>>
>> Guess Yahoo doesn't want to maintain it.
>
> Nevermind I found it. There's a dash in there.

AirVW and Air-VW are not the same group and I expect the consensus point
of view is different.

Charles

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:46:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>
> I'm building or should be building) a Hummel Bird, which
>uses a half-VW conversion. What's your take on these things, seeing
>that you have lots of VW experience? My experience with VWs is limited
>to my first car, a '62 Beetle that I spent lots of time fixing, and a
>friend's '59 van. Ditto. Scott Casler claims 37 HP from a 1037 CC two-
>banger. Sounds high.
> For those interested, here's the website: http://www.hummelengines.com/
> Click on the "Hummer 2 Cylinder VW"
>
> Dan
Mabee 20 sustained and 35 peak. And I'm an optimist.

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

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:57:34 GMT, Anthony W >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> To understand why the VW head does so poorly simply compare it to the
>> early 1500cc (85hp) Porsche heads. Then compare those to the Corvair.
>>
>> -R.S.Hoover
>
>Out of curiosity what is your opinion of the Corvair engine?
>
>Tony
The corvair has more fin area than an O200.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote
>
> Why are you being such an aggressive prick?
>
> Can't you help yourself?

Seems like you shot the first volley across the bow.

Like saying this: "When I want to know what *you* think is a legitimate
pursuit in the experimental aircraft arena I'll ask."
--
Jim in NC

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

wrote:

>>Isn't that what you did? If not, why post the results of your mental
>>masturbation here?
>
>
> Why are you being such an aggressive prick?
>
> Can't you help yourself?


I think that's the question everybody here is asking about you.

[Craig[_2_]]

On Jan 29, 6:29 pm, cavalamb himself > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Luckily for me RS Hoover has taken the time to actually be helpful. He
> > sounds like he's been building VWs and messing with them in airplanes
> > for many years. It looks like Dale Alexander has had a lot of
> > experience with VWs too. I can't tell yet who else responding to this
> > thread actually has built or used VWs in airplanes. Those are the
> > people I'm interested in hearing from and whose opinions I'd like to
> > hear.
>
> VeeDubber is an excellent writer - and I believe he IS building a plane.
>
> But I don't think he has yet finished and flown one.
>
> (Correct me if I'm wrong on that Robert?)
>
> > Does "cavelamb himself" have any experience building VWs? Flown them
>
> > in aircraft? I don't know. I can't tell.
>
> I have - several.
>
> And helped on others.
>
> But from tone alone, I doubt you are willing to listen.
>
> Richard

Careful, lest we end up juandering in the forest..

Craig

[[email protected]]

> Seems like you shot the first volley across the bow.
>
> Like saying this: "When I want to know what *you* think is a legitimate
> pursuit in the experimental aircraft arena I'll ask."
> --
> Jim in NC

I thought this was the first "shot"

"You would have to replace the jug and head to match the aero design.
And
then why? So that you could mate you're new heads to a cylinder block
that has been known to crack just sitting on a shelf waiting to be
installed?"

I didn't think that was offered in the spirit of answering an honest
question, but to be aggressive and insulting.

[[email protected]]

> I have - several.
>
> And helped on others.
>
> But from tone alone, I doubt you are willing to listen.
>
> Richard

I might have gotten mad earlier but I am honestly interested.

Some people get a kick out of confrontation on web boards but I don't.

I would be interested in knowing about those engines you have built
and helped build. I would be interested in knowing how many hours of
operation was typical before having to open up them up again. What
kind of planes were they flown in? Were owners pleased with them or
wind up wishing they'd done something else? Did they buy one of the
kits from a company like GP or build it themselves? Direct Drive?
PSRU?

What were the problems?

These are questions you'd like to see in a book like William Wynne's
Corvair Conversion Manual but is there one of that quality for VWs? I
don't know.

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:32:19 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>> Seems like you shot the first volley across the bow.
>>
>> Like saying this: "When I want to know what *you* think is a legitimate
>> pursuit in the experimental aircraft arena I'll ask."
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
>I thought this was the first "shot"
>
>"You would have to replace the jug and head to match the aero design.
>And
>then why? So that you could mate you're new heads to a cylinder block
>that has been known to crack just sitting on a shelf waiting to be
>installed?"
>
>I didn't think that was offered in the spirit of answering an honest
>question, but to be aggressive and insulting.

I don't see what's insulting about the truth - I didn't see ANY
personal attack.

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

[[email protected]]

On Jan 29, 11:46 am, wrote:
> half-VW conversion. What's your take on these things,

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

Generally poor.

If I wanted a two-cylinder air cooled engine I'd go buy one, following
the lead of Leeon Davis.

If someone held a gun to my head and forced me to build a two-banger
using VW components, I'd do what Leonard Milholland has done.

But a cut-case half-VW doesn't make a lot of sense for several
reasons, most based on hard-ball engineering. For example, we've been
aware of the thermal limitations and lubrication problems of the VW
since the late 1950's and it would seem logical that if you're going
to modify the engine as extensively as is done with the typical half-
VW you would use that opportunity to increase the fin area of the
heads and provide for full-time top-end lubrication. But the guys
selling half-VW conversion plans didn't do that. Nor did they use
that opportunity to install a solid-state two-cylinder ignition
module, such as the Briggs & Stratton unit used on the AeroVee.

But the main reason for my generally poor opinion of two-bangers has
to do with how they FLY . Or rather, how they run. None of the
horizontally opposed two cylinder engines I've flown behind (3 of
them; Long, Wright-Moorehouse, and Aeronca) were very smooth and the
Aeronca was the only one you could call well engineered (Leslie Long's
engine was home-made using Harley-Davidson jugs).

Finally, given the alternatives, I can't see how anyone can justify
the cost of these converesions. To me, it simply doesn't make sense.

-R.S.Hoover

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

wrote:

> Luckily for me RS Hoover has taken the time to actually be helpful. He
> sounds like he's been building VWs and messing with them in airplanes
> for many years. It looks like Dale Alexander has had a lot of
> experience with VWs too. I can't tell yet who else responding to this
> thread actually has built or used VWs in airplanes. Those are the
> people I'm interested in hearing from and whose opinions I'd like to
> hear.

VeeDubber is an excellent writer - and I believe he IS building a plane.

But I don't think he has yet finished and flown one.

(Correct me if I'm wrong on that Robert?)


> Does "cavelamb himself" have any experience building VWs? Flown them
> in aircraft? I don't know. I can't tell.


I have - several.

And helped on others.

But from tone alone, I doubt you are willing to listen.

Richard

[[email protected]]

> Has anyone ever tried adapting aero head designs to the VW block and
> cylinders?
>

An answer to my own question (in addition to the Limbach link):

http://www.jpx.fr/Jpx/english/pg_4tx75E.htm

Looks kind of like Jabiru cylinder/heads.

[Peter Dohm]

"Dale Alexander" > wrote in message
...
> Hear! Hear!
>
> Back in my miss-spent youth, I worked in a VW independent repair shop in
> San Mateo, Ca. A place called Father Noel's. I rebuilt three engines a
> week and saw it all. The same 47 reasons why the air-cooled VW needed
> "periodic replacement of heads, carb, distributor, clutch and oil pump
> with rebuilt units, all for a nominal charge, when the vehicle was brought
> in for service."
>
> Here is a partial list of what WILL go wrong with your fan drive up front
> WITH A STOCK TYPE ENGINE ( for those about to flame me, please read that
> last statement several times least you look foolish):
>
> Exhaust valve stems stretch to the point of the valve heads breaking off
> and trashing engine. You'll know when this is about to happen when your
> engine won't hold a valve adjustment.
> Cylinder heads crack between seats.
> Cylinder heads crack to spark plug hole. You'll know this when the spark
> plug seizes when being removed because of accumulated carbon in the
> threads.
> And then the spark plugs blow out...
> Valve guides that wear out as soon as engine starts (a lot like old
> Triumph motorcycle engines)
> Cylinder head sealing surface leaks due to case studs stripping threads
> out of the case. You'll know this when your brand new muffler sounds like
> it is falling off under acceleration.
> Ever present oil leaks from the case crack developing in the number 3
> cylinder area behind the flywheel (ok...prop drive).
> Loss of oil pressure at low rpm due to case separating at the center main
> bearing area.
> Flat cams and worn lifters due to great German metallurgy.
> New version of air-cooling when rod escapes confines of case.
> And on...and on...and on...
>
> Granted, all of these things can be fixed with a generous infusion of
> money, maybe two shoe-boxes full of 20's will do the trick. But the basic
> idea is that this engine isn't adequate to push around a 1500 pound car at
> part throttle let alone an aircraft. And by the time it is capable, it is
> more a Lycoming (no great accomplishment in itself) than a VW i.e. a
> horizontally opposed four cylinder engine in the same vein as a
> water-cooled chevy based aircraft engine is no more a chevy than a Nascar
> prepped race engine with origins in a dozen speed part catalogs.
>
> A common statement by some of the longer haired VW owners ( this was the
> 70's) was that VW's were great because they were easy to work on to which
> I would reply that is fortunate as one works on them a lot. We made a lot
> of money off those types. Now today, would the owner of a present day
> vehicle, with all of the subsequent technology advances, put up with that
> repair frequency? Oh wait! They do! They are called Volvo, Mercedes and
> BMW owners.
>
> If you are going to rely on a VW or other small displacement engine to
> keep your aircraft an aircraft and not a smoking hole full of parts, build
> it with the best parts possible with the best information available and
> don't skimp.
>
> By the way, I'm have not been immune from thinking poorly or emotionally.
> In the 80's, I raced a Ducati bevel-drive twin in AMA Twins. It developed
> enough horsepower to break cases every two races. I welded a chain to it
> and took it fishing once. When I was done fishing, I cut the anchor chain
> and went home.
>
> Gotta realize when you have gone down a road too far...
>
> Ready for flames now...
>
> Dale Alexander
>
I appologise for reading this thread a little belatedly; but this is quite
interesting, and my own rather limited experience with the earlier 1200cc VW
engines suggests that there is much more than a grain or two of truth in it.
Actually, I do suspect that a lot of owners may have shortened their times
between service by shifting to the next higher gear in the belief that they
were saving fuel and extending their engine life--in much the same way that
many homebuilders opt for a more coarsely pitched prop in the belief that it
is easier on the engine and will also save fuel. However, we did have far
more trouble than might have been expected after putting in one of the "big
bore" kits, which raised the displacement to a little less than 1400cc, when
rebuilding one of our 1200cc VW engines.

In any case, although I greatly respect Bob Hoover, I had been about to
dispute his horsepower figures--simply on the basis that around 3200, or
even 3400, RPM seems like a reasonable speed for a prop small enough for the
torque of a 1600cc direct drive engine. A large part of that was because of
my own affection for relatively "slippery" designs, and is really not
applicable to any of the slower designs, such as most of the biplanes and
parasols. Just as an example, a carefully built KR-2 should really only
need about 30 HP or so to maintain a 100 to 105 knot cruising speed, and a
1600cc engine should be able to do that--with enough excess torque available
for the takeoff and climb. Not an extreme performer; but, at least on its
face, seemingly a reasonable goal.

However, given your additional experience to suggest that my own was not an
isolated case, it may indeed be more reasonable to think of the 1200cc VW as
a 25 HP engine--as it was considered for the old Jodel D-9 and several other
aircraft of that period. That would conveniently scale up to about 37 HP
for a 1600cc engine--and a little more rpm would add more horsepower at the
expense of a little thrust at low speeds and a very strict time limit on the
use of high power. But that was only the bad news--the worse news is that
all of this suggests that the cruising power limit for the 1600cc VW might
only be 70 to 75% of 37 HP--and that is about 26 to 28 HP, which is really
only enough for some of the single seaters!

Obviously, larger displacement and some of the purpose built kits and parts
should help; but I have no idea how much.

Peter :-(

[[email protected]]

On Jan 29, 11:57 am, Anthony W > wrote:

> Out of curiosity what is your opinion of the Corvair engine?
______________________________________________-

Excellent.

It is a modern engine, with full-flow oil filtration, hydraulic cam
followers and a modern valve train. It also has more bearing area per
HP and a crankshaft that facilitates installation of a propeller.

I suggest you either leave the thing perfectly stock, including the
blower, as used by Bernard Pietenpol, or buy William Wynne's
conversion manual and follow it religiously.

-R.S.Hoover

[ULWA]

Here you go...
Some assembly required.

http://www.aeroconversions.com/aero_vee_2002.html


> wrote in message
...
>I had posted a link to a vid of a 701 weaving through the trees over
> on .piloting.
>
> At some point down the line I expressed interest in a VW powered 701.
>
> One guy said he figured a VW would melt down in an aircraft cowling
> when producing no more that 50HP.
>
> He provided a link to Bob Hoover's blog, which had an entry "The
> Christmas Engine", in which he states pretty flatly that:
>
> 1) No way to get 80 (let alone 100) HP out of an aircooled VW for any
> extended period of time.
> 2) No way to cool an engine at those HP values if you could get them,
> so you either get meltdown or very low time between overhauls.
>
> Bob's blog looks as though he's talking direct drive. That pretty much
> lines up with what I've read on the Great Plains website. GP says you
> can only get higher HP from the VW by PSRU. That I can believe, on the
> general principle that any engine has higher HP at higher RPM. Since
> the VW wasn't designed to spin propellers, well, the best HP values vs
> RPM don't align nicely for a direct drive VW and a propeller, do they?
> That stands to reason.
>
> So I'm asking this: for you VW people builders, what about cooling,
> and is there some dyno data available from VWs spinning props with
> PSRUs and direct drive available? Something somebody has been willing
> to publish?
>
> What about meltdowns? Because if what Bob Hoover says is true then it
> seems to me there's no way Great Plains should be making a living --
> unless their customers never have checked the numbers they GP claims.
> GP has a lot of customers. You'd think they'd be screaming bloody
> murder if they couldn't at least get close to 80 for takeoff.
>
> I'm more concerned with thrust and cooling, though, than some HP
> number.
>
> What gives? What's "the truth"?

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

wrote:

>
> I'm building or should be building) a Hummel Bird, which
> uses a half-VW conversion. What's your take on these things, seeing
> that you have lots of VW experience? My experience with VWs is limited
> to my first car, a '62 Beetle that I spent lots of time fixing, and a
> friend's '59 van. Ditto. Scott Casler claims 37 HP from a 1037 CC two-
> banger. Sounds high.
> For those interested, here's the website: http://www.hummelengines.com/
> Click on the "Hummer 2 Cylinder VW"
>
> Dan

In that case, I'm sure you've heard of Bruce King's Hummel project from
a few years back.

His is perhaps the "most successful" VW powered project - at least in
terms of miles traveled.

Bruce hung a full 1835 on his bird.
The weight difference is small - with no real issues other than weight
and balance.

But what a difference in performance.

Should be links somewhere of the Hummel forums.

Check it out before cutting the engine in half!

Richard

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> I thought this was the first "shot"
>
> "You would have to replace the jug and head to match the aero design.
> And
> then why? So that you could mate you're new heads to a cylinder block
> that has been known to crack just sitting on a shelf waiting to be
> installed?"
>
> I didn't think that was offered in the spirit of answering an honest
> question, but to be aggressive and insulting.

That is where we part ways, with the spirit of the answer.

That, to me, was an important answer concerning the problems of using the VW
engine, pointing out that there were not only problems with heat and the
head, but that the case was another added problem. It was an honest attempt
to inform about yet another reason why the VW had problems. Nothing
personal, to me.
--
Jim in NC

[Scott[_1_]]

And here we have a prime example of why humans communicating via text
rather than voice isn't always the best choice for communicating. It's
convenient, but... One can't pick up subtle clues as to intent via
facial expression or voice inflections, etc. The choice of a word can
be interpreted in more than one way by the receiver.

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

wrote:

>
>
> I thought this was the first "shot"
>
> "You would have to replace the jug and head to match the aero design.
> And
> then why? So that you could mate you're new heads to a cylinder block
> that has been known to crack just sitting on a shelf waiting to be
> installed?"
>
> I didn't think that was offered in the spirit of answering an honest
> question, but to be aggressive and insulting.

--

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

Craig wrote:

> Careful, lest we end up juandering in the forest..
>
> Craig

copy that...



Ok, so...



What we have here is a cute little motor that LOOKS a lot like an
aircraft engine. And it has been use that way for ages - with varying
degrees of success.

We've sorta discussed the problems cooling the heads. This is one of
the major limitations for a happy motor. But not the only one.

There are a few tricks that may help keeping your cool - but it takes
careful attention to detail. And I'm not promising anything!

one - increase the airflow through the heads. Dremel and file out the
cooling passageways. But note that they run vertically through the heads.
That's because in a car the engine has a shroud and a fan to
push air through. But the fan and sheet metal are big, heavy, and
awkward to cowl around.

Depending on whether the heads air exposed to the airflow or buried
inside a cowl, getting air through the cooling passage ways can be
fairly simple - or a real grumpy bear.

Exposed heads almost (ALMOST) take care of themselves. It will help to
add a set of eyebrows on top of the cylinder/head to push air down between
the jugs and through the heads. But pay attention to what's
UNDER the cylinders too.

Air does not like to be pushed around.

An inadvertent high pressure area under the cylinders (like a gap in the
cowl?)
can ruin the whole plan. Yarn and tape and check to see that the air is
really
going into the eyebrows and not simply going around.

For a full cowling, a plenums is IMHO worth the weight, cost and
complexity.
But you have to learn how to design a working plenums
for it to work well (or at all?)


All air cooled engines are really oil cooled. So cooling the oil
makes good sense and pays off in reduced temperatures.

But - don't try to hang an oil cooler remotely and run a bunch of
oil lines back and forth. The wall drag in the tubes can be counter
productive.

Besides the weight. (get used to hearing that because it's a lot more
important than beginners (and many experienced builders)
think/remember/admit.

The VW has a top mounted oil cooler. A small block of aluminum can be
carved into an adapter to mount the stock oil cooler on top of the motor
- laid over 90 degrees (flat across the top).

But for it to work you much convince the air to go through it.
Easier said than done some times.

I had a pretty big hole in the nose end of my cowling. It just HAD
to be pressurizing the inside of the cowl - so the cooler should get
plenty of air. Wrong. Temps hit 210 in only a few minutes climb
and would not come down when throttled back.

Well, yes, I had a nice lip at the aft bottom of the cowl to help
extract the hot air - but...

Short story is I had to add an inlet and duct to the oil cooler because
the exit lip worked REAL well. Air was not going over the top of the
engine.

Next major problem with the VW is that it is a slow turning auto engine
but a real fast spinning airplane motor. It has to turn up RPMs to make
horsepower - but the high RPM means a very short and horrible inefficient
propeller.

Works out sorta ok for light fast planes like the KR but sucks bags
for low and slow baby buggies.

My approach last time was to max out the engine displacement (2180cc!)
and over prop the thing with a 62 inch Tennessee prop. Full power
static RPM was around 2800 and came up to 3200 in flight. But I could
cruise at 2400 and climb well.

Beat the heck out of my first 1600 VW. I had to "step climb" that one.

Takes all the fun out of having fun!


PSRU - Prop Speed Reduction Units

While it looks good on paper, I've not seen many that really lived up
to expectation on the VW. Yes, you can make more power and swing
a bigger prop. But the heads are going to limit that.
And it is more weight...


Now, if you can work within all these limits and still fly the plane
a VW can work very well for you.

It can provide years of fairly dependable service.

But try to hot rod it and you may (or may not) live to regret it.

For what it's worth...

YMMV


Richard

[Anyolmouse]

"cavalamb himself" > wrote in message
...
| Craig wrote:
<SNIP>

| All air cooled engines are really oil cooled. So cooling the oil
| makes good sense and pays off in reduced temperatures.
|
| But - don't try to hang an oil cooler remotely and run a bunch of
| oil lines back and forth. The wall drag in the tubes can be counter
| productive.

<SNIP>

| Richard

Your post is the only one addressing the real problem with VW engines as
being oil temperature. As a test bed I had a '73 VW van 2000cc type IV
carbureted engine rebuilt using German jugs and new heads. Cylinder head
temperature and oil temperature sensors were installed and monitored. A
two hour drive with OAT in the 90's brought the oil temperature up to
250°F and a mandatory long wait for it to cool down. The Cylinder head
temperatures were around 325°F.

Since the type IV has an oil filter I ordered a remote filter kit with
180°F bypass to a Cessna 150 flat plate oil cooler. The stock oil cooler
was left in place and the C-150 cooler was installed in the rear quarter
panel where air from the intake above would pass through the cooler. An
extra fan was not installed or needed.

Several long 70 mph trips were made in western Kansas and eastern
Colorado during 106°F weather. The oil temperature never went above
210°F with this setup. The cylinder head temperatures stayed around
300°F except for the #3 cylinder which sometimes reached 325°. No doubt
due to the placement of the internal cooler.

At a time when most van owners were lucky to get 45K miles out of their
engines I had 89K on it when I sold the van to a teenager. He managed to
destroy the clutch twice and the transaxle once before he sold it and
moved off to college. The engine was still running strong.

--
Anyolmouse


---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

[Griff]

It seems the pilots of Jodel D-18/19's and Menestrel HN-700
aircraft have overlooked the shortcomings of the VW and just made it
work for them. A French group of Menestrel pilots flew their aircraft
to a British fly in last year across the channel,and apparently all
made it.Maybe with the proper care and constraints the VW can be used
safely.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Anyolmouse" > wrote

> Your post is the only one addressing the real problem with VW engines as
> being oil temperature. As a test bed I had a '73 VW van 2000cc type IV
> carbureted engine rebuilt using German jugs and new heads. Cylinder head
> temperature and oil temperature sensors were installed and monitored. A
> two hour drive with OAT in the 90's brought the oil temperature up to
> 250°F and a mandatory long wait for it to cool down. The Cylinder head
> temperatures were around 325°F.

I'm not sure if you are saying that you agree, that keeping the oil cool is
the key, or that the oil stays cool enough.

In any case, an engine in an airplane is going to be running at much higher
sustained HP levels than an engine in a van, or car.

The oil will get hotter with the engine running hard, like in an airplane.
The comment about the air cooled engine being oil and air cooled is valid,
IMHO. The more oil you can move though the head, and the cooler the oil is,
the higher the HP can be without damaging elements in the heads. Still, the
head is going to limit how much power you run, no matter how cool you try to
keep it. The design just limits how much area is exposed to the air, and it
isn't enough.
>
> Since the type IV has an oil filter I ordered a remote filter kit with
> 180°F bypass to a Cessna 150 flat plate oil cooler. The stock oil cooler
> was left in place and the C-150 cooler was installed in the rear quarter
> panel where air from the intake above would pass through the cooler. An
> extra fan was not installed or needed.

Sounds good. I often saw VW vans, especially, but a few cars, with gigantic
air scoops, especially in the mountains. I wondered if they helped, but I
always managed to see more than a few VW's sitting beside the road, smoking.
I felt sorry for them, but at the time, I did not know all about the cooling
problems.

> Several long 70 mph trips were made in western Kansas and eastern
> Colorado during 106°F weather. The oil temperature never went above
> 210°F with this setup. The cylinder head temperatures stayed around
> 300°F except for the #3 cylinder which sometimes reached 325°. No doubt
> due to the placement of the internal cooler.
>
> At a time when most van owners were lucky to get 45K miles out of their
> engines I had 89K on it when I sold the van to a teenager. He managed to
> destroy the clutch twice and the transaxle once before he sold it and
> moved off to college. The engine was still running strong.

I had a Corvair that I drove over 140 thousand miles, and sold it to a guy
that had a dozen or so Corvairs. He put the engine in a van, without
bothering to rebuild it, and it probably did not need it.

I got rid of it because the unibody had rusted to the point that the tops of
the front wheels were leaning in a couple inches. Ohio salt, and jumping
too many Northwestern Ohio rail grade crossings did it in, I guess. You
could get some serious air, with the balance of a Corvair! <G>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Griff" > wrote

> It seems the pilots of Jodel D-18/19's and Menestrel HN-700
> aircraft have overlooked the shortcomings of the VW and just made it
> work for them. A French group of Menestrel pilots flew their aircraft
> to a British fly in last year across the channel,and apparently all
> made it.Maybe with the proper care and constraints the VW can be used
> safely.
I don't think anyone is arguing that point. If you limit the sustained
power output to around 40 HP, and rebuild it occasionally, they are fine.
You have to have a design that is happy with that amount of power.

People just need to know that they will be disappointed, if they expect to
get 80 or more HP sustained from a stock head design VW. It just will not
run with that much heat going though it, at least not very long.
--
Jim in NC

[Anyolmouse]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Anyolmouse" > wrote
|
| > Your post is the only one addressing the real problem with VW
engines as
| > being oil temperature. As a test bed I had a '73 VW van 2000cc type
IV
| > carbureted engine rebuilt using German jugs and new heads. Cylinder
head
| > temperature and oil temperature sensors were installed and
monitored. A
| > two hour drive with OAT in the 90's brought the oil temperature up
to
| > 250°F and a mandatory long wait for it to cool down. The Cylinder
head
| > temperatures were around 325°F.

| I'm not sure if you are saying that you agree, that keeping the oil
cool is
| the key, or that the oil stays cool enough

Keeping the oil cool is what is important. It helps cool the rest.

| In any case, an engine in an airplane is going to be running at much
higher
| sustained HP levels than an engine in a van, or car.
|
| The oil will get hotter with the engine running hard, like in an
airplane.
| The comment about the air cooled engine being oil and air cooled is
valid,
| IMHO. The more oil you can move though the head, and the cooler the
oil is,
| the higher the HP can be without damaging elements in the heads.
Still, the
| head is going to limit how much power you run, no matter how cool you
try to
| keep it. The design just limits how much area is exposed to the air,
and it
| isn't enough.

I think a four or five hour trip in 106° temperatures running at 70 mph
except for slowing down for a few small towns is a pretty good test. The
van was geared such that 85 mph was tops in speed. BTW, the 210° oil
temp was observed when slowing down in these towns. Not while on the
open highway. While it is true that you will be running from 65% to 75%
power at cruise in an aircraft, you will also be at a lower OAT.

| >
| > Since the type IV has an oil filter I ordered a remote filter kit
with
| > 180°F bypass to a Cessna 150 flat plate oil cooler. The stock oil
cooler
| > was left in place and the C-150 cooler was installed in the rear
quarter
| > panel where air from the intake above would pass through the cooler.
An
| > extra fan was not installed or needed.
|
| Sounds good. I often saw VW vans, especially, but a few cars, with
gigantic
| air scoops, especially in the mountains. I wondered if they helped,
but I
| always managed to see more than a few VW's sitting beside the road,
smoking.
| I felt sorry for them, but at the time, I did not know all about the
cooling
| problems.

The irony is that more VW engines were toasted running with the wind
than into it. The #3 cylinder usually went first because of the oil
cooler location in front of it.

|
| > Several long 70 mph trips were made in western Kansas and eastern
| > Colorado during 106°F weather. The oil temperature never went above
| > 210°F with this setup. The cylinder head temperatures stayed around
| > 300°F except for the #3 cylinder which sometimes reached 325°. No
doubt
| > due to the placement of the internal cooler.
| >
| > At a time when most van owners were lucky to get 45K miles out of
their
| > engines I had 89K on it when I sold the van to a teenager. He
managed to
| > destroy the clutch twice and the transaxle once before he sold it
and
| > moved off to college. The engine was still running strong.
|
| I had a Corvair that I drove over 140 thousand miles, and sold it to a
guy
| that had a dozen or so Corvairs. He put the engine in a van, without
| bothering to rebuild it, and it probably did not need it.
|
| I got rid of it because the unibody had rusted to the point that the
tops of
| the front wheels were leaning in a couple inches. Ohio salt, and
jumping
| too many Northwestern Ohio rail grade crossings did it in, I guess.
You
| could get some serious air, with the balance of a Corvair! <G>
|

It would be nice to have the turbocharged coupe in mint condition <Sigh>

--
Anyolmouse

---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

[Charles Vincent]

Anyolmouse wrote:

>
> I think a four or five hour trip in 106° temperatures running at 70 mph
> except for slowing down for a few small towns is a pretty good test. The
> van was geared such that 85 mph was tops in speed. BTW, the 210° oil
> temp was observed when slowing down in these towns. Not while on the
> open highway. While it is true that you will be running from 65% to 75%
> power at cruise in an aircraft, you will also be at a lower OAT.
>

The engine in your bus does not have a lot in common with the VW engines
people are flying for the most part. You indicated that you had a "type
IV" -- VW's admission that they had taken the "Type II" to an
engineering dead end. The cylinder head on it has more in common with
the late model Corvair than the "Type II" Look at them both and
compare. The late model Corvair was a pretty good mill, with a few
basic mods like the oil pump. I built many of them back when people
were practically giving them away. I had a friend that even had a
Corvair engine in a helicopter -- though to be honest, I never saw it
fly.

Charles

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Charles Vincent wrote:

> I had a friend that even had a
> Corvair engine in a helicopter -- though to be honest, I never saw it fly.
>
> Charles

Now that I'd like to see.

[Charles Vincent]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Charles Vincent wrote:
>
>> I had a friend that even had a Corvair engine in a helicopter --
>> though to be honest, I never saw it fly.
>>
>> Charles
>
> Now that I'd like to see.

As I understand his was built under government contract. This is not
his, as I never took pictures but here are a couple corvair copters:

www.flycorvair.com/email031605.html

http://www.corvair.de/n2vzd/chelio1.jpg
http://www.corvair.de/n2vzd/chelio2.jpg
http://www.corvair.de/n2vzd/chelio3.jpg

Charles

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:13:25 -0800 (PST), Griff >
wrote:

> It seems the pilots of Jodel D-18/19's and Menestrel HN-700
>aircraft have overlooked the shortcomings of the VW and just made it
>work for them. A French group of Menestrel pilots flew their aircraft
>to a British fly in last year across the channel,and apparently all
>made it.Maybe with the proper care and constraints the VW can be used
>safely.
>
On a D9 it is a fantastic engine. Anything that will fly on 15-20HP
and take off on 40 or 50, you're gold.
Any slow draggy plane, or any 2 seater, and you are pushing it.

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

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Charles Vincent wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Charles Vincent wrote:
>>
>>> I had a friend that even had a Corvair engine in a helicopter --
>>> though to be honest, I never saw it fly.
>>>
>>> Charles
>>
>> Now that I'd like to see.
>
> As I understand his was built under government contract. This is not
> his, as I never took pictures but here are a couple corvair copters:
>
> www.flycorvair.com/email031605.html
>
> http://www.corvair.de/n2vzd/chelio1.jpg
> http://www.corvair.de/n2vzd/chelio2.jpg
> http://www.corvair.de/n2vzd/chelio3.jpg
>
> Charles

I can't beleive that I never saw that on WW site. Seeing as he is
building my engine I thought I had read every page there.

Interesting that he makes no comment about using a Corvair in a
helicopter. It would be very unlike WW not to if he thought it was a bad
idea. I'll have to ask him about it next time we talk.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 30, 5:29*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> > wrote
>
> > I thought this was the first "shot"
>
> > "You would have to replace the jug and head to match the aero design.
> > And
> > then why? So that you could mate you're new heads to a cylinder block
> > that has been known to crack just sitting on a shelf waiting to be
> > installed?"
>
> > I didn't think that was offered in the spirit of answering an honest
> > question, but to be aggressive and insulting.
>
> That is where we part ways, with the spirit of the answer.
>
> That, to me, was an important answer concerning the problems of using the VW
> engine, pointing out that there were not only problems with heat and the
> head, but that the case was another added problem. *It was an honest attempt
> to inform about yet another reason why the VW had problems. *Nothing
> personal, to me.
> --
> Jim in NC

I hear you.

Sometimes usenet erupts into brawls, like in a bar when people get
drunk and talk too abrasively.

Anyway the overall trend of the thread is back where I hoped it would
go to begin with.

[[email protected]]

> But try to hot rod it and you may (or may not) live to regret it.
>
> For what it's worth...
>
> YMMV
>
> Richard

Thanks, Richard, for sharing all those insights and experiences.

[Anyolmouse]

"Charles Vincent" > wrote in message
t...
| Anyolmouse wrote:
|
| >
| > I think a four or five hour trip in 106° temperatures running at 70
mph
| > except for slowing down for a few small towns is a pretty good test.
The
| > van was geared such that 85 mph was tops in speed. BTW, the 210° oil
| > temp was observed when slowing down in these towns. Not while on the
| > open highway. While it is true that you will be running from 65% to
75%
| > power at cruise in an aircraft, you will also be at a lower OAT.
| >
|
| The engine in your bus does not have a lot in common with the VW
engines
| people are flying for the most part. You indicated that you had a
"type
| IV" -- VW's admission that they had taken the "Type II" to an
| engineering dead end. The cylinder head on it has more in common
with
| the late model Corvair than the "Type II" Look at them both and
| compare. The late model Corvair was a pretty good mill, with a few
| basic mods like the oil pump. I built many of them back when people
| were practically giving them away. I had a friend that even had a
| Corvair engine in a helicopter -- though to be honest, I never saw it
| fly.
|
| Charles
|

Point taken. It was used in the mid engine Porsche 914 also. Probably
the only reason Type I's were used for aero applications was their
availability. Later, when the type II and IV's were more available the
off roaders started using them along with the van/bus trannies instead
of the weaker type I engines and trannies. My plan was to use the type
IV instead of the type I engine. But, I lost my medical which ended all
of that.

--
Anyolmouse

---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Anyolmouse" > wrote

> It would be nice to have the turbocharged coupe (Corvair) in mint
> condition <Sigh>

You can say that again. I've come close to going looking for one, a couple
times. What great cars they were. The turbo model was a poor man's
Corvette.

Nah, the Corvair would make the Corvette look silly, in the corners! :-)
--
Jim in NC

[Anyolmouse]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Anyolmouse" > wrote
|
| > It would be nice to have the turbocharged coupe (Corvair) in mint
| > condition <Sigh>
|
| You can say that again. I've come close to going looking for one, a
couple
| times. What great cars they were. The turbo model was a poor man's
| Corvette.
|
| Nah, the Corvair would make the Corvette look silly, in the corners!
:-)
| --
| Jim in NC
|
|

My low powered 1959 Bug Eyed AH Sprite made Vets look silly in the
corners. Soon as we hit a straight away, the Vet was no where to be
seen.

--
Anyolmouse

---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Charles Vincent" > wrote

> As I understand his was built under government contract. This is not his,
> as I never took pictures but here are a couple corvair copters:
>
> www.flycorvair.com/email031605.html
>
> http://www.corvair.de/n2vzd/chelio1.jpg
> http://www.corvair.de/n2vzd/chelio2.jpg
> http://www.corvair.de/n2vzd/chelio3.jpg

Nice! Is that a single seater?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Anyolmouse" > wrote

> My low powered 1959 Bug Eyed AH Sprite made Vets look silly in the
> corners. Soon as we hit a straight away, the Vet was no where to be
> seen.

Yep, but from what my dad said (he test drove a friends turbo) when the
turbo kicks in, it puts you right back in your seat. He said at some unreal
speed, he let off of it; it finally scared him!

I'll give the Vet the top end, because I'm sure the 'Vair did not have
anywhere near the top end, but I'd like to see a 45 MPH roll on, turbo Vair
against a Vet.

Now, if you want to make sure you leave the Vet eating Corvair dust, there
was a kit available back in the day that would insure just that.

The kit turned the transaxle 180 degrees, then you bolted up a 327 Chevy
V-8, right to it. Add a van type of cover over the engine in what used to
be the back seat, add a radiator, some sway bars, other suspension mods, and
some wide rear tires, and say goodbye to everything on the road.

I saw a write up in one of the car magazines of the day, and they raved over
it. I would love to have one!

Well, this thread has wandered far enough off topic. I'll cease and all
that stuff! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

"Anyolmouse" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Charles Vincent" > wrote in message
> t...
> | Anyolmouse wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > I think a four or five hour trip in 106° temperatures running at 70
> mph
> | > except for slowing down for a few small towns is a pretty good test.
> The
> | > van was geared such that 85 mph was tops in speed. BTW, the 210° oil
> | > temp was observed when slowing down in these towns. Not while on the
> | > open highway. While it is true that you will be running from 65% to
> 75%
> | > power at cruise in an aircraft, you will also be at a lower OAT.
> | >
> |
> | The engine in your bus does not have a lot in common with the VW
> engines
> | people are flying for the most part. You indicated that you had a
> "type
> | IV" -- VW's admission that they had taken the "Type II" to an
> | engineering dead end. The cylinder head on it has more in common
> with
> | the late model Corvair than the "Type II" Look at them both and
> | compare. The late model Corvair was a pretty good mill, with a few
> | basic mods like the oil pump. I built many of them back when people
> | were practically giving them away. I had a friend that even had a
> | Corvair engine in a helicopter -- though to be honest, I never saw it
> | fly.
> |
> | Charles
> |
>
> Point taken. It was used in the mid engine Porsche 914 also. Probably
> the only reason Type I's were used for aero applications was their
> availability. Later, when the type II and IV's were more available the
> off roaders started using them along with the van/bus trannies instead
> of the weaker type I engines and trannies. My plan was to use the type
> IV instead of the type I engine. But, I lost my medical which ended all
> of that.
>
> --
> Anyolmouse
>
IIRC, the Type IV was said to be at least 50 pounds heavier than the 1600
and the exhaust was routed differently--although the exhaust routing was
much more in keeping with normal aircraft practice and probably contributed
to more efficient cooling fin placement on the heads.

In any case, they seemed to be sufficiently available--although they did
bring a higher price.

BTW, I was long gone from the dune buggy crowd by that time, and never knwe
that the Type IV had caught on with them.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Anyolmouse" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Anyolmouse" > wrote
> |
> | > It would be nice to have the turbocharged coupe (Corvair) in mint
> | > condition <Sigh>
> |
> | You can say that again. I've come close to going looking for one, a
> couple
> | times. What great cars they were. The turbo model was a poor man's
> | Corvette.
> |
> | Nah, the Corvair would make the Corvette look silly, in the corners!
> :-)
> | --
> | Jim in NC
> |
> |
>
> My low powered 1959 Bug Eyed AH Sprite made Vets look silly in the
> corners. Soon as we hit a straight away, the Vet was no where to be
> seen.
>
> --
> Anyolmouse
>
Too true. :-(

Peter

[[email protected]]

> Robert Padget's 1/2 VW parasol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eps0zQP2SeE
>
> Paul Hammond's 1600 VW parasol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSxM-BrXnd0
>
> takeoff:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0fRqMUoUc
>
> landinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jrHDvyJ4c
>
> The trials and tribulations of a new motor (VW)...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjqfUM5xlw

Hah. Good to have patient friends!

Those parasols look fun. I want to look them up on the 'net. What are
they?

[[email protected]]

> Robert Padget's 1/2 VW parasol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eps0zQP2SeE
>
> Paul Hammond's 1600 VW parasol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSxM-BrXnd0
>
> takeoff:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0fRqMUoUc
>
> landinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jrHDvyJ4c
>
> The trials and tribulations of a new motor (VW)...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjqfUM5xlw

Ah they are your design! Very cool!!!

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

wrote:
>>But try to hot rod it and you may (or may not) live to regret it.
>>
>>For what it's worth...
>>
>>YMMV
>>
>>Richard
>
>
> Thanks, Richard, for sharing all those insights and experiences.
>
>



Robert Padget's 1/2 VW parasol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eps0zQP2SeE


Paul Hammond's 1600 VW parasol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSxM-BrXnd0

takeoff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0fRqMUoUc

landing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jrHDvyJ4c


The trials and tribulations of a new motor (VW)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjqfUM5xlw

[Peter Dohm]

"cavalamb himself" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>>>Robert Padget's 1/2 VW parasol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eps0zQP2SeE
>>>
>>>Paul Hammond's 1600 VW parasol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSxM-BrXnd0
>>>
>>>takeoff:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0fRqMUoUc
>>>
>>>landinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jrHDvyJ4c
>>>
>>>The trials and tribulations of a new motor
>>>(VW)...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjqfUM5xlw
>>
>>
>> Hah. Good to have patient friends!
>>
>> Those parasols look fun. I want to look them up on the 'net. What are
>> they?
>
>
>
> You can find links to the (free!) plans download here.
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/parasol.htm
>
I thought I recognized those airplanes.

BTW, that type of flying really does look like more fun each year.

Peter

[[email protected]]

>
> A collaboration of half a dozen guys.
>
> * * (open source?)
>
> I drew up the plans and wrote the manual.

Argh! ;)

Well I don't have anything against collaboration, paid or not.

Off T: open source is really important when it comes to some thing:
like computer security & encryption code. I don't agree with the
spirit behind GNU though, which insists that people have a right to
know how something works makes it so no one could ever add something
unique and secret to the code and sell it. I think if you change it,
want to keep it secret, okay.

On T: If you have a PPL is there anything additional to do for ultra
lights? What if a Texas Parasol comes in heavier than UL? Is it then
just an experimental category?

I am looking at the drawings and so on. Not a very big parts list.
Must be cheaper than the teenie two. What do the materials cost for
the airframe, about?

Really amazing and fun looking. Zuehl, eh? Don't those jets out of
Randolph give you guys a fright?

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:27:01 -0800, cavalamb himself
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>>>Robert Padget's 1/2 VW parasol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eps0zQP2SeE
>>>
>>>Paul Hammond's 1600 VW parasol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSxM-BrXnd0
>>>
>>>takeoff:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0fRqMUoUc
>>>
>>>landinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jrHDvyJ4c
>>>
>>>The trials and tribulations of a new motor (VW)...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjqfUM5xlw
>>
>>
>> Ah they are your design! Very cool!!!
>
>
>
>A collaboration of half a dozen guys.
>
> (open source?)
>
>I drew up the plans and wrote the manual.

Not to stir up a hornets nest - but just one question. Has the wing
deficiency been addressed?
Google and search archives. I won't say any more. Richard knows what
I'm talking about He should be able to give you a yes or no, as well
as the details of any changes it the answer is yes. If the answer is
no, caveat your emptor - do your homework, etc etc etc.

Nothing personal, Richard..

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

[[email protected]]

> Doesn't matter what speed you run the V Dub, the stock cyl heads do
> not have enough fin area to shed the heat of more than 40-50HP
> longterm..

Several of ya'll have referred to "stock" cyclinder heads and not
enough fin area.

Are there non-stock cylinder heads, then?

Since this heating problem has been known since the fifties it seems
like somebody would have come up with some heads (and jugs) that have
a lot more fin area. Like a Corvair -- or an aero engine. I've seen
two european companies that seem to be trying to address the heating
limitations of VWs that way.

I'm not even thinking here of somebody wanting to do an aero
conversion, but, since the aftermarket for VW keeps on going and going
that somebody doing racing or dunebuggies or just new or rebuilts for
VWs would have done such a head. I've looked on sites like
aircooled.net before I ever posted here but did not see.

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

wrote:
>>Robert Padget's 1/2 VW parasol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eps0zQP2SeE
>>
>>Paul Hammond's 1600 VW parasol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSxM-BrXnd0
>>
>>takeoff:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0fRqMUoUc
>>
>>landinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jrHDvyJ4c
>>
>>The trials and tribulations of a new motor (VW)...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjqfUM5xlw
>
>
> Hah. Good to have patient friends!
>
> Those parasols look fun. I want to look them up on the 'net. What are
> they?



You can find links to the (free!) plans download here.

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/parasol.htm

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

wrote:

>>Robert Padget's 1/2 VW parasol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eps0zQP2SeE
>>
>>Paul Hammond's 1600 VW parasol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSxM-BrXnd0
>>
>>takeoff:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0fRqMUoUc
>>
>>landinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jrHDvyJ4c
>>
>>The trials and tribulations of a new motor (VW)...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjqfUM5xlw
>
>
> Ah they are your design! Very cool!!!



A collaboration of half a dozen guys.

(open source?)

I drew up the plans and wrote the manual.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 30, 8:24 pm, wrote:
>
> Are there non-stock cylinder heads, then?
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes there are, as a matter of fact. There are a number of after-
market heads intended for the HOT-ROD market, designed specifically to
deal with the CRACKING problem. They do this by casting the
combustion chamber almost half an inch THICKER. Unfortunately, this
results in LESS fin-area than before, which makes these heads even
LESS useful for flying VW conversions than the stock heads.
Enormously popular, of course :-)

So why didn't they address the REAL problem of inadequate fin area?
Because that would increase either the cost or the SIZE of the
cylinder heads.

Increase the physical size of the heads and they won't fit the stock
shrouding, meaning you'll be forced to modify virtually everything
that attaches to the heads -- upper (and lower) shrouding, intake &
exhaust manifolding... by which time the heads will be too expensive
for the Kiddie Trade, which is what they were designed for to begin
with.

Or, you can cast the heads as a block and MACHINE the fins so as to
give more fin area. Unfortunately, when you do so you run into the
same problem of high cost.

As for flying VW's and those of us who have forty or more years of
working with them, we have tried welding on additional fin-area, the
so-called 'Fat Fin' modification -- which DOES work... if you're
willing to devote lotsa money & time to it. Or you can read about
various experiments with liquid-cooled heads -- which also works... if
you can afford the radiator(s), pump(s), plumbing and WEIGHT that goes
with it.

But do all that you run into a very real -- but subtle -- limitation,
in that the BEARING AREA of the VW rods & crank was simply not
designed for LONG-TERM RELIABILITY at high levels of output. And
there is no work-around for that particular problem, although full-
flow oil filtration and the mods to the lubrication system -- that
were developed starting in the late 1950's -- provides for some
improvement (ie, the HVX mods).

Which leaves you with PSRU's -- torque multipliers -- which, in
theory, should allow you to operate the engine at higher rpm without
exceeding the inherent limitations of the crank & rods. But that's
only true if you address the cooling problems in a realistic fashion.

Put all that together and you'll have the equivalent of Rotax 912...
and for about the same price (!!) ...but at significantly more weight.

Don't take my word for any of this. Hit the books. Build some
engines. THINK FOR YOURSELF. Get stuck into it, you're only about
four years and maybe ten thousand dollars away from REALLY knowing
about VW conversions. Of course, once you arrive there no one will
believe you anyway :-) People believe what they WANT to be true. And
there are plenty of hucksters out there eager to prey upon that
ignorance.

After eight or ten years of fumbling around you're going to have to
decide if you want to spend all of your time tinkering with engines or
building an airframe that will probably never fly. Of course, those
things reflect the social aspect of homebuilding... which today makes
up about 99% of ALL homebuilt activities.

If on the off chance you're actually interested in FLYING then simply
follow the well-trodden path to a VP-1 or Teenie Two, bang it out --
keeping it as light as possible -- stick a STOCK 1600VW on the nose...
and go fly. You don't absolutely need to jump through all the FAA's
hoops -- there's no traffic cops in the sky. You will have divorced
yourself from the SOCIAL aspects of aviation more than the legal, but
if your primary interest is FLYING you will find it's an itch that's
pretty easy to scratch.

-R.S.Hoover




> Since this heating problem has been known since the fifties it seems
> like somebody would have come up with some heads (and jugs) that have
> a lot more fin area. Like a Corvair -- or an aero engine. I've seen
> two european companies that seem to be trying to address the heating
> limitations of VWs that way.
>
> I'm not even thinking here of somebody wanting to do an aero
> conversion, but, since the aftermarket for VW keeps on going and going
> that somebody doing racing or dunebuggies or just new or rebuilts for
> VWs would have done such a head. I've looked on sites like
> aircooled.net before I ever posted here but did not se

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

wrote:
>>A collaboration of half a dozen guys.
>>
>> (open source?)
>>
>>I drew up the plans and wrote the manual.
>
>
> Argh! ;)
>
> Well I don't have anything against collaboration, paid or not.
>
> Off T: open source is really important when it comes to some thing:
> like computer security & encryption code. I don't agree with the
> spirit behind GNU though, which insists that people have a right to
> know how something works makes it so no one could ever add something
> unique and secret to the code and sell it. I think if you change it,
> want to keep it secret, okay.
>
> On T: If you have a PPL is there anything additional to do for ultra
> lights? What if a Texas Parasol comes in heavier than UL? Is it then
> just an experimental category?

About 302 or so was the lightest one I've seen so it fell into the
fat catagory - which expires in 9,8,7,6... days

So you really need a PPL - or a big farm?


> I am looking at the drawings and so on. Not a very big parts list.
> Must be cheaper than the teenie two. What do the materials cost for
> the airframe, about?

Roughly $800 for the basics on my past one.
But I spent more that that on the finish (stits polyfiber)
oh - and the motor (don't ask!)

> Really amazing and fun looking. Zuehl, eh? Don't those jets out of
> Randolph give you guys a fright?
>

Golly no!

If they get below a couple thousand feet, they scramble the crash crew.

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:27:01 -0800, cavalamb himself
> > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Robert Padget's 1/2 VW parasol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eps0zQP2SeE
>>>>
>>>>Paul Hammond's 1600 VW parasol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSxM-BrXnd0
>>>>
>>>>takeoff:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0fRqMUoUc
>>>>
>>>>landinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jrHDvyJ4c
>>>>
>>>>The trials and tribulations of a new motor (VW)...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjqfUM5xlw
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah they are your design! Very cool!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>A collaboration of half a dozen guys.
>>
>> (open source?)
>>
>>I drew up the plans and wrote the manual.
>
>
> Not to stir up a hornets nest - but just one question. Has the wing
> deficiency been addressed?
> Google and search archives. I won't say any more. Richard knows what
> I'm talking about He should be able to give you a yes or no, as well
> as the details of any changes it the answer is yes. If the answer is
> no, caveat your emptor - do your homework, etc etc etc.
>
> Nothing personal, Richard..

>

Understood, Clare.

It's something that has to be addressed.


Absolutely no change.

And none is needed.

And - to the frustration of all nay sayers everywhere - they are all

still

flying.


See, the deal is, with this light of a plane and all the drag, you
simply can't pull more than 2 1/2 G's before the thing mushes out.
(it's not really a stall either).

BUT!!!!

If someone really just HAS make it stronger - just because - please feel
free to do so.

All it takes is a 2-1/4" diameter tube for the front spar and 2-1/8"
sleeves.


Like I said in the book - "This is how we do it down here".


Ok?

[[email protected]]

> Put all that together and you'll have the equivalent of Rotax 912...
> and for about the same price (!!) ...but at significantly more weight.
>

You've covered all the things I had thought of or seen for sale;
yes ... after all of that thinking and measuring and modifying you
have spent a good bit $$$ to get homemade version of Rotax 912.

> Don't take my word for any of this. *Hit the books. *Build some
> engines. *THINK FOR YOURSELF. *Get stuck into it, you're only about
> four years and maybe ten thousand dollars away from REALLY knowing
> about VW conversions. *Of course, once you arrive there no one will
> believe you anyway :-) *People believe what they WANT to be true. *And
> there are plenty of hucksters out there eager to prey upon that
> ignorance.

Trying to modify engines beyond what they were originally engineered
to do has got to bring the problems. No silver bullet, but all you see
in the brochures is SILVER.

It's easy to be drawn in if you aren't careful. You have to ask
questions of REAL VW conversion folks if you haven't yet stepped into
the arena. I looked around at places like GP and Aeroconversions and
they have these products claiming 80 - 100 HP. You read on
aircooled.net that it's possible to get that 80 - 100 out of the
engine. But all of the people saying that are SELLING engines and
engine components.

The people in the trenches say "uh-uh" and provide technical details
about why not. Where's the technical details of problems on GP or in
Aerocon? Well. I imagine they provide assembly manuals -- but not
critically thinking and problem averting conversion manuals like
Wynne's conversion book for Corvairs (I'm so impressed with Wynne's
approach that I don't even know how to applaud it enough). Testing
man, and telling the truth about it, and LEARNING from the one's
who've done it.

I don't know why that's so hard for so many -- to listen to those
who've been there. I think it's easy.

> After eight or ten years of fumbling around you're going to have to
> decide if you want to spend all of your time tinkering with engines or
> building an airframe that will probably never fly. *Of course, those
> things reflect the social aspect of homebuilding... which today makes
> up about 99% of ALL homebuilt activities.

I like tinkering with engines but not THIS MUCH!!!

> If on the off chance you're actually interested in FLYING then simply
> follow the well-trodden path to a VP-1 or Teenie Two, bang it out --
> keeping it as light as possible -- stick a STOCK 1600VW on the nose...
> and go fly. *You don't absolutely need to jump through all the FAA's
> hoops -- there's no traffic cops in the sky. *You will have divorced
> yourself from the SOCIAL aspects of aviation more than the legal, but
> if your primary interest is FLYING you will find it's an itch that's
> pretty easy to scratch.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

That's right. I like building things, but I keep looking up at the
planes and thinking, I gotta be able to do that for less than $90 an
hour ... I like that part every bit as much.

If I stick with the 701 I'll see how Wynne's corvair conversion works
out and take a lesson from that. If I don't stick with the 701 I'll
pick one of the smaller designs that looks really fun and I've been
researching over the last year or so (Thatcher, Teenie, others, and
now maybe Texas Parasol!) and use a stock VW.

Thanks again. This is the kind of info I knew was out there with the
people who have been working on VWs but not writing conversion manuals
about them.

[[email protected]]

> About 302 or so was the lightest one I've seen so it fell into the
> fat catagory - which expires in 9,8,7,6... days
>
> So you really need a PPL - or a big farm?
>

Er, uh ... what? I don't get.

I've got a PPL and ... hmm ... I'd like to have a big farm with a
grass strip ... don't want to "buy the farm"?

I suppose what I'm asking is -- if you build a TP and it comes in
heavier (say you want to make the wing or structure stronger, for some
reason), you then have to certify it in the regular old experimental
or elsa category?

Or will TPs be "invalid" in a few more days? ;)

And I will go look at the FAR to understand ultra-light requirements.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

wrote:
>> About 302 or so was the lightest one I've seen so it fell into the
>> fat catagory - which expires in 9,8,7,6... days
>>
>> So you really need a PPL - or a big farm?
>>
>
> Er, uh ... what? I don't get.
>
> I've got a PPL and ... hmm ... I'd like to have a big farm with a
> grass strip ... don't want to "buy the farm"?
>
> I suppose what I'm asking is -- if you build a TP and it comes in
> heavier (say you want to make the wing or structure stronger, for some
> reason), you then have to certify it in the regular old experimental
> or elsa category?
>
> Or will TPs be "invalid" in a few more days? ;)
>
> And I will go look at the FAR to understand ultra-light requirements.
>


I assume the previous poster with his countdown was talking about the
E-LSA exemption for fat ULs. After Jan. 31 2008 (today). This was an
exemption designed to allow aircraft that had been flying without
meeting the UL standards to become legal. If your registered your
aircraft under the E-LSA exemption you would then need an LSA
certificate or better to fly it. After today the only aircraft that can
be registered as E-LSA are those that are kits sold by the manufacturer
of S-LSA class aircraft that match the S-LSA aircraft. And you can't
build them in any way different from the way the kit designer tells you.

[Anyolmouse]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Anyolmouse" > wrote
|
| > My low powered 1959 Bug Eyed AH Sprite made Vets look silly in the
| > corners. Soon as we hit a straight away, the Vet was no where to be
| > seen.
|
| Yep, but from what my dad said (he test drove a friends turbo) when
the
| turbo kicks in, it puts you right back in your seat. He said at some
unreal
| speed, he let off of it; it finally scared him!
|
| I'll give the Vet the top end, because I'm sure the 'Vair did not have
| anywhere near the top end, but I'd like to see a 45 MPH roll on, turbo
Vair
| against a Vet.
|
| Now, if you want to make sure you leave the Vet eating Corvair dust,
there
| was a kit available back in the day that would insure just that.
|
| The kit turned the transaxle 180 degrees, then you bolted up a 327
Chevy
| V-8, right to it. Add a van type of cover over the engine in what
used to
| be the back seat, add a radiator, some sway bars, other suspension
mods, and
| some wide rear tires, and say goodbye to everything on the road.
|
| I saw a write up in one of the car magazines of the day, and they
raved over
| it. I would love to have one!
|
| Well, this thread has wandered far enough off topic. I'll cease and
all
| that stuff! <g>
| --
| Jim in NC
|

Known as a sleeper <G> When I was in high school one of the guys had a
Chevy delivery van with a 6 cylinder in it. He left in the smoking,
noisy 6 and installed a souped up 55 Chevy V-8 just behind the front
seat that was connected to the drive train. He would pull up to a stop
light and rev up the 6 to get a drag race. He would sucker them in by
letting them win at least once before he took their money.

I agree this has gotten too far OT. But fun!

--
Anyolmouse

---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...

That's right. I like building things, but I keep looking up at the
planes and thinking, I gotta be able to do that for less than $90 an
hour ... I like that part every bit as much.

If I stick with the 701 I'll see how Wynne's corvair conversion works
out and take a lesson from that. If I don't stick with the 701 I'll
pick one of the smaller designs that looks really fun and I've been
researching over the last year or so (Thatcher, Teenie, others, and
now maybe Texas Parasol!) and use a stock VW.

Thanks again. This is the kind of info I knew was out there with the
people who have been working on VWs but not writing conversion manuals
about them.

----------------------------------------------------------
(The lack of quoted line markers is due to continued news reader problems)

Just be very afraid of trying to build the lightest engine of its type ever
successfully flown--those harmonic dampeners that are approximately matched
to the crankshaft and flywheel (or starter disk) weights are there for a
reason. The crank doesn't break right away, but is a gradual process of
internal damage until the "symptom" of a failed engine suddenly occurs!

So, stay with the tried and true. That way, at least, you will have a good
idea of the reliable service life of the system (and any warning signs to
watch) before you start.

Peter

[[email protected]]

On Jan 29, 7:20 pm, " > wrote:

> If I wanted a two-cylinder air cooled engine I'd go buy one, following
> the lead of Leeon Davis.

What engine did he use? I did a quick Google but all I
could find was a reference to a 40-hp two-banger in his airplane. No
details.
Found, too, that Leeon has died. Too bad.

Dan

[Peter Dohm]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>>> About 302 or so was the lightest one I've seen so it fell into the
>>> fat catagory - which expires in 9,8,7,6... days
>>>
>>> So you really need a PPL - or a big farm?
>>>
>>
>> Er, uh ... what? I don't get.
>>
>> I've got a PPL and ... hmm ... I'd like to have a big farm with a
>> grass strip ... don't want to "buy the farm"?
>>
>> I suppose what I'm asking is -- if you build a TP and it comes in
>> heavier (say you want to make the wing or structure stronger, for some
>> reason), you then have to certify it in the regular old experimental
>> or elsa category?
>>
>> Or will TPs be "invalid" in a few more days? ;)
>>
>> And I will go look at the FAR to understand ultra-light requirements.
>>
>
>
> I assume the previous poster with his countdown was talking about the
> E-LSA exemption for fat ULs. After Jan. 31 2008 (today). This was an
> exemption designed to allow aircraft that had been flying without meeting
> the UL standards to become legal. If your registered your aircraft under
> the E-LSA exemption you would then need an LSA certificate or better to
> fly it. After today the only aircraft that can be registered as E-LSA are
> those that are kits sold by the manufacturer of S-LSA class aircraft that
> match the S-LSA aircraft. And you can't build them in any way different
> from the way the kit designer tells you.
>
However, as mentioned several times elsewhere, amateur built experimentals
which happen to fit the LSA definitions of weight, speed, etc can be used as
LSA.

Ultralight Vehicles are defined under Part 103, and the limitations include
a maximum weight of 254 pounds, plus an allowance for a ballistic recovery
parachute if so equipped, in the case of land planes. According to wide
spread rumor, strict enforcement of Part 103 has rarely (if ever) been a
strong priority in the past; but that is presumed subject to change with the
end of the grace period--during which non conforming ultralights were
invited to registere and become LSA. BTW, fully conforming ultralights
could do the same; although the motivation to do so is subtle because it is
based upon individual usage--and once the status is changed, the newly
created LSA can no longer be an ultralight vehicle.

No guarantees; but if you parse it carefully, I believe that I got the sense
of it.

Peter

[Charles Vincent]

wrote:
> On Jan 29, 7:20 pm, " > wrote:
>
>> If I wanted a two-cylinder air cooled engine I'd go buy one, following
>> the lead of Leeon Davis.
>
> What engine did he use? I did a quick Google but all I
> could find was a reference to a 40-hp two-banger in his airplane. No
> details.
> Found, too, that Leeon has died. Too bad.
>
> Dan
>
>
>

This posting has information and links:

http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/rec.aviation.homebuilt/msg06267.html

Charles

[Charles Vincent]

wrote:
> On Jan 29, 7:20 pm, " > wrote:
>
>> If I wanted a two-cylinder air cooled engine I'd go buy one, following
>> the lead of Leeon Davis.
>
> What engine did he use? I did a quick Google but all I
> could find was a reference to a 40-hp two-banger in his airplane. No
> details.
> Found, too, that Leeon has died. Too bad.
>
> Dan
>
>
>

Here is another link:

http://www.aircraft-spruce.com/da11.html


Charles

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> What engine did he use? I did a quick Google but all I
> could find was a reference to a 40-hp two-banger in his airplane. No
> details.
> Found, too, that Leeon has died. Too bad.

Sorry to hear that, too. He never got around to publishing plans for that
tiny one seater that used the 25 HP Briggs and Stratton lawn mower motor,
either.

I hope whoever gets that plane reverse engineers the plans and makes it
available. That plane is way too cool, to never be duplicated!
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Jan 31, 11:27*am, Charles Vincent > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 7:20 pm, " > wrote:
>
> >> If I wanted a two-cylinder air cooled engine I'd go buy one, following
> >> the lead of Leeon Davis.
>
> > * * * * * *What engine did he use? I did a quick Google but all I
> > could find was a reference to a 40-hp two-banger in his airplane. No
> > details.
> > * * * * * Found, too, that Leeon has died. Too bad.
>
> > * * * * *Dan
>
> Here is another link:
>
> http://www.aircraft-spruce.com/da11.html
>
> Charles

That is fantastic.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:08:51 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>On Jan 29, 7:20 pm, " > wrote:
>
>> If I wanted a two-cylinder air cooled engine I'd go buy one, following
>> the lead of Leeon Davis.
>
> What engine did he use? I did a quick Google but all I
>could find was a reference to a 40-hp two-banger in his airplane. No
>details.
> Found, too, that Leeon has died. Too bad.
>
> Dan
>
>

he used a converted 700cc briggs and stratton V twin vanguard engine.
look for the michel colomban MC30 Luciole ultralight web site.
this has some photos of the converted vanguard engine.

dont launch out and buy any old briggs version for a conversion.
there is one version that has no keyways machined in the crankshaft.
that is the version need for conversion.

Stealth Pilot

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Jan 29, 12:55 pm, wrote:
> > Really? When I look at the VW head image, I see two cylinder heads cast
> > together in a manner that reduces the total fin area and obstructs
> > cooling flow. I see a cylinder head with cylinder stud bosses that not
> > only reduce fin area, but are actually blocking cooling air just where
> > it is needed. Same with the studs themselves. I see a cylinder head
> > with a single pompadour cooling fin in the extremely critical area
> > between the valves and spark plug boss. If you could actually hold a
> > C-85 and VW both in your hand the differences would be even more striking.
>
> > Charles
>
> Has anyone ever tried adapting aero head designs to the VW block and
> cylinders?
>

Can you order them online?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Jan 29, 8:32 pm, wrote:
> > Seems like you shot the first volley across the bow.
>
> > Like saying this: "When I want to know what *you* think is a legitimate
> > pursuit in the experimental aircraft arena I'll ask."
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> I thought this was the first "shot"
>
> "You would have to replace the jug and head to match the aero design.
> And
> then why? So that you could mate you're new heads to a cylinder block
> that has been known to crack just sitting on a shelf waiting to be
> installed?"
>
> I didn't think that was offered in the spirit of answering an honest
> question, but to be aggressive and insulting.

My advice is that if you suspect someone is
being a prick, be polite in turn. You may find
out that he was just a bit gruff. OTOH if
he _is_ a prick he will probably seize the
opportunity to advertise that fact.

Also remember, winning a ****ing contest just
proves that you are a bigger prick than the
competition.

--

FF

[Morgans[_2_]]

Fred, mercy me!

PLease be more careful with your snipping, and how things come out, as far
as who said what.

My name was in there, and I'll bet nobody has the slightest idea as to what
I really said, unless they go back and look. They won't.

There was some stuff said in that thread that I want no part of saying that
I said! <g>

When in doubt, just snip out all the names. Then, nobody can be blamed. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
>
> Can you order them online?


That is part of the problem, with the VW design.

The fact that the two cylinders are combined into one unit, means that the
opportunity to get some distance between the cylinders, and thus some more
room to add more cooling fins and area to the heads. You just can not
separate them enough.
--
Jim in NC

[oilsardine[_2_]]

"Morgans" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

> That is part of the problem, with the VW design.
>
> The fact that the two cylinders are combined into one unit, means that the
> opportunity to get some distance between the cylinders, and thus some more
> room to add more cooling fins and area to the heads. You just can not
> separate them enough.

have you ever had a close look on a VW head? At least my MOFOCO head got a
gap between the front and rear cylinder. The fins actually ARE separated! I
see more an advantage than an disadvantage with the VW head. Makes the top
end much stiffer.

[Maxwell]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Fred, mercy me!
>
> PLease be more careful with your snipping, and how things come out, as far
> as who said what.
>
> My name was in there, and I'll bet nobody has the slightest idea as to
> what I really said, unless they go back and look. They won't.
>
> There was some stuff said in that thread that I want no part of saying
> that I said! <g>
>
> When in doubt, just snip out all the names. Then, nobody can be blamed.
> ;-)
> --
> Jim in NC

Never stopped you from blaming anyone, you just bitched because all the
names were omitted and you responded in error.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Feb 27, 4:43 pm, "anonymous" <anonymous wrote:
> Fred, mercy me!
>
> PLease be more careful with your snipping, and how things come out, as far
> as who said what.
>
> My name was in there, and I'll bet nobody has the slightest idea as to what
> I really said, unless they go back and look. They won't.
>
> There was some stuff said in that thread that I want no part of saying that
> I said! <g>
>
> When in doubt, just snip out all the names. Then, nobody can be blamed. ;-)
>


Well I did manage to quote you correctly though I'll allow as it was
more
by accident than by diligence.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Feb 27, 4:46 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
>
>
>
> > Can you order them online?
>
> That is part of the problem, with the VW design.
>
> The fact that the two cylinders are combined into one unit, means that the
> opportunity to get some distance between the cylinders, and thus some more
> room to add more cooling fins and area to the heads. You just can not
> separate them enough.
>

That's beside the point.

Can you buy real aero jugs and heads online?

--

FF

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 5:26 pm, Fred the Red Shirt >
wrote:

> That's beside the point.
>
> Can you buy real aero jugs and heads online?
>


http://www.superiorairparts.com/millenniumCylinders.asp#

Dan

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Feb 27, 7:37 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 27, 5:26 pm, Fred the Red Shirt >
> wrote:
>
> > That's beside the point.
>
> > Can you buy real aero jugs and heads online?
>
> http://www.superiorairparts.com/millenniumCylinders.asp#
>

Thanks. Maybe this guy's design could be adapted to those:

http://www.hciaviation.com/pricing.shtml#standard

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Feb 1, 8:00 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
>
> ...
>
> dont launch out and buy any old briggs version for a conversion.
> there is one version that has no keyways machined in the crankshaft.
> that is the version need for conversion.
>

Is that because to prevent fatigue failure due to the
stress riser a keyway causes?

--

FF

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 6:45*pm, Fred the Red Shirt >
wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:37 pm, wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 5:26 pm, Fred the Red Shirt >
> > wrote:
>
> > > That's beside the point.
>
> > > Can you buy real aero jugs and heads online?
>
> > * * * * *http://www.superiorairparts.com/millenniumCylinders.asp#
>
> Thanks. *Maybe this guy's design could be adapted to those:
>
> http://www.hciaviation.com/pricing.shtml#standard
>
> --
>
> FF

Neat, I haven't seen that before. Stock auto parts, eh?

Wonder if anybody's tried it out.

A while back I remember a company selling 90 degree angle twin
motorcycle engines, the name escapes me at the moment. Except for the
casing and the jugs, it was all small block chevy parts.