what every boy needs - yeah seriously

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

veedubber and others
the venerable old VW engine conversion is quite usable.

if you were to take all the lessons learnt from all the engine
building done so far and apply them to a new engine design, what would
the new engine design look like?

I think the flat 4 makes a very serviceable aircraft engine.
underslung pushrods like the O-200 and VW would remain.
I'd use hydraulic lifters.
the castings for the crankcase would be simpler, more like the O-200
than the complexities of the VW casing.
the crankshaft would be a little more robust at the front end
I'd fin the pushrod tubes and use the oil returning to the crankcase
as a radiator.
the engine would be mounted on dynafocal lord mounts.
I'd use electron for the crankcasings.
spin on oil filter. (z79)
magnet in the sumpplug.

what else???

Stealth Pilot

[oilsardine[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> veedubber and others
> the venerable old VW engine conversion is quite usable.
>
> if you were to take all the lessons learnt from all the engine
> building done so far and apply them to a new engine design, what would
> the new engine design look like?

would look like this one: http://www.ulpower.com/

[[email protected]]

All of that is out there, already available. But the truth is, it's
not needed; not in the immediate sense.

What IS needed are aluminum head-castings having twice as much fin-
area as what's presently available. This won't fit on a bug or bus so
there is no start-up money. Coming up with the cores should have been
done by the EAA -- about fifty years ago. The fact it wasn't is good
evidence that it won't.

The need for juice lifters is appreciated -- and they are already
available, if you start with a late-model Mexican crankcase (it uses
the Type IV hydraulic lifters). But you can reduce your valve
adjustments to once every fifty hours or so by tossing the stock
adjuster screw and replacing them with the swivel-foot type. Flat-to-
flat, the valve adjustment wears at a glacial rate, assuming the valve-
train geometry has been set up properly, which it isn't in nine
engines out of ten.

But the VW simply lacks the Good Stuff that is found in a REAL
aircraft engine, such as 8x the bearing area, and a flanged crankshaft
carried in a massive Final Bearing similar in size to that on the
A65.

Modern ignition systems are actually superior to the typical backwards
Slick, and there is no evidence supporting a need for dual ignition,
other than the Feel Good legislation passed in 1937 imposed upon us
after some Legislator's son augered in the E2 of the college flying
club. College. Rich kid(s). Our tax money to teach them to fly.
Until a Representative from Illinois wanted to know what the hell was
going on? Why only those particular colleges? And nothing for female
college students nor, heaven forbid, BLACK college students.(*) So
everyone jumped in and hung their favorite line-item onto the
legislation and THAT's how we ended up with a mandate to provide TWO
ignition systems rather than one. But most folks aren't bright enough
to figure it out. These are the same technical idiots who think
adulterating gasoline with subsidized alcohol fer crysakes is a GOOD
idea when it's roughly akin to shooting yourself in the foot while
practicing your Fast Draw in front of the mirror.

So we end up with the only organization that claims to speak for the
grass-roots aviators doesn't, and the only government agency that
claims to speak for aviation in general, won't. Because it is so
highly politicized that we're as likely to be ordered to put a
flashing red light on the nose of our airplanes during the Christmas
season, as to have them do anything that truly fosters 'General'
aviation... so long as the General happens to be driving a jet or
turbo-prop.

The point of all that is that it really doesn't have a lot to do with
powerplants. Nor even with airplanes. What it has to do with is
Money and Politics and the desperate urge to fix things that aren't
broke.

Want some examples of this & that? Tear down an aircraft engine,
compare it's rod bearing area to that of the Volkswagen. Indeed, tear
down a MODEL T and do the same! To sling a prop, hour after hour and
year after year, we need something we ain't got. But leave it up to
the 'experts' and we'll be forced to fly behind a 1300cc power-head
running six grand into a PSRU that costs about that and has a TBO that
doesn't match the power head.

In fact, if our lives are going to depend upon a gear-box from Lapland
we might as well push for a ceramic turbine as the hot-section... and
use the same basic engine for everything from 50hp to 200hp.

But we won't.

We'll be stuck with whatever us we'ens can throw together because when
push comes to shove, there aren't enough of us to even influence the
plowing under of some of our most cherished air fields. And while a
certain well-funded few will assemble their RV's and do everything By
the Book, a significantly larger number of dyed in the wool American's
will notice that there aren't any traffic cops in the sky and that, as
much as various agencies wish otherwise, there's nothing than your
personal integrity to prevent you from building yourself a flying
machine and using it as such, tens of hours each month and hundreds of
hours each year, without any numbers of any kind -- without those
LUXURY taxes the bean-counters insist on charging you. But of course,
that will divorce you from the SOCIAL aspects of General Aviation and
that right there will be enough to protect all those Americans who
fear having something fall upon their heads unless it is first blessed
by some bureaucracy. THEN it's okay for it to fall down upon their
heads.

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

It's not just the engine, although if we're talking about powered
flight it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to see that the engine(s)
has a lot to do with it. Nor is it about the Politicians, although
anyone bright enough to pour **** out of a boot realizes we have the
best government money can buy. And it's not about the bureaucrats
either, since they are largely concerned with events AFTER they
happen. Which leaves the only group that has anything to do with the
issue, which is guys like you & me. In my case the fact I live well
below the 'official' poverty line renders me invisible. Which means I
can build and fly as much as I want to, without having any effect at
all upon the Important Decisions which shape the future of American
aviation (and Australian too, when you get down to it).

-R.S.Hoover

[[email protected]]

> what else???
>
> Stealth Pilot

As VeeDubber has pointed out the heads are the limiting factor for HP.
The VW has other problems but workarounds for them have been found,
even if they are inelegant ones.

I've looked at and sawed up more VW heads, and sketched out more ways
to improve them, than a sane person would be willing to admit to in
public. If one insists on dual plugs and a true improvement (other
than just more cooling capacity) then I haven't been able to come up
with a solution - unless one also moves the camshaft and spaces the
lobes out to match the bore spacing. This requires a new crankcase as
well.

Doing this opens up MANY options using inexpensive off the shelf
parts. I'm thinking a split head, like Scat makes, but following the
layout of a Porsche 356 might be a good starting point?

Oil-cooled VW heads are an option I have not heard anyone talk about
for aircraft use. I've not done any math related to this option but
it seems to be a viable one. Anyone actually tried the methods used
by Porsche tuners on a VW?
========================
Leon McAtee

[Monk]

On Jan 8, 12:37*pm, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> veedubber and others
> the venerable old VW engine conversion is quite usable.
>
> if you were to take all the lessons learnt from all the engine
> building done so far and apply them to a new engine design, what would
> the new engine design look like?
>

A Subaru?

[cavelamb[_2_]]

wrote:
>> what else???
>>
>> Stealth Pilot
>
> As VeeDubber has pointed out the heads are the limiting factor for HP.
> The VW has other problems but workarounds for them have been found,
> even if they are inelegant ones.
>
> I've looked at and sawed up more VW heads, and sketched out more ways
> to improve them, than a sane person would be willing to admit to in
> public. If one insists on dual plugs and a true improvement (other
> than just more cooling capacity) then I haven't been able to come up
> with a solution - unless one also moves the camshaft and spaces the
> lobes out to match the bore spacing. This requires a new crankcase as
> well.
>
> Doing this opens up MANY options using inexpensive off the shelf
> parts. I'm thinking a split head, like Scat makes, but following the
> layout of a Porsche 356 might be a good starting point?
>
> Oil-cooled VW heads are an option I have not heard anyone talk about
> for aircraft use. I've not done any math related to this option but
> it seems to be a viable one. Anyone actually tried the methods used
> by Porsche tuners on a VW?
> ========================
> Leon McAtee
>
>

Fin area of the heads is only the first in a long line of limitations.

To my thinking, the next is the cylinder hold down studs (that don't
go all the way across).

The next would be valve seats (hydraulic lifters won't help there).

Valve size would have to be enlarges to let the engine breathe.

Six or eight places later comes the thrust bearings. At some output
level one would have to take power off the fat end and install larger
thrust bearings.

In the end, it makes a wonderful 40 horsepower motor.

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Monk wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:37 pm, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>> veedubber and others
>> the venerable old VW engine conversion is quite usable.
>>
>> if you were to take all the lessons learnt from all the engine
>> building done so far and apply them to a new engine design, what would
>> the new engine design look like?
>>
>
> A Subaru?

We had one running direct drive - at 40 to 50 hp.

But to use the full potential it needs a proper PSRU -
along with all the extra weight that implies.
(Ever try to prop a motor with a PSRU on it?_

[Peter Dohm]

"cavelamb" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>>> what else???
>>>
>>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>> As VeeDubber has pointed out the heads are the limiting factor for HP.
>> The VW has other problems but workarounds for them have been found,
>> even if they are inelegant ones.
>>
>> I've looked at and sawed up more VW heads, and sketched out more ways
>> to improve them, than a sane person would be willing to admit to in
>> public. If one insists on dual plugs and a true improvement (other
>> than just more cooling capacity) then I haven't been able to come up
>> with a solution - unless one also moves the camshaft and spaces the
>> lobes out to match the bore spacing. This requires a new crankcase as
>> well.
>>
>> Doing this opens up MANY options using inexpensive off the shelf
>> parts. I'm thinking a split head, like Scat makes, but following the
>> layout of a Porsche 356 might be a good starting point?
>>
>> Oil-cooled VW heads are an option I have not heard anyone talk about
>> for aircraft use. I've not done any math related to this option but
>> it seems to be a viable one. Anyone actually tried the methods used
>> by Porsche tuners on a VW?
>> ========================
>> Leon McAtee
>>
>>
>
> Fin area of the heads is only the first in a long line of limitations.
>
> To my thinking, the next is the cylinder hold down studs (that don't
> go all the way across).
>
> The next would be valve seats (hydraulic lifters won't help there).
>
> Valve size would have to be enlarges to let the engine breathe.
>
> Six or eight places later comes the thrust bearings. At some output
> level one would have to take power off the fat end and install larger
> thrust bearings.
>
> In the end, it makes a wonderful 40 horsepower motor.
>
>
The cylinder hold down studs have always been my first concern as well.

In the end, I completely agree that it is a great, inexpensive 40 horsepower
alternative for a single place aircraft.

Peter

[jerry wass]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> veedubber and others
> the venerable old VW engine conversion is quite usable.
>
> if you were to take all the lessons learnt from all the engine
> building done so far and apply them to a new engine design, what would
> the new engine design look like?
>
> I think the flat 4 makes a very serviceable aircraft engine.
> underslung pushrods like the O-200 and VW would remain.
> I'd use hydraulic lifters.
> the castings for the crankcase would be simpler, more like the O-200
> than the complexities of the VW casing.
> the crankshaft would be a little more robust at the front end
> I'd fin the pushrod tubes and use the oil returning to the crankcase
> as a radiator.
> the engine would be mounted on dynafocal lord mounts.
> I'd use electron for the crankcasings.
> spin on oil filter. (z79)
> magnet in the sumpplug.
>
> what else???
>
> Stealth Pilot
>

Would you please expand on "electron for crankcasings"

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 3:56*pm, Monk > wrote:

> A Subaru?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not bad. But it's going to come down to the Bottom Line. And in
that regard, the individual heads are the winners. Why? Because we
can do the machining ourselves.

First off, we can forget about lost-foam or anything more exotic than
green-sand, simply because there aren't enough of us. So we stick to
standard, readily available valves, valve guides, valve seats and
studs. The fins make the castings pretty tricky but if it was easy
you would have seen it years ago.

There's a couple of directions we can't go but if we borrow a page
from the Corvair we can position our exhaust stack just about anywhere
and still have a good seal. Most of us have MIG, which means we can
do the stack-extensions. And since it's a new casting we can provide
the boss for the hold-down bolt.

Here again, borrow a page from the Corvair (or from GM) and we end up
with a 'rocker arm' that actually works. The tricky bit is that it
does NOT need to be aligned on a shaft... we can literally put a valve
anywhere there is room. And that means at any angle as well.

Domed or hemi-shaped chamber won't buy us anything. I'm pretty sure
of that, based on some work I did in that area about 30 years ago.
But that's actually to our advantage. By keeping the combustion
chamber simple we keep our valve-train geometry simple. AND YES, we
run juicers.

Exhaust outlet to the stack is probably a rectangle, as with the
Porsche. We put the wiggles into the exhaust stacks, which we make
out of Monel or whatever, secured with that bolt we stole from the
Corvair.

So we make a L-head and an R-head; mirror images. We do the best we
can with the fins but recognize our limitations and leave the most
difficult of them as CUT fins: Rather than try to cast perfect fins in
a couple of high-risk areas, we settle for a quarter-inch bar of
aluminum that's configured for easy SAWING, which we do as part of the
flash clean-up.

-R.S.Hoover

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 3:56 pm, Monk > wrote:

> A Subaru?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First off, we can forget about lost-foam or anything more exotic than
green-sand, simply because there aren't enough of us. So we stick to
standard, readily available valves, valve guides, valve seats and
studs. The fins make the castings pretty tricky but if it was easy
you would have seen it years ago.

So we make a L-head and an R-head; mirror images. We do the best we
can with the fins but recognize our limitations and leave the most
difficult of them as CUT fins: Rather than try to cast perfect fins in
a couple of high-risk areas, we settle for a quarter-inch bar of
aluminum that's configured for easy SAWING, which we do as part of the
flash clean-up.

-R.S.Hoover

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

I've alway thought it would be more practical to CNC saw all the cooling
fins. Seems a bit extreme at first glance, but if you go to the time or
expense to fabricate patterns to cast the heads, we must be talk about doing
more than just a couple of sets. So the programming cost might well be worth
the cooling efficency of extremely detailed cooling fins.

[Monk]

On Jan 8, 10:30*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jan 8, 3:56 pm, Monk > wrote:
>
> > A Subaru?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> First off, we can forget about lost-foam or anything more exotic than
> green-sand, simply because there aren't enough of us. *So we stick to
> standard, readily available valves, valve guides, valve seats and
> studs. *The fins make the castings pretty tricky but if it was easy
> you would have seen it years ago.
>
> So we make a L-head and an R-head; mirror images. *We do the best we
> can with the fins but recognize our limitations and leave the most
> difficult of them as CUT fins: Rather than try to cast perfect fins in
> a couple of high-risk areas, we settle for a quarter-inch bar of
> aluminum that's configured for easy SAWING, which we do as part of the
> flash clean-up.
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I've alway thought it would be more practical to CNC saw all the cooling
> fins. Seems a bit extreme at first glance, but if you go to the time or
> expense to fabricate patterns to cast the heads, we must be talk about doing
> more than just a couple of sets. So the programming cost might well be worth
> the cooling efficency of extremely detailed cooling fins.

I disagree, sand casting would be easier than milling from solid
block. Just sculpt your head out of wax cover with sand and pour your
casting. A little grinding here and there and there you have it. OK,
not that simplistic, but you get the gist.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Monk" > wrote in message
...
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I've alway thought it would be more practical to CNC saw all the cooling
> fins. Seems a bit extreme at first glance, but if you go to the time or
> expense to fabricate patterns to cast the heads, we must be talk about
> doing
> more than just a couple of sets. So the programming cost might well be
> worth
> the cooling efficency of extremely detailed cooling fins.

I disagree, sand casting would be easier than milling from solid
block. Just sculpt your head out of wax cover with sand and pour your
casting. A little grinding here and there and there you have it. OK,
not that simplistic, but you get the gist.

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

I didn't suggest milling from billet. Just milling the cooling fins. The
overall head with valley for the rockers, combustion chambers, ports, etc.,
should be green sand cast.

It's also not possible to green sand cast over a wax investment. Even if it
were simple enough to sculpt your heads out of wax, which it's not, you
would have to investment cast them.

Sand casting the heads and machining detail not practical with the green
sand or air set process is the only practical method for producing a limited
number of parts. Tooling cost for wax or foam investment casting would be
too prohibitive.

[[email protected]]

>
> First off, we can forget about lost-foam or anything more exotic than
> green-sand, simply because there aren't enough of us.

Lost foam isn't all that "high tech" and is actually well within the
ability of anyone that can build their own foundry and ram up some
sand. Classic lost wax is still a viable option and if one uses oil
based sand rather than bentonite green sand you can get much better
detail and steeper angles - but you do need a muller for oil sand.

> Here again, borrow a page from the Corvair (or from GM) and we end up
> with a 'rocker arm' that actually works. *The tricky bit is that it
> does NOT need to be aligned on a shaft... we can literally put a valve
> anywhere there is room. *And that means at any angle as well.

My conclusion as well - but if the angles aren't chosen very carefully
we end up with greater than stock side loads on the lifters - thus my
conclusion that we need a new cam at some point or run the risk of
accelerated lifter bore wear. Trying to put a second plug in the mix
and I'm not smart enough to come up with angles that I'm comfortable
with.

Personally I see no need for 2 plugs per cylinder. When was the last
time anyone heard of a spark plug failing with out warning? As for
flame front prorogation, the only real justification for dual plugs
other than unreliable magnetos, we just don't need them on a VW based
engine unless you start thinking high rpm's and a PSRU. But that's
getting too far away from the cheap and simple.


> So we make a L-head and an R-head; mirror images. *We do the best we
> can with the fins but recognize our limitations and leave the most
> difficult of them as CUT fins

If we do the split heads (still need 2 cores, front and rear) the fins
can be rough cast and then finished up on a lathe. The mention of
sawing gives me the idea of using a saw mounted on the lathe for
quicker cutting than a standard tool and maybe even thinner fins. Band
saw off the fins next to the other head and your done. No CNC
needed. My next set of 1/2 VW heads will be done this
way................if I ever get around to a next set.
=======================
Leon McAtee

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 11:21*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> "Monk" > wrote in message

>
> It's also not possible to green sand cast over a wax investment. Even if it
> were simple enough to sculpt your heads out of wax, which it's not, you
> would have to investment cast them.

While sand directly over wax isn't practical there are hybrid methods
of lost wax and sand that the hobby casters can do with good results.
As for being simple to sculpt the heads in wax ...........depends on
your definition of simple.

>
> Tooling cost for wax or foam investment casting would be
> too prohibitive.

If your thinking conventional production practices you might be right,
but there are home brew methods that while slower work just fine. We
aren't talking GM production numbers or that level of automation.
====================
Leon McAtee

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:34:36 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:


>issue, which is guys like you & me. In my case the fact I live well
>below the 'official' poverty line renders me invisible. Which means I
>can build and fly as much as I want to, without having any effect at
>all upon the Important Decisions which shape the future of American
>aviation (and Australian too, when you get down to it).
>
>-R.S.Hoover

this will be no consolation but I've just thrown in a job that
returned me somewhere between $80,000 and $100,000 per year to move
below the poverty line.
I've become my wife's carer as her psyche problems worsen.

so I will be *making* my next aircraft. the turbulent will have all
manner of bits cast and machined by me.

as a model engineer I'd like to make an accurate altimeter, an
accurate air speed indicator....

y'know this *is* fun.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:11:48 GMT, Jerry Wass >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>> veedubber and others
>> the venerable old VW engine conversion is quite usable.
>>
>> if you were to take all the lessons learnt from all the engine
>> building done so far and apply them to a new engine design, what would
>> the new engine design look like?
>>
>> I think the flat 4 makes a very serviceable aircraft engine.
>> underslung pushrods like the O-200 and VW would remain.
>> I'd use hydraulic lifters.
>> the castings for the crankcase would be simpler, more like the O-200
>> than the complexities of the VW casing.
>> the crankshaft would be a little more robust at the front end
>> I'd fin the pushrod tubes and use the oil returning to the crankcase
>> as a radiator.
>> the engine would be mounted on dynafocal lord mounts.
>> I'd use electron for the crankcasings.
>> spin on oil filter. (z79)
>> magnet in the sumpplug.
>>
>> what else???
>>
>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>
>Would you please expand on "electron for crankcasings"

electron is a magnesium - aluminium alloy. lighter and stronger than
plain aluminium alloy for the casings. I'm pretty sure it is what vw
used in the casings.
however it doesnt lend itself to home greensand casting techniques
unless you can put an argon atmosphere above the molten metal.
the magnesium burns brightly at the surface of the molten metal.

stealth pilot

[bod43]

On 8 Jan, 17:37, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> veedubber and others
> the venerable old VW engine conversion is quite usable.
>
> if you were to take all the lessons learnt from all the engine
> building done so far and apply them to a new engine design, what would
> the new engine design look like?
>
> I think the flat 4 makes a very serviceable aircraft engine.
> underslung pushrods like the O-200 and VW would remain.
> I'd use hydraulic lifters.
> the castings for the crankcase would be simpler, more like the O-200
> than the complexities of the VW casing.
> the crankshaft would be a little more robust at the front end
> I'd fin the pushrod tubes and use the oil returning to the crankcase
> as a radiator.
> the engine would be mounted on dynafocal lord mounts.
> I'd use electron for the crankcasings.
> spin on oil filter. (z79)
> magnet in the sumpplug.

For a new design I really really really like this -
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/status00.shtml
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/Brochure_Oshkosh_2003.shtml
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/specif00.shtml

It's a water cooled two stroke diesel.

Fuel availability (Kerosene etc)
Fuel efficiency at cruise power
No valves/valvetrain
No electrics needed for operation
Can safely run for a while without coolant too.

Obviously the sizes that they are making (160hp +)
are too big for your requirement but I doubt that there
is a fundamental reason that a smaller one could
not be made.

My one worry (for which I have no information) would
be that it might be noisy - dont know.

[cavedweller]

On Jan 8, 2:34*pm, " > wrote:
> All of that is out there, already available. *But the truth is, it's
> not needed; not in the immediate sense.
>
> What IS needed are aluminum head-castings having twice as much fin-
> area as what's presently available. *This won't fit on a bug or bus so
> there is no start-up money. *Coming up with the cores should have been
> done by the EAA -- about fifty years ago. *The fact it wasn't *is good
> evidence that it won't.
>
Bob...don't Jabiru use heads machined from billet stock?

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 7:30*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:

> I've alway thought it would be more practical to CNC saw all the cooling
> fins. Seems a bit extreme at first glance, but if you go to the time or
> expense to fabricate patterns to cast the heads, we must be talk about doing
> more than just a couple of sets. So the programming cost might well be worth
> the cooling efficency of extremely detailed cooling fins.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Maxwell, et al

(more for the et al's at this point)
What makes this NOT a ' blue-sky & bull**** ' kinda project is the
fact we can pick up a telephone and have the key components sitting on
our front porch in a matter of HOURS. Such as:

Pistons & cylinders, crankshafts, camshafts, valves, valve seats,
valve guides, carburetors, electronic ignition components, electrical
system components... and so on right down the list.

In fact, the existence of the Roto-Way type heads... most folks think
of them as 'Scat-type'... provides 'Proof of Concept' -- meaning this
IS NOT a new idea. What's 'new' is coming up with an isolated head-
design that is amenable to air-cooling.

Historically, when the real engine manufacturers ran into the thermal
limitations of cast aluminum (**) they way they tackled the task
serves as our instruction manual. They tried liquid cooling and
machined fins but finally achieved the desired power-to-weight ratio
by going to FORGINGS for their aluminum heads.

(Forged aluminum is denser; it can couple more heat to the atmosphere
than a casting can. [and if one you grammarians jumps on that...] ).
Indeed, comparing the American & British efforts makes a damn good
adventure novel -- one in which the British should have won (ie,
because of their slide-valve engines). But buried in that 'novel' is
methods tried & discarded not because they didn't work but simply
because the goal was for more horsepower than those methods could
provide. And to be fair here we really need to include the Japanese
14-cyl radial... which was using the so-called 'Singh Grooves' in the
early 1940's, allowing them to run on 70 octane tractor gas.)

In fact, we can even use the Lycoming O-145 as a good model of how NOT
to do things. (Yeah, it produced 65hp... but only when you spun it up
above 3000 rpm. Stuck on the nose of a Piper 'Cub' it was a TERRIBLE
powerplant, simply because it produced all of its thrust in a narrow,
high-velocity slug of accelerated air into which the fuselage of the
Cub was buried. And as we know (and Lycoming seemed to forget), drag
increases as the SQUARE of velocity. But AFTER the war, when a bright
young fellow named Mooney came along with a sleek little single-place
design, the O-145 finally came into its own... because there was
simply no comparison to the induced drag of a Cub and a Mite.

So what's our engine gonna be? It's going to be what it ALREADY IS, a
set of 94mm jugs atop an 84mm Chinese crankshaft. But the difference
is in the HEADS. And it's not even the WHOLE head we're talking
about, just the outer portion that is associated with the exhaust
stacks. This is the HOTTEST part of the VW engine. VW's engineers
did some truly remarkable things to ensure the CORNERS of the engine
got the MAJORITY of the cooling air. Unfortunately, when you try to
do that using RAM-AIR instead of a blower, you run into all sorts of
problems, most of which can be resolved by simply increasing the AREA
of the cooling fins.

And how do we do that? (Someone asks) ...or, Why hasn't someone done
that? (another asks)... and in both cases the answer is pretty much
the same: We do it by altering the shape of the exhaust outlet, and
YES, someone has ALREADY DONE THAT... if you're familiar with the
Porsche engine.

The point here is that it's not a big change, in engineering terms.
Nor even an especially difficult change. The main problem is that all
previous efforts were aimed at CAR engines, which presented some space
limitations that they simply could not resolve if they wanted the
engine to fit in the car. Bottom Line: They came up with a new car-
body that provided enough room for the 'fatter' engine -- 'fatter'
because it had more fins. And put that fatter engine into airplanes,
too. Which means we're not quite the ground-breakers we think we
are :-)

So what's the basis of our 'success'? Easy! We simply re-design the
exhaust to dump out the BOTTOM of the head, as GM did with the
Corvair... and which VW could NOT do with the VW engine. When the
exhaust stack is moved outta the way it gives us access to the upper-
outer corner of the head for each of the jugs, and that is where we
install our additional fins. Not only do we add additional fins, we
increase the size of the fins that are already there, so that our
maximum PEAK output comes up to something on the order of 80hp, whilst
our maximum SUSTAINABLE output is about 60hp (Standard Day
assumed).

Does this give us a 'thousand hour' engine? Hell no! Lookit the
bearing area. At that level of output you'll be lucky to get a TBO of
500 hours. Of course, replacing every bearing in the engine will only
run you about sixty bucks.

Sure sounds easy, eh? In fact, if it's so damn easy you gotta wonder
why I haven't already done it. Surprise! I already did... sorta. We
called it the 'Fat Fin' head and tried to accomplish what I've
described here by TIGing on additional fin area to stock heads. Which
didn't work for a lot of reasons, but there were some examples that
DID work... until the fins warped or the valves overheated or any one
of a dozen other things. Plus the biggie: Fat Fin heads would not
fit in a VEHICLE. And without that market, they were little more than
a joke... some crazy ol' guy wanting to put a VW engine in an
airplane, for crysakes!

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

How do you get in touch with OTHER 'crazy ol' guys?' Back then, you
got Pope Paul to put a notice in the magazine. Remember all them
notices? Yeah. I don't either.

But now we got the Internet.

Tell you what... Somewhere in my drawings I've got a stock VW head,
sorta -373'ish (that's a VW part number... don't sweat it). I'll dig
it out, convert it into a .jpg and post it on my blog. Then you can
blow it up to near-full-scale and print it out. One it's printed, you
can start fooling with the location of this & that... moving the
exhaust stack... which is when you'll discover that a push-rod and an
exhaust stack will NOT peacefully co-exist :-) But there's a couple
of ways in which they WILL... expect they put one hell of an angle
onto the push-rod... and you gotta move the rocker-arm around... stuff
like that. THAT'S what we're talking about here. Once we can move
the exhaust stack WITHOUT trashing the push-rod, we can increase the
cooling-fin area by about 25%... mebbe more.

Best of all (mebbe) is that we'll come up with a casting that the
average home machinist can turn into a cylinder head. And that will
only take another 10,000 words or so... plus a few hundred
pitchers... if anyone is interested.

-R.S.Hoover


And just for Flavor of the Month -- sump plate

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 9:28*am, " > wrote:
>
> And just for Flavor of the Month -- *sump plate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, okay... I sorta overlooked some asterisks and left you hanging
with regard to the Sump Plate... so cut me a slack, okay? I gotta
take some pills & stuff.

(...but the Sump Plate is souper simple: You move the sump's DRAIN to
one of the 'down-hill' corners of the sump, which allows you to
install a PERMANENT sump plate... outta aluminum if you want minimum
weight or outta steel if you want to use it as a base for brackets or
whatever. Got some pitchers to show you... if I can findem')

-Bob

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

schreef:
> Indeed, comparing the American & British efforts makes a damn good
> adventure novel -- one in which the British should have won (ie,
> because of their slide-valve engines).

[[off-topic, only of interest to historians:]]

Bob, you are writing history here as a US'an crediting a US patent to a
non-US'an! Indeed Mr. Charles Yale Knight, first holder of sleeve-valved
engine patents, was born in Indiana, USA, in 1868, at least that's what
I learn from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Engine

Then again, his idea was based upon early concoctions by German Mr.
Otto, and then again his ideas were most succesfully implemented in
Europe, in some British aero-engines (Bristol Centaurus and its
predecessors) but also in the notorious luxury Minerva cars from Belgium
- that factory was close to my home, indeed the allies only nearly
missed killing my mother when trying to bomb the factory in May 1943.


KA

[[email protected]]

As promised, three ILLUSTRATIONS of drawings depicting the later-model
VW dual port head. Posted to my blog: bobhooversblog.blogspot.com

Now I gotta go do my exercises. (My wife calls them 'Comic
Relief.' ( I got a TOUGH crew.)

-Bob

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 6:56*pm, Monk > wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:37*pm, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>
> > veedubber and others
> > the venerable old VW engine conversion is quite usable.
>
> > if you were to take all the lessons learnt from all the engine
> > building done so far and apply them to a new engine design, what would
> > the new engine design look like?
>
> A Subaru?

No. An air-cooled rotary.

[Charles Vincent]

jan olieslagers wrote:
> schreef:
>> Indeed, comparing the American & British efforts makes a damn good
>> adventure novel -- one in which the British should have won (ie,
>> because of their slide-valve engines).
>
> [[off-topic, only of interest to historians:]]
>
> Bob, you are writing history here as a US'an crediting a US patent to a
> non-US'an! Indeed Mr. Charles Yale Knight, first holder of sleeve-valved
> engine patents, was born in Indiana, USA, in 1868, at least that's what
> I learn from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Engine
>
> Then again, his idea was based upon early concoctions by German Mr.
> Otto, and then again his ideas were most succesfully implemented in
> Europe, in some British aero-engines (Bristol Centaurus and its
> predecessors) but also in the notorious luxury Minerva cars from Belgium
> - that factory was close to my home, indeed the allies only nearly
> missed killing my mother when trying to bomb the factory in May 1943.
>
>
> KA

Yeah an American invented it, but it took Harry Ricardo and crew to make
it really sing.

Charles

[Anthony W]

Charles Vincent wrote:
> jan olieslagers wrote:
>> schreef:
>>> Indeed, comparing the American & British efforts makes a damn good
>>> adventure novel -- one in which the British should have won (ie,
>>> because of their slide-valve engines).
>>
>> [[off-topic, only of interest to historians:]]
>>
>> Bob, you are writing history here as a US'an crediting a US patent to
>> a non-US'an! Indeed Mr. Charles Yale Knight, first holder of
>> sleeve-valved engine patents, was born in Indiana, USA, in 1868, at
>> least that's what I learn from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Engine
>>
>> Then again, his idea was based upon early concoctions by German Mr.
>> Otto, and then again his ideas were most succesfully implemented in
>> Europe, in some British aero-engines (Bristol Centaurus and its
>> predecessors) but also in the notorious luxury Minerva cars from
>> Belgium - that factory was close to my home, indeed the allies only
>> nearly missed killing my mother when trying to bomb the factory in May
>> 1943.
>>
>>
>> KA
>
> Yeah an American invented it, but it took Harry Ricardo and crew to make
> it really sing.
>
> Charles

From what I remember from the vintage car meets is that the
sleeve-valve Willies-Knight, is that even in good running condition
would smoke like a two stroke. It's one of those screwy inventions best
left to the history books.

Tony

[jerry wass]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:11:48 GMT, Jerry Wass >
> wrote:
>
>> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>> veedubber and others
>>> the venerable old VW engine conversion is quite usable.
>>>
>>> if you were to take all the lessons learnt from all the engine
>>> building done so far and apply them to a new engine design, what would
>>> the new engine design look like?
>>>
>>> I think the flat 4 makes a very serviceable aircraft engine.
>>> underslung pushrods like the O-200 and VW would remain.
>>> I'd use hydraulic lifters.
>>> the castings for the crankcase would be simpler, more like the O-200
>>> than the complexities of the VW casing.
>>> the crankshaft would be a little more robust at the front end
>>> I'd fin the pushrod tubes and use the oil returning to the crankcase
>>> as a radiator.
>>> the engine would be mounted on dynafocal lord mounts.
>>> I'd use electron for the crankcasings.
>>> spin on oil filter. (z79)
>>> magnet in the sumpplug.
>>>
>>> what else???
>>>
>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>
>> Would you please expand on "electron for crankcasings"
>
> electron is a magnesium - aluminium alloy. lighter and stronger than
> plain aluminium alloy for the casings. I'm pretty sure it is what vw
> used in the casings.
> however it doesnt lend itself to home greensand casting techniques
> unless you can put an argon atmosphere above the molten metal.
> the magnesium burns brightly at the surface of the molten metal.
>
> stealth pilot
>
HEY!Thanks for the answer---Hadn't heard of that alloy--mosta my
castings used old cummins diesel pistons--heat treat really well!!
let one get too hot when treating --left a spidery matrix of copper..
Jerry

[Peter Dohm]

"Anthony W" > wrote in message
...
> Charles Vincent wrote:
>> jan olieslagers wrote:
>>> schreef:
>>>> Indeed, comparing the American & British efforts makes a damn good
>>>> adventure novel -- one in which the British should have won (ie,
>>>> because of their slide-valve engines).
>>>
>>> [[off-topic, only of interest to historians:]]
>>>
>>> Bob, you are writing history here as a US'an crediting a US patent to a
>>> non-US'an! Indeed Mr. Charles Yale Knight, first holder of sleeve-valved
>>> engine patents, was born in Indiana, USA, in 1868, at least that's what
>>> I learn from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Engine
>>>
>>> Then again, his idea was based upon early concoctions by German Mr.
>>> Otto, and then again his ideas were most succesfully implemented in
>>> Europe, in some British aero-engines (Bristol Centaurus and its
>>> predecessors) but also in the notorious luxury Minerva cars from
>>> Belgium - that factory was close to my home, indeed the allies only
>>> nearly missed killing my mother when trying to bomb the factory in May
>>> 1943.
>>>
>>>
>>> KA
>>
>> Yeah an American invented it, but it took Harry Ricardo and crew to make
>> it really sing.
>>
>> Charles
>
> From what I remember from the vintage car meets is that the sleeve-valve
> Willies-Knight, is that even in good running condition would smoke like a
> two stroke. It's one of those screwy inventions best left to the history
> books.
>
> Tony

IIRC, a lot of two stroke diesels, especially GM, used it successfully.
However, I don't know if they smoked any more than other diesels.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

>"cavedweller" > wrote in message
...
<On Jan 8, 2:34 pm, " > wrote:
>> All of that is out there, already available. But the truth is, it's
>> not needed; not in the immediate sense.
>>
>> What IS needed are aluminum head-castings having twice as much fin-
>> area as what's presently available. This won't fit on a bug or bus so
>> there is no start-up money. Coming up with the cores should have been
>> done by the EAA -- about fifty years ago. The fact it wasn't is good
>> evidence that it won't.
>>
>Bob...don't Jabiru use heads machined from billet stock?
>
That was my recollection as well, although I can no longer find it on the
web.

Peter

[[email protected]]

> >Bob...don't Jabiru use heads machined from billet stock?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know. But judging from their appearance that seems to be the
case.

-Bob

[cavedweller]

On Jan 9, 11:09*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

>
> >Bob...don't Jabiru use heads machined from billet stock?
>
> That was my recollection as well, although I can no longer find it on the
> web.
>
> Peter

I had the same problem...ending up going to the Engine section on the
Zenith site.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 21:19:11 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>
>> >Bob...don't Jabiru use heads machined from billet stock?
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I don't know. But judging from their appearance that seems to be the
>case.
>
>-Bob
>

the entire jabiru engine(s) have always been made totally from cnc
milled barstock.
in the early days the claim was that they could make a batch of 4 at a
profit.

Stealth Pilot

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
*>
*> First off, we can forget about lost-foam or anything more exotic than
*> green-sand, simply because there aren't enough of us.
*
*Lost foam isn't all that "high tech" and is actually well within the
*ability of anyone that can build their own foundry and ram up some
*sand. Classic lost wax is still a viable option and if one uses oil
*based sand rather than bentonite green sand you can get much better
*detail and steeper angles - but you do need a muller for oil sand.
*
*Leon McAtee

How can you mold or sculpt invest foam articles with a simple hobby process,
and then get something as detailed as air cooled fins on a foam or wax
investment to withstand even the most careful ramming process for green
sand, oil sand or air set casting?

Also, if you use oil sand and wax investments, how can you possibly remove
enough wax from the mold to allow the introduction of molten aluminum and
yeild a useable casting, when you have detail as fine as a cooling fin?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...

| this will be no consolation but I've just thrown in a job that
| returned me somewhere between $80,000 and $100,000 per year to move
| below the poverty line.
| I've become my wife's carer as her psyche problems worsen.
|
| so I will be *making* my next aircraft. the turbulent will have all
| manner of bits cast and machined by me.
|

Do you have any photos of some of your projects?

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 9:27*am, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:

> How can you mold or sculpt invest foam articles with a simple hobby process,
> and then get something as detailed as air cooled fins on a foam or wax
> investment to withstand even the most careful ramming process for green
> sand, oil sand or air set casting?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Maxwell,

While there are some pretty sturdy plastic-like waxes that can
withstand ramming-up in a core box, most of the methods using lost wax
begin by DIPPING the wax model in a slurry of high-temperature CLAY,
after all of the sprues, vents gates and supports have been attached
manually. After the clay dries it is BAKED, first at a fairly low
temperature ( ie 200F ), during which it is rotated several times to
get rid of the casting wax, and finally at a higher temperatures, such
as 500F for about two hours. The resulting product is then stiff
enough to withstand ramming.

There are variations to this theme. Some call for several dipping &
baking episodes using different recipes of clay. Dentists are the
best source of information on this procedure. The main down-side is
the HIGH COST of the refractory clay dips.

-Bob

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 10:27*am, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> > wrote in message


> How can you mold or sculpt invest foam articles with a simple hobby process,
> and then get something as detailed as air cooled fins on a foam or wax
> investment to withstand even the most careful ramming process for green
> sand, oil sand or air set casting?

Your're thinking WAY too much inside the box. Making the molds for
the wax/foam cores is simple and there are many references to the
process(s) on the internet.

Ramming up sand directly on a foam or wax mold - isn't - practical.
Maybe if you resorted to vibration to pack core sand and then gas the
whole thing with CO2 ? But there is a way around that limitation as
well. Again, a search on the net should turn up some clues. I'd find
a link or 2 for you to start but I have to head out for the weekend
shopping with the Wife .............. maybe this evening.

>
> Also, if you use oil sand and wax investments, how can you possibly remove
> enough wax from the mold to allow the introduction of molten aluminum and
> yield a usable casting, when you have detail as fine as a cooling fin?

I may have been unclear in my earlier post. I did not intend to imply
using oil based sands with investment casting. Sounds kind of messy!
I meant that oil based sand allows one to make better detail and
thinner parts than you can get with bentonite based sands. Should
have been a separate paragraph...............

Investment casting of the quality needed is very doable by the hobby
caster.
=====================
Leon McAtee

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 9:27 am, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:

> How can you mold or sculpt invest foam articles with a simple hobby
> process,
> and then get something as detailed as air cooled fins on a foam or wax
> investment to withstand even the most careful ramming process for green
> sand, oil sand or air set casting?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Maxwell,

While there are some pretty sturdy plastic-like waxes that can
withstand ramming-up in a core box, most of the methods using lost wax
begin by DIPPING the wax model in a slurry of high-temperature CLAY,
after all of the sprues, vents gates and supports have been attached
manually. After the clay dries it is BAKED, first at a fairly low
temperature ( ie 200F ), during which it is rotated several times to
get rid of the casting wax, and finally at a higher temperatures, such
as 500F for about two hours. The resulting product is then stiff
enough to withstand ramming.

There are variations to this theme. Some call for several dipping &
baking episodes using different recipes of clay. Dentists are the
best source of information on this procedure. The main down-side is
the HIGH COST of the refractory clay dips.

-Bob

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

I'm well aware of the variations in the investment casting process, but you
hand already limited the discussion to a sand casting, and for economic
reasons I would have to agree. But there is no way to use a wax investment
in a sand casting. Subsequent melting of the wax will contaminate the sand
mold, regardless of green sand, oil sand or air set.

Considering the use of foam, first we have to mold or sculpt a foam cylinder
head in full detail for each head we have to produce. Then adequately pack
sand between the fins of a foam pattern, when the fins are as detailed as
this project would require. Doesn't sound possible, much less practical to
me.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 10:27 am, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> > wrote in message


> How can you mold or sculpt invest foam articles with a simple hobby
> process,
> and then get something as detailed as air cooled fins on a foam or wax
> investment to withstand even the most careful ramming process for green
> sand, oil sand or air set casting?

Your're thinking WAY too much inside the box. Making the molds for
the wax/foam cores is simple and there are many references to the
process(s) on the internet.
-------------------------------------------------------

Care to provid a link of something as complex as VW head, "hobby" molded in
foam?





Ramming up sand directly on a foam or wax mold - isn't - practical.
Maybe if you resorted to vibration to pack core sand and then gas the
whole thing with CO2 ? But there is a way around that limitation as
well. Again, a search on the net should turn up some clues. I'd find
a link or 2 for you to start but I have to head out for the weekend
shopping with the Wife .............. maybe this evening.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't matter what other process there are, you still have to have the
"hobby" molded foam or wax investment.



>
> Also, if you use oil sand and wax investments, how can you possibly remove
> enough wax from the mold to allow the introduction of molten aluminum and
> yield a usable casting, when you have detail as fine as a cooling fin?

I may have been unclear in my earlier post. I did not intend to imply
using oil based sands with investment casting. Sounds kind of messy!
I meant that oil based sand allows one to make better detail and
thinner parts than you can get with bentonite based sands. Should
have been a separate paragraph...............

Investment casting of the quality needed is very doable by the hobby
caster.
---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can reference any hobby process that will made it "simple" to cast
custom air cooled VW heads at home. I can assure you, I'm not the only
person on this group that would like to see a link.

[cavelamb[_2_]]

50 HP at 30.6 pounds weight?
Which includes a 19:1 ratio gearbox!

PT-50 Turboshaft Engine

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 4:49*pm, Jerry Wass > wrote:

> HEY!Thanks for the answer---Hadn't heard of that alloy--mosta *my
> castings . . . .

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

Sorry Jerry, but 'Electrum' (as I believe it's spelt), whilst the
cat's pajamas's in the 1930's because Germany produced about 90% of
the world's magnesium, thanks to one of their companies holding the
patent to the most efficient sea-water extraction process, by the
1950's everyone was discovering that the alloy, which was about 95%
magnesium, the other 5% made up of aluminum, zinc, copper and what-
have-you (remember, these are the folks who came up with 2024-T6), it
was discovered that the alloy -- which was vvery popular for the gear-
cases on helicopters -- was susceptible to AGE HARDENING. (Volkswagen
discovered the same thing... and changed their alloy in 1972.)

The problem was not discovered for about 25 years, when they noticed
that the Universal Replacement Crankcase often developed fatal cracks
from simply sitting on the shelf in the dealer's parts department.
These parts had never been assembled; had never been subjected to any
form of stress. Yet they still cracked. The quick fix was to
increase the percentage of Aluminum in the casting meta from about 2%
to about 4%. But engineers opined that the additional aluminum may
NOT be a permanent cure... but we would have to wait another 25 years
to find out.

Boeing found out the hard way. Their Vertol Division experienced
similar cracking problems in their helicopter crankcases.

The best solution was to go to aluminum vs magnesium.

-Bob

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 1:44*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> > wrote in message

> If you can reference any hobby process that will made it "simple" to cast
> custom air cooled VW heads at home. I can assure you, I'm not the only
> person on this group that would like to see a link.

I'd never have thought this technology was that obscure :-) 'course
it depends on your definition of "simple". You have to make or buy a
whole bunch of new tools and learn a few new skills if you have never
done it before. Kind of like making an airplane from a pile of raw
materials (the token aviation reference)

To me it's pretty straight forward use of patterns and molds, but then
again I had the good fortune of my grandfather showing me how to make
molds and fire porcelain things just shy of 50 years ago. We could
have made VW head molds back then using nothing more sophisticated
than some clay, plaster and green soap. The materials available
today make the process MUCH easier.

Fire up Google and see what others are doing.

My first exposure to hobby foam casting came from such an adventure
and was found of all places on a site run by a den mother describing
how to make foam trinkets for the kids to paint. If some 8 year old
kids can do it.......................

http://www.foundry101.com/racert2.htm

Not the site I had in mind but this is using green sand - with enough
detail and complexity for a VW head.

I've also been keeping my eye on a couple of interesting projects
being pursued by "Why Not!" types trying to build inexpensive 3D
printers. Think what we could cast up with one of those out in the
garage.
=========================
Leon McAtee

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:29:25 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:

>
>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>
>| this will be no consolation but I've just thrown in a job that
>| returned me somewhere between $80,000 and $100,000 per year to move
>| below the poverty line.
>| I've become my wife's carer as her psyche problems worsen.
>|
>| so I will be *making* my next aircraft. the turbulent will have all
>| manner of bits cast and machined by me.
>|
>
>Do you have any photos of some of your projects?
>
>
considering the reaction I got from the last photo I sent you
.....bugger off.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 1:44*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> > wrote in message

> If you can reference any hobby process that will made it "simple" to cast
> custom air cooled VW heads at home. I can assure you, I'm not the only
> person on this group that would like to see a link.

Couldn't find the site I discovered a few years ago - even had some
pictures - but I did find these this afternoon after a quick google.

http://www.plansandprojects.com/My%20Machines//surprise_lost_foam_casting.htm
https://duckdeco.dkgnet.com/Molds.htm
http://www.tempo-foam.com/engineering/how_foam_expands/how_foam_expands_index.htm
http://www.wowessays.com/dbase/af2/skx196.shtml
http://www.mate.tue.nl/mate/showabstract.php/3871
http://www.answers.com/topic/expanded-polystyrene-foam-epf

Combine this info with the fact that we can buy silicone casting
compound that lets us directly cast low melt metals like zinc and
pewter and I'll leave it up to the reader to connect the dots.

My only problem now is finding a source of the EPS beads again. One
of the local hobby-n-craft stores had them, but they went the way of
the missing web site.
=====================
Leon McAtee

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 1:44 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> > wrote in message

> If you can reference any hobby process that will made it "simple" to cast
> custom air cooled VW heads at home. I can assure you, I'm not the only
> person on this group that would like to see a link.

Couldn't find the site I discovered a few years ago - even had some
pictures - but I did find these this afternoon after a quick google.

http://www.plansandprojects.com/My%20Machines//surprise_lost_foam_casting.htm
https://duckdeco.dkgnet.com/Molds.htm
http://www.tempo-foam.com/engineering/how_foam_expands/how_foam_expands_index.htm
http://www.wowessays.com/dbase/af2/skx196.shtml
http://www.mate.tue.nl/mate/showabstract.php/3871
http://www.answers.com/topic/expanded-polystyrene-foam-epf

Combine this info with the fact that we can buy silicone casting
compound that lets us directly cast low melt metals like zinc and
pewter and I'll leave it up to the reader to connect the dots.

My only problem now is finding a source of the EPS beads again. One
of the local hobby-n-craft stores had them, but they went the way of
the missing web site.
=====================
Leon McAtee

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

I'm well aware of the lost foam and lost wax processes Leon, as well as
their limitations. Do you have any examples of something being cast as
complex as an air cooled cylinder head? Coffee cups, duck decoys, and alike
are useful items, but hardly good examples for the task at hand.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:29:25 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>| this will be no consolation but I've just thrown in a job that
>>| returned me somewhere between $80,000 and $100,000 per year to move
>>| below the poverty line.
>>| I've become my wife's carer as her psyche problems worsen.
>>|
>>| so I will be *making* my next aircraft. the turbulent will have all
>>| manner of bits cast and machined by me.
>>|
>>
>>Do you have any photos of some of your projects?
>>
>>
> considering the reaction I got from the last photo I sent you
> ....bugger off.

I didn't think you would.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 12, 8:58*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:

Do you have any examples of something being cast as
> complex as an air cooled cylinder head? Coffee cups, duck decoys, and alike
> are useful items, but hardly good examples for the task at hand.

You ever heard of something called an internet search engine? Try
Google, Yahoo, Altavista, Ask, or Dogpile. (add a "dot"com to the end
to make 'em work)

Examples of lost foam casting of the complexity required are quite
common.
=====================
L

[[email protected]]

On Jan 12, 8:13*pm, "
> wrote:

> Examples of lost foam casting of the complexity required are quite
> common.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alas, I haven't found any.

The stuff is a casting and the fin length is approaching 4 inches.
Volkswagen apparently uses metal molds and sand cores, this based on
working with a few VW heads.

Trying to TIG additional fins onto the existing finds proved
impractical for two reasons, the material used, and the expertise of
the welding. (I'm not that good a weldor -- I had to keep the things
in a box and use a bare electrode to get at the joint, even after
cutting away the existing fins on an angle so as to give me more room.
Once the chamber was heated to approximately 450*F, the welded portion
of the fin started to move around, typically 'leaning' over to touch
the adjacent fin, which shut off -- or upset -- the air-flow. I tried
1/8" 3003, some 5052 (I think .120) cast tooling plate (1/8) and fins,
salvaged from other heads. The latter gave the best results... but
only on the short sections, where I was TIGging to a fairly heavy
section (ie, adjacent to the exhaust stack or to the portion of the
head bearing the valve guide) But that didn't give enough fin area to
make much of a change in the temperature of the cooling-air. (I
measured it going in & coming out.)
After a LOT of effort I got two heads. Two STOCK heads. Which didn't
fit my jigs :-) ...one of those little details I sorta overlooked.
It was a bit discouraging.
Reading about Kyoto Ceramics and their efforts to produce a precision-
ground crystal for use in a wrist-watch, I figure I just didn't try
hard enough. Perhaps the isolated heads hold the answer, although I
recall the amount of effort put into their development by the
helicopter guy -- who was no dummy. (George(?) somebody? He knew his
engines and it looked like a shop to work in... except for its
location :-)

-Bob

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 12, 8:58 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:

Do you have any examples of something being cast as
> complex as an air cooled cylinder head? Coffee cups, duck decoys, and
> alike
> are useful items, but hardly good examples for the task at hand.

You ever heard of something called an internet search engine? Try
Google, Yahoo, Altavista, Ask, or Dogpile. (add a "dot"com to the end
to make 'em work)

Examples of lost foam casting of the complexity required are quite
common.
=====================
L
----------------------------------------------------------------

You're the one that quote them, and you're the one that insists examples of
such are quite common. So where are they?

I have seen a lot of foam, wax and sand casting, and never seen process that
would let you whip up a simple foam investment of something as complex as a
VW head, and cast it at home. Nor am I interested in reviewing all the "make
a furnace and cast a slug at home" examples strung out all over the
internet. Anyone with a propane tank and a hair dryer can melt metal. Anyone
with a shovel can mix up a home made sand that will cast an ash tray.

Casting your own VW head can be done, but it's not nearly as easy as you
would like to suggest. If you have examples to the contrary, as I said
before, I'm not the only one on this news group that would love to see them.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:59:09 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:

>
>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:29:25 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>| this will be no consolation but I've just thrown in a job that
>>>| returned me somewhere between $80,000 and $100,000 per year to move
>>>| below the poverty line.
>>>| I've become my wife's carer as her psyche problems worsen.
>>>|
>>>| so I will be *making* my next aircraft. the turbulent will have all
>>>| manner of bits cast and machined by me.
>>>|
>>>
>>>Do you have any photos of some of your projects?
>>>
>>>
>> considering the reaction I got from the last photo I sent you
>> ....bugger off.
>
>I didn't think you would.
>

beyond all that .... casting is serious business and must be given
one's full attention.
you do not want the distraction of visitors.
you do not want the distraction of pausing for photos.

In truth I have no photos because I've never delayed the processes to
take any.
it is a dark art and making castings in exactly the same way will
often result in totally different outcomes.
often I have thought a casting wasted when it has turned out perfect
and often I have thought I would have a perfect casting only to find
it stuffed and useless.

most of my castings were done for other people as I developed the
techniques.

I'm about to restart casting again after a few years break.
this time around I will be casting wheel hubs and the like for my
flying projects.

Stealth Pilot

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:59:09 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:29:25 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>| this will be no consolation but I've just thrown in a job that
>>>>| returned me somewhere between $80,000 and $100,000 per year to move
>>>>| below the poverty line.
>>>>| I've become my wife's carer as her psyche problems worsen.
>>>>|
>>>>| so I will be *making* my next aircraft. the turbulent will have all
>>>>| manner of bits cast and machined by me.
>>>>|
>>>>
>>>>Do you have any photos of some of your projects?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> considering the reaction I got from the last photo I sent you
>>> ....bugger off.
>>
>>I didn't think you would.
>>
>
> beyond all that .... casting is serious business and must be given
> one's full attention.
> you do not want the distraction of visitors.
> you do not want the distraction of pausing for photos.
>
> In truth I have no photos because I've never delayed the processes to
> take any.
> it is a dark art and making castings in exactly the same way will
> often result in totally different outcomes.
> often I have thought a casting wasted when it has turned out perfect
> and often I have thought I would have a perfect casting only to find
> it stuffed and useless.
>
> most of my castings were done for other people as I developed the
> techniques.
>
> I'm about to restart casting again after a few years break.
> this time around I will be casting wheel hubs and the like for my
> flying projects.
>
> Stealth Pilot

Sure you will.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 12, 9:53*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> > wrote in message

> Casting your own VW head can be done, but it's not nearly as easy as you
> would like to suggest. If you have examples to the contrary, as I said
> before, I'm not the only one on this news group that would love to see them.

As I said it it depends on your definition of easy. Sounds to me like
your one of those builders that is best sticking to a quick build RV
with a FWF package since everything has been already worked out.
Independent and creative thought apparently is a challenge for you.

If an RV is in fact the path you have chosen my condolences go out to
Mr. VanGrusvens customer service staff.
=======================
Leon McAtee

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 12:34*pm, " > wrote:
>
> What IS needed are aluminum head-castings having twice as much fin-
> area as what's presently available. *This won't fit on a bug or bus so
> there is no start-up money. *Coming up with the cores should have been
> done by the EAA -- about fifty years ago. *The fact it wasn't *is good
> evidence that it won't.

As I lay there taking my afternoon nap my mind wandered over this
subject and the thought came to me that we, at least I, have strayed
from the essence of this discussion and lost site of what we really
need to accomplish. Our goal. A real, hold in your hands, VW head
with adequate cooling capacity for aircraft power settings..

It has become quite clear that other than maybe 3 of us reading this
thread that the casting of things of this nature, "on the cheep" to
steal a phrase, is about as likely as being able to buy a Moller at
the local auto mart in the next decade. Even those that can grasp the
concepts needed to cast and machine some VW heads still need to build
or buy a whole set of new toy ..., er a ... tools. This doesn't get
any one closer to flying behind a VW conversion which is kind of the
point of this whole thought exercise isn't it?

The path being pursued might result in good cooling heads but only for
those of us that can make them as I doubt even once proven that
anybody would take on the production. There just wouldn't be enough
market. Could be wrong but I think we need to presume that these
things will never be kitted, only plans made items. Which means the
average home builder needs realistic ways to make them with out adding
another few hundred hours and dollars to the project just for heads.

'course there might be those that would enjoy learning casting as much
as building airplanes.................

My slumbering mind wandered to the solution of another of my flying
problems - the making of some props - and a comment my brother made
about using the same methods used to duplicate props to cut the fins
on our cast heads. Not a bad idea as I also remembered seeing a
tracing lathe operating at a science museum many years ago in Toronto
where I was attending an ultralight convention, way back in the late
70's. It was just finishing up duplicating a coke bottle and I
remember that it did a good enough job that the painted lettering was
duplicated in the steel replica as well.

So what would be so hard about adapting a propeller duplicating
pantograph to the task of finish machining a rough casting?

http://culverprops.com/culverintro.php Video here.
Substitute a Dremel/die grinder for the saw blade and add an
adjustable tracing wheel or point.

I'm thinking really basic casting here. Something with just the ports
and combustion chamber close to finished, with lumps else where as
needed. These castings would be simple enough that any back yard
caster that can make a core for the ports could ram them up using a
plaster cast pattern passed along from another builder. Those with
the desire could cast up several castings and sell for other
experimenters to finish at a very reasonable cost.

Since we are talking about using a pantograph the pattern need not be
1:1 scale. In fact something on the order of 3:1 lets the builder
work from full size drawings in plywood for fins and Bondo for glue
and filler when constructing the pattern.

Maybe with luck some homebuilders get together, use the divide and
conquer method, one making the castings and the second making the
milling machine?

But we now need a third homebuilder. One that can machine and install
the guides and valve seats and tap the various holes for studs. This
too is within the reach of a true home builder. The tools needed are
not that hard to make and the whole operation can be done by hand if
needed. I know some will scoff, but at one time just such tools were
sold by Assenmacher and others for the VW shops. The tough part was
getting the old seats out. They sold tools for that as well. A
simple drill press make things quicker. The required tools are quite
simple and anyone with access to a lathe and GOOD measuring tools can
make and use them. At this point any machine shop or VW mechanic can
hone/ream the guides, cut the seats with a Neway cutter (please use no
stones here), bore the head for the cylinder face and send you back to
bolt them on your short block.

Now with any luck I'll be over this crud in a few days and no longer
need my afternoon nap. Will be nice to get some real work done again
==========================
Leon McAtee

[[email protected]]

On Jan 13, 3:38*pm, "
> wrote:

> So what would be so hard about adapting a propeller duplicating
> pantograph to the task of finish machining a rough casting?
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neat play on words :-)
The basic problem is one of rigidity. The initial cut must also be
your finished cut, with regard to width. Unfortunately, air heats as
it expands. If the walls of the fin are perpendicular then it's
ability to couple heat to the air becomes a function of the width of
the channel between the perpendicular 'walls' of your fins, as well as
the pressure of the air flowing in that perpendicularly walled
canyon. As it is, with the amount of draft found in the typical
casting, you need one hell of a lot of air-pressure for the thing to
work properly. In other words, if all you can do is make a vertically
sided cut, then the EFFECTIVE depth of the thing becomes a function of
its width. Since your width is also a function of the rigidity of
your tooling, with a width of an eighth of an inch or there abouts,
your effective depth is reduced to about half an inch. To go any
deeper, the walls would have to taper, or be stepped, or whatever.
This is based on the thermal transfer equations found in Taylor,
Liston and others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ... The tough part was
> getting the old seats out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joke, right?

To remove swaged-in seats from aluminum heads you fire up your buzz-
box, fill your coffee cup with ice water, scratch an arc on one side
of the seat then weave a bead about 5/8" long x 3 passes 'deep,'
transfer your arc to the OPPOSITE side of the seat and do the same...
then dash your cup of iced water on the thing. Amidst the frying and
the hissing and the steam getting under your helmet you'll hear a
musical little PING! and your valve seat will be cocked up at an
angle, easily grasped with a pair of vise-grips welded to a barrel-
nut, which you've screwed to the business-end of your slide-hammer.
Give it a couple of slaps and there's your valve seat.

-R.S.Hoover

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 12:34 pm, " > wrote:
>
> What IS needed are aluminum head-castings having twice as much fin-
> area as what's presently available. This won't fit on a bug or bus so
> there is no start-up money. Coming up with the cores should have been
> done by the EAA -- about fifty years ago. The fact it wasn't is good
> evidence that it won't.

As I lay there taking my afternoon nap my mind wandered over this
subject and the thought came to me that we, at least I, have strayed
from the essence of this discussion and lost site of what we really
need to accomplish. Our goal. A real, hold in your hands, VW head
with adequate cooling capacity for aircraft power settings..

It has become quite clear that other than maybe 3 of us reading this
thread that the casting of things of this nature, "on the cheep" to
steal a phrase, is about as likely as being able to buy a Moller at
the local auto mart in the next decade. Even those that can grasp the
concepts needed to cast and machine some VW heads still need to build
or buy a whole set of new toy ..., er a ... tools. This doesn't get
any one closer to flying behind a VW conversion which is kind of the
point of this whole thought exercise isn't it?

-----------much more snipped, new post begins-----------

At the obvious cost of proving myself a heretic regarding VWs....

We could go back into the old debate about whether a nearly stock VW engine
could be a reliable 50 to 60hp powerplant with the right sort of pressure
cooling system. With all due respect to Bob, a/k/a Veeduber, I am still
convinced that it can; but he has also convinced me that it makes little or
no sense and will result in marginal performance.

The reality is that, as the displacement approaches 2.2 litres, the result
looks more and more like an over weight and under strength Jabiru. Worse
yet, the price difference narrows dramatically. And, if you place much
value on your time, the VW conversion becomes the more costly.

I admit that I still like the VW. But I also have to admit that, with the
Rotax and Jabiru as competition, it really belongs on a sngle seater.

Peter

[[email protected]]

..
> On Jan 8, 12:34*pm, " > wrote:
> > What IS needed are aluminum head-castings having twice as much fin-
> > area as what's presently available.
------------------------------------------------------------------

We need a CASTING because we need the DRAFT that goes with it.

Come up with a set of fins that leaves a clean impression in our
casting media and we'll automatically get a set of fins that does a
dandy job of coupling heat to air being forced down through, over,
passed an' whatever THROUGH those fins.

Now all we gotta do is come up with ENOUGH of those fins... as
determined by their area... to deal with the anticipated amount of
HEAT and we're on the road to Rio. Or where-ever.

-R.S.Hoover

[[email protected]]

....an' finally...
I gotta memory chip in my hand here that sez 'T2,' meaning it's got
mostly Teenie Two drawings on it. It is a two gigabyte chip, which
means it can't be ALL T2 stuff. Sure enough, one of the folders sez
'Engine.' Pull that up and there's about a dozen sub-files, one of
which is 'HEADS.' Pull THAT up and you got fifty drawings of VW
cylinder heads, a lot of which is bumpf... three nearly identical
drawings of the same thing representing sequential SAVE's so as not to
lose anything as I work on the drawing(s) (...which is a pretty
boring way to pass the day.... but a royal ****er to spend a whole day
doing a drawing only to LOSE the sonofabitch because I hit the wrong
button or whatever, hence lotsa copies of... whatever).

So why mention it? Because others may find some of the drawings of
interest. So provide me with a VALID address and I'll sendm' to you,
gratis.

-R.S.Hoover

[[email protected]]

On Jan 13, 10:02*pm, " > wrote:

> The basic problem is one of rigidity.

Agreed, thought about that too. Vibration is a significant concearn

*The initial cut must also be
> your finished cut, with regard to width. *

Never actually done this, of course, but from my limited machining
experience I'm not too sure that it's not a task that can't be done.
I was thinking something like a 4" grinder mounted to the tool post
with a carbide saw blade. once the fins got thin/deep enough wrap
some rubber tube or o-ring material in the fins adjacent to the cut.

> Joke, right?
>
> To remove swaged-in seats from aluminum heads you fire up your buzz-
> box,

Nope, no joke. Real life is a joke at times :-( The shop I started
at had no form of electric welder! The pull'n was done/attempted with
one of those slide hammer tools like a large oil piston remover. When
I moved on to my own shop I couldn't justify the cost of the tooling
needed for valve seat replacement since new heads were so cheep ....
Brazil owed us lots of money back then :-)

[et]

On Jan 14, 6:39*am, "
> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 10:02*pm, " > wrote:
>
> > The basic problem is one of rigidity.
>
> Agreed, thought about that too. *Vibration is a significant concearn
>
> *The initial cut must also be
>
> > your finished cut, with regard to width. *
>
> Never actually done this, of course, but from my limited machining
> experience I'm not too sure that it's not a task that can't be done.
> I was thinking something like a 4" grinder mounted to the tool post
> with a carbide saw blade. *once the fins got thin/deep enough wrap
> some rubber tube or o-ring material in the fins adjacent to the cut.
>
> > Joke, right?
>
> > To remove swaged-in seats from aluminum heads you fire up your buzz-
> > box,
>
> Nope, no joke. *Real life is a joke at times :-( * The shop I started
> at had no form of electric welder! *The pull'n was done/attempted with
> one of those slide hammer tools like a large oil piston remover. *When
> I moved on to my own shop I couldn't justify the cost of the tooling
> needed for valve seat replacement since new heads were so cheep ....
> Brazil owed us lots of money back then :-)

How about welding some extra fin material to an existing head?

Ed

[[email protected]]

On Jan 13, 10:06*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> At the obvious cost of proving myself a heretic regarding VWs....
>
> We could go back into the old debate about whether a nearly stock VW engine
> could be a reliable 50 to 60hp powerplant with the right sort of pressure
> cooling system. *With all due respect to Bob, a/k/a Veeduber, I am still
> convinced that it can

I have to side with VeeDuber here. I've got the benefit of experience
he probably doesn't. All my ground bound VW's operated at a density
altitude of 7000 ft - on average. When it comes too cooling by air it
takes air to do the cooling. We have less of it here than folks in
his area do.

A VW bus with a stock 1600cc was marginal and if modified to give it's
rated hp at our density altitude cooling became enemy number one. My
motors lasted longer than the guys across town in large part because I
was PICKY about the cooling, going to such extremes as siliconeing the
gap between the fan housing and the cylinder covers to keep the
cooling air inside. I bought spark plug hole seals by the
hundreds.............

The later model bus with the 1700/2000 would even show signs of heat
stress in stock form if the seal between the engine and body was
missing (flat rate shop across town never put them back).

Point is, cooling these things IS a problem. As much as I like the
old air-cooled VW's they have real problems and limitations. The most
reliable VW bus motor was one I ripped out of a Rabbit and stuffed
into the hole. 100K miles later with no heating problems, more hill
climbing power and fuel efficiency made the cost of the swaps worth
every penny. Rabbit radiator fits under the deck sideways and the
customers had heat too..... no more scraping the ice off the inside of
the windows as you drove.

BTW did you know that a stripped 8 valve VW water cooled motor weighs
LESS than an air cooled TP IV? Rather than keep flogging the air-
cooled why not try a belt PSRU on one of these canted over at about 45
degrees?

Simple as an air-cooled 1600 based VW? No. More reliable? Probably.
==============================
Leon McAtee

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 13, 10:06 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> At the obvious cost of proving myself a heretic regarding VWs....
>
> We could go back into the old debate about whether a nearly stock VW
> engine
> could be a reliable 50 to 60hp powerplant with the right sort of pressure
> cooling system. With all due respect to Bob, a/k/a Veeduber, I am still
> convinced that it can

I have to side with VeeDuber here. I've got the benefit of experience
he probably doesn't. All my ground bound VW's operated at a density
altitude of 7000 ft - on average. When it comes too cooling by air it
takes air to do the cooling. We have less of it here than folks in
his area do.

A VW bus with a stock 1600cc was marginal and if modified to give it's
rated hp at our density altitude cooling became enemy number one. My
motors lasted longer than the guys across town in large part because I
was PICKY about the cooling, going to such extremes as siliconeing the
gap between the fan housing and the cylinder covers to keep the
cooling air inside. I bought spark plug hole seals by the
hundreds.............

The later model bus with the 1700/2000 would even show signs of heat
stress in stock form if the seal between the engine and body was
missing (flat rate shop across town never put them back).

Point is, cooling these things IS a problem. As much as I like the
old air-cooled VW's they have real problems and limitations. The most
reliable VW bus motor was one I ripped out of a Rabbit and stuffed
into the hole. 100K miles later with no heating problems, more hill
climbing power and fuel efficiency made the cost of the swaps worth
every penny. Rabbit radiator fits under the deck sideways and the
customers had heat too..... no more scraping the ice off the inside of
the windows as you drove.

BTW did you know that a stripped 8 valve VW water cooled motor weighs
LESS than an air cooled TP IV? Rather than keep flogging the air-
cooled why not try a belt PSRU on one of these canted over at about 45
degrees?

Simple as an air-cooled 1600 based VW? No. More reliable? Probably.
==============================
Leon McAtee

Interesting. I did not know that the 8 valve VW was lighter than the Type
IV, especially since I believed that it probably had an iron block. I have
never been a fan of reduction drives; but there were a lot of conversions
based upon inline fours with belt reduction drives during that time period.
AFAIK, several were quite successfull. And a lot of the newer engines are
lighter for their power and might be easier to cool.

Peter

[[email protected]]

On Jan 14, 6:39*am, "
> wrote:
> * The shop I started
> at had no form of electric welder! *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't REALLY need a REAL buzz box. Three 12v batteries will do
the trick, which is to dump about one volcano's-worth of HEAT into the
opposite sides of the seat. Molton steel. It has GOT to shrink as it
cools. And when it does, it shrinks the seat as well. So with a bead
at the top and a bead at the bottom, hit the thing with a cup of ice
water, it shrinks into an OVAL and you can pop it right outta there.

-Bob

[[email protected]]

On Jan 14, 11:10*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jan 13, 10:06 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
> > At the obvious cost of proving myself a heretic regarding VWs....
>
> > We could go back into the old debate about whether a nearly stock VW
> > engine
> > could be a reliable 50 to 60hp powerplant with the right sort of pressure
> > cooling system. With all due respect to Bob, a/k/a Veeduber, I am still
> > convinced that it can
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mybe it CAN. All I'm saying is that it never happened for me and I
gave it a pretty good go. Failures ALWAYS pointed to excessive
heating/lack of cooling.

Probably the biggest factor in folks thinking it CAN do that are the
ones that simply ran it til it dropped then built another, without
paying any attention to MTBO. I know two turbo types that thought TEN
HOURS was a good number for their heads. One of those guys swore up &
down that he NEVER HAD A LICK OF TROUBLE during a thousand hours
behind a turbo'd VW. But what he failed to mention was that those
thousand hours were accumulated on THREE DIFFERENT CRANKCASES and that
about the only time you saw his plane was at a fly-in or TORN DOWN,
getting new heads, new bearings, a new crankshaft, and so forth. But
he's right: It NEVER LET HIM DOWN. He never crashed. He never had
to land off-field (although he had a number of landings at strange
airports). And if he had to rent a U-Haul truck to get the thing back
home, why, that was just part of the game. (KR2, based in Oregon)

I don't look at flying that way.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 14, 11:10 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jan 13, 10:06 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
> > At the obvious cost of proving myself a heretic regarding VWs....
>
> > We could go back into the old debate about whether a nearly stock VW
> > engine
> > could be a reliable 50 to 60hp powerplant with the right sort of
> > pressure
> > cooling system. With all due respect to Bob, a/k/a Veeduber, I am still
> > convinced that it can
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mybe it CAN. All I'm saying is that it never happened for me and I
gave it a pretty good go. Failures ALWAYS pointed to excessive
heating/lack of cooling.

Probably the biggest factor in folks thinking it CAN do that are the
ones that simply ran it til it dropped then built another, without
paying any attention to MTBO. I know two turbo types that thought TEN
HOURS was a good number for their heads. One of those guys swore up &
down that he NEVER HAD A LICK OF TROUBLE during a thousand hours
behind a turbo'd VW. But what he failed to mention was that those
thousand hours were accumulated on THREE DIFFERENT CRANKCASES and that
about the only time you saw his plane was at a fly-in or TORN DOWN,
getting new heads, new bearings, a new crankshaft, and so forth. But
he's right: It NEVER LET HIM DOWN. He never crashed. He never had
to land off-field (although he had a number of landings at strange
airports). And if he had to rent a U-Haul truck to get the thing back
home, why, that was just part of the game. (KR2, based in Oregon)

I don't look at flying that way.

-----------begin new post---------

I am really not dissagreeing with you--as the pressure system that I am
thinking of would use a VW type cooling fan to augment the ram air pressure.
That would be a rather obvious source of added weight and an easily visible
use of power--and would never be popular.

Interestingly, the guys I knew who broke cranks (amoung other interesting
problems) were also flying KR2s--although they were based in Florida.

Personally, that is not a level of reliability that I could accept; and I
have never considered an application that I believed would draw much more
than 40 HP continuously from a VW--even though I have been willing to
consider ideas that asserted a theoretical peak power of 60 HP.

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> On Jan 14, 11:10 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> On Jan 13, 10:06 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>
>>> At the obvious cost of proving myself a heretic regarding VWs....
>>> We could go back into the old debate about whether a nearly stock VW
>>> engine
>>> could be a reliable 50 to 60hp powerplant with the right sort of
>>> pressure
>>> cooling system. With all due respect to Bob, a/k/a Veeduber, I am still
>>> convinced that it can
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Mybe it CAN. All I'm saying is that it never happened for me and I
> gave it a pretty good go. Failures ALWAYS pointed to excessive
> heating/lack of cooling.
>
> Probably the biggest factor in folks thinking it CAN do that are the
> ones that simply ran it til it dropped then built another, without
> paying any attention to MTBO. I know two turbo types that thought TEN
> HOURS was a good number for their heads. One of those guys swore up &
> down that he NEVER HAD A LICK OF TROUBLE during a thousand hours
> behind a turbo'd VW. But what he failed to mention was that those
> thousand hours were accumulated on THREE DIFFERENT CRANKCASES and that
> about the only time you saw his plane was at a fly-in or TORN DOWN,
> getting new heads, new bearings, a new crankshaft, and so forth. But
> he's right: It NEVER LET HIM DOWN. He never crashed. He never had
> to land off-field (although he had a number of landings at strange
> airports). And if he had to rent a U-Haul truck to get the thing back
> home, why, that was just part of the game. (KR2, based in Oregon)
>
> I don't look at flying that way.
>
> -----------begin new post---------
>
> I am really not dissagreeing with you--as the pressure system that I am
> thinking of would use a VW type cooling fan to augment the ram air pressure.
> That would be a rather obvious source of added weight and an easily visible
> use of power--and would never be popular.
>
> Interestingly, the guys I knew who broke cranks (amoung other interesting
> problems) were also flying KR2s--although they were based in Florida.
>
> Personally, that is not a level of reliability that I could accept; and I
> have never considered an application that I believed would draw much more
> than 40 HP continuously from a VW--even though I have been willing to
> consider ideas that asserted a theoretical peak power of 60 HP.
>
>


I've always thought that the broken cranks were the cast versions not forged cranks.


I've never heard of anyone breaking a forged crank.

FWIW

Richard

[[email protected]]

On Jan 14, 1:10*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> Interesting. *I did not know that the 8 valve VW was lighter than the Type
> IV, especially since I believed that it probably had an iron block.
>
> Peter

They are iron blocks, just really nice and thin. But tough. Burn
about 3 gal per hour (18 mpg @55mph) wide open throttle going up the
hills around here in 3rd/4th gear which works out to around 55 Hp?
Not all that much but it never would over heat and 250K+ miles is
quite common. The kids with turbos still didn't have cooling problems
and they are probably a lot closer to the factory 100 or so HP claim.

The 2.0L version with the cross flow head would probably package the
best. I've got one on an engine stand that I was going to put in a
Q2. Decided I don't like Q2's. Still have the PSRU sprokets and a
turbo sitting on the motor.............Got to get rid of some of my
junk.
================
Leon McAtee

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 12, 9:53 pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> > wrote in message

> Casting your own VW head can be done, but it's not nearly as easy as you
> would like to suggest. If you have examples to the contrary, as I said
> before, I'm not the only one on this news group that would love to see
> them.

As I said it it depends on your definition of easy. Sounds to me like
your one of those builders that is best sticking to a quick build RV
with a FWF package since everything has been already worked out.
Independent and creative thought apparently is a challenge for you.

If an RV is in fact the path you have chosen my condolences go out to
Mr. VanGrusvens customer service staff.
=======================

Nice smoke screen, but hardly related to the discussion at hand.

You insist there are easy ways to cast a head with cooling fins using lost
wax or lost foam, but you still can't provide any examples.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 14, 4:55*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> I am really not dissagreeing with you--as the pressure system that I am
> thinking of would use a VW type cooling fan to augment the ram air pressure.
> That would be a rather obvious source of added weight and an easily visible
> use of power--and would never be popular.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The trouble with the coaxial blower mods was the SAME as with the
turbo people, in that there simply was not enough fin area for the
increased density/flow to do much good. Everyone seemed determine to
get "60hp" sixty mythical horsepower from an engine that in its most
powerful configuration only produced 57bhp @ 4400rpm.... and you only
got to pull that for something less than 5 minutes.

So you increase the displacement to something seriously silly and
USING THE SAME HEADS & FIN AREA start pulling as much as 85hp(!!) from
that configuration... and wondering why things weren't working right.

Maximum SUSTAINABLE OUTPUT of the '1600' (displacement 1584cc) under
Standard Day conditions was something like 36bhp, whereas PEAK OUTPUT
can be just about anything you're willing to pay for. It doesn't blow
up (although it can) but it blows your bhp right into the porcelain
fixture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Interestingly, the guys I knew who broke cranks (amoung other interesting
> problems) were also flying KR2s--although they were based in Florida.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you talk 'broken cranks' and VW's you gotta define which TYPE of
'broken crankshaft' you're referring to, because there are TWO
distinct cases. In the FIRST CASE, ANY VW crankshaft, cast, forged
or billet,....can, will and has... displayed the 'classic' fracture
failure, in which a fracture is initiated in one of the internal
threads of the PULLEY HUB, the peaks of which may approach to within .
058" of one of the corners of the Woodruff Key keyway cut into the
NOSE of the crankshaft. (As you may know, the Woodruff Key is a
segment of a circle, as is it's keyway. Unlike a SQUARE key, with the
Woodruff, which is far easier to fabricate, if you want a KEY of
substantial length and width then you must be willing to accept a
KEYWAY of significant DEPTH. This is what allows the keyway to
approach so closely to the internal threads. Another factor here is
that, unlike British or American thread-forms, METRIC threads come to
a sharp POINT. These factors COMBINE to virtually guarantee the
formation of a crack in the nose of the crankshaft.) The crack then
progresses along the corner of the Woodruff keyway cut until it
crosses over to the Stress Relief groove which completely encircles
the nose of the crankshaft. Once it reaches that point you may as well
tighten your straps and punch the locator beacon because you're about
to turn into a glider.

This situation was discovered by the British firm of Ardem who sought
-- and RECEIVED -- certification for the Converted VW. They worked
out the critical load was something on the order of 27 bhp, and the
maximum amount of time was around 200 hours. And that's what they got
certification for. T.O. power limited to 3 minutes; tear-down &
magnaflux inspection REQUIRED at 200 hours. Once they got all the
paperwork out of the way they even allowed Prince Phillip to hop one
(ie, license-built Druine 'Turbulent' powered by the Ardem 4C02, a VW
engine converted for flight that was rated at 30.7bhp @ 3000 rpm (but
only for about one minute).

Then we have the Clyde's Buggy sand-cast crankshafts. Clyde's (sp?)
is better known today as 'CB Performance' but it's the same shop just
a different name. I believe Clyde's last name is Tomlinson but I'm
going back forty years and more... Anyway, the owner's son went to
Brazil and began importing all sorts of stuff, including
crankshafts. Rex Taylor used some of those crankshafts -- which
happened to be castings -- in some of his engines and their failure
effectively put Rex out of business. But it also fostered the
Conventional Wisdom that ALL cast crankshafts were bad. Which is
kinda strange when you think of it because the Big Three have been
using cast cranks in their biggest engines since Jeeter was a pup. In
fact, what you're running into here is the fact that a crankshaft
fabricated using the Lost Foam process is actually superior to a
forging, which is why you find cast cranks in some of the best racing
engines. But Volkswagen owners didn't get the benefit of those
properly cast cranks until they started coming in from China. Prior
to then we had some cast cranks that were so bad the thing could
shatter if it fell off the bench.

The reason a MODERN casting is superior to a forging has to do with
the manner in which the casting is allowed to cool. A modern-day lost-
foam CAST CRANKSHAFT is allowed to cool at a carefully controlled rate
so that the internal grain structure of the crank comes out denser
than in a forging. Another advantage is that many of the high-
strength alloys simply cannot be forged! But one of the funniest
things you'll hear about cast cranks is that they are LESS EXPENSIVE.
Due to the price of today's fuels it actually costs MORE to produce a
a high-quality cast crankshaft. Using casting methods, you CAN produce
a cheap crank but the real reason to go with a casting is to take
advantage of the casting's denser grain structure.

Those early cast cranks were junk, pure and simple. Dropping one
could cause it to break like a piece of glass and using one in an
airplane engine was little more than corporate suicide. There is
simply no way you can compare those early sand-cast crankshafts with a
modern-day casting, such as used by Volkswagen and Ford.

Most American pilots aren't familiar with the 'flying club' system
found in Europe and most other places in the world. One reason the
clubs enjoy an enviable safety record is because they are required to
have a certified A&E on staff. aren't aware of is that flying clubs
are REQUIRED to have a certified A&E on staff. Which brings up an
interesting point about VW engines converted for flight. A majority
of those engines were used to power flying club hacks, with a long
waiting list that covered the entire flying season.

Remember the tear-down and inspection requirement for the Ardem
engines? Specifically that bit about a Magnaflux inspection every two
hundred hours? The truth is, a Magnaflux inspection cost MORE than a
new crankshaft. As soon as the airplane was taken off flying status
and began to undergo is winter maintenance schedules, the engine was
torn down in order to receive a NEW crankshaft. Depending on how many
hours the flying club's planes accumulated over the summer, you could
count on it having a NEW crankshaft every two years. With that in
mind it's easy to see why broken crankshafts simply were not an issue
with any of the club's VW powered aircraft.

-R.S.Hoover

[Anyolmouse]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 14, 4:55 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> I am really not dissagreeing with you--as the pressure system that I
am
> thinking of would use a VW type cooling fan to augment the ram air
pressure.
> That would be a rather obvious source of added weight and an easily
visible
> use of power--and would never be popular.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

The trouble with the coaxial blower mods was the SAME as with the
turbo people, in that there simply was not enough fin area for the
increased density/flow to do much good. Everyone seemed determine to
get "60hp" sixty mythical horsepower from an engine that in its most
powerful configuration only produced 57bhp @ 4400rpm.... and you only
got to pull that for something less than 5 minutes.

So you increase the displacement to something seriously silly and
USING THE SAME HEADS & FIN AREA start pulling as much as 85hp(!!) from
that configuration... and wondering why things weren't working right.

Maximum SUSTAINABLE OUTPUT of the '1600' (displacement 1584cc) under
Standard Day conditions was something like 36bhp, whereas PEAK OUTPUT
can be just about anything you're willing to pay for. It doesn't blow
up (although it can) but it blows your bhp right into the porcelain
fixture.
<SNIP>
-R.S.Hoover

Hope you don't mind my jumping in here Bob. Do you remember the Porsche
engine with the cooling fan behind the prop? It was supposed to
eliminate the need for cowl flaps and also prevent shock cooling too.
What happened to it?

--
Anyolmouse

[oilsardine[_2_]]

fan-cooled VW/Porsche http://popnet.ch/reichen/HB207/image035.htm

it's the powerplant of a ALFA HB 207, quite a few flying here in Europe
http://popnet.ch/reichen/HB207/index.htm


"Anyolmouse" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> On Jan 14, 4:55 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
>> I am really not dissagreeing with you--as the pressure system that I
> am
>> thinking of would use a VW type cooling fan to augment the ram air
> pressure.
>> That would be a rather obvious source of added weight and an easily
> visible
>> use of power--and would never be popular.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> The trouble with the coaxial blower mods was the SAME as with the
> turbo people, in that there simply was not enough fin area for the
> increased density/flow to do much good. Everyone seemed determine to
> get "60hp" sixty mythical horsepower from an engine that in its most
> powerful configuration only produced 57bhp @ 4400rpm.... and you only
> got to pull that for something less than 5 minutes.
>
> So you increase the displacement to something seriously silly and
> USING THE SAME HEADS & FIN AREA start pulling as much as 85hp(!!) from
> that configuration... and wondering why things weren't working right.
>
> Maximum SUSTAINABLE OUTPUT of the '1600' (displacement 1584cc) under
> Standard Day conditions was something like 36bhp, whereas PEAK OUTPUT
> can be just about anything you're willing to pay for. It doesn't blow
> up (although it can) but it blows your bhp right into the porcelain
> fixture.
> <SNIP>
> -R.S.Hoover
>
> Hope you don't mind my jumping in here Bob. Do you remember the Porsche
> engine with the cooling fan behind the prop? It was supposed to
> eliminate the need for cowl flaps and also prevent shock cooling too.
> What happened to it?
>
> --
> Anyolmouse
>

[Anyolmouse]

"oilsardine" > wrote in message
...
: fan-cooled VW/Porsche http://popnet.ch/reichen/HB207/image035.htm
:
: it's the powerplant of a ALFA HB 207, quite a few flying here in
Europe
: http://popnet.ch/reichen/HB207/index.htm
:
:
: "Anyolmouse" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
: ...
: >
: > > wrote in message
: >
...
: > On Jan 14, 4:55 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
: >
: >> I am really not dissagreeing with you--as the pressure system that
I
: > am
: >> thinking of would use a VW type cooling fan to augment the ram air
: > pressure.
: >> That would be a rather obvious source of added weight and an easily
: > visible
: >> use of power--and would never be popular.
:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
: > --------
: >
: > The trouble with the coaxial blower mods was the SAME as with the
: > turbo people, in that there simply was not enough fin area for the
: > increased density/flow to do much good. Everyone seemed determine
to
: > get "60hp" sixty mythical horsepower from an engine that in its most
: > powerful configuration only produced 57bhp @ 4400rpm.... and you
only
: > got to pull that for something less than 5 minutes.
: >
: > So you increase the displacement to something seriously silly and
: > USING THE SAME HEADS & FIN AREA start pulling as much as 85hp(!!)
from
: > that configuration... and wondering why things weren't working
right.
: >
: > Maximum SUSTAINABLE OUTPUT of the '1600' (displacement 1584cc) under
: > Standard Day conditions was something like 36bhp, whereas PEAK
OUTPUT
: > can be just about anything you're willing to pay for. It doesn't
blow
: > up (although it can) but it blows your bhp right into the porcelain
: > fixture.
: > <SNIP>
: > -R.S.Hoover
: >
: > Hope you don't mind my jumping in here Bob. Do you remember the
Porsche
: > engine with the cooling fan behind the prop? It was supposed to
: > eliminate the need for cowl flaps and also prevent shock cooling
too.
: > What happened to it?
: >
: > --
: > Anyolmouse
: >

Nice site. It isn't the same configuration as the one I saw in a
magazine here in the US though. There was a large air intake filled with
a fan just behind the prop. The fan was supposed to supply all the
cooling needed and protect the engine from over cooling from ram air as
well as supply cooling during taxi and low speed operation.

--
Anyolmouse

[Peter Dohm]

"Anyolmouse" > wrote in message
...
>
> "oilsardine" > wrote in message
> ...
> : fan-cooled VW/Porsche http://popnet.ch/reichen/HB207/image035.htm
> :
> : it's the powerplant of a ALFA HB 207, quite a few flying here in
> Europe
> : http://popnet.ch/reichen/HB207/index.htm
> :
> :
> : "Anyolmouse" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> : ...
> : >
> : > > wrote in message
> : >
> ...
> : > On Jan 14, 4:55 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> : >
> : >> I am really not dissagreeing with you--as the pressure system that
> I
> : > am
> : >> thinking of would use a VW type cooling fan to augment the ram air
> : > pressure.
> : >> That would be a rather obvious source of added weight and an easily
> : > visible
> : >> use of power--and would never be popular.
> :
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> : > --------
> : >
> : > The trouble with the coaxial blower mods was the SAME as with the
> : > turbo people, in that there simply was not enough fin area for the
> : > increased density/flow to do much good. Everyone seemed determine
> to
> : > get "60hp" sixty mythical horsepower from an engine that in its most
> : > powerful configuration only produced 57bhp @ 4400rpm.... and you
> only
> : > got to pull that for something less than 5 minutes.
> : >
> : > So you increase the displacement to something seriously silly and
> : > USING THE SAME HEADS & FIN AREA start pulling as much as 85hp(!!)
> from
> : > that configuration... and wondering why things weren't working
> right.
> : >
> : > Maximum SUSTAINABLE OUTPUT of the '1600' (displacement 1584cc) under
> : > Standard Day conditions was something like 36bhp, whereas PEAK
> OUTPUT
> : > can be just about anything you're willing to pay for. It doesn't
> blow
> : > up (although it can) but it blows your bhp right into the porcelain
> : > fixture.
> : > <SNIP>
> : > -R.S.Hoover
> : >
> : > Hope you don't mind my jumping in here Bob. Do you remember the
> Porsche
> : > engine with the cooling fan behind the prop? It was supposed to
> : > eliminate the need for cowl flaps and also prevent shock cooling
> too.
> : > What happened to it?
> : >
> : > --
> : > Anyolmouse
> : >
>
> Nice site. It isn't the same configuration as the one I saw in a
> magazine here in the US though. There was a large air intake filled with
> a fan just behind the prop. The fan was supposed to supply all the
> cooling needed and protect the engine from over cooling from ram air as
> well as supply cooling during taxi and low speed operation.
>
> --
> Anyolmouse
>
What you describe is basically what I had in mind. It would most commonly
be accomplished with an annular intake; but could be done in several ways,
mostly depending on the specifics of how the prop is driven.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"cavelamb" > wrote in message
...
---------------preceding posts snipped------------------
>>
>> I am really not dissagreeing with you--as the pressure system that I am
>> thinking of would use a VW type cooling fan to augment the ram air
>> pressure. That would be a rather obvious source of added weight and an
>> easily visible use of power--and would never be popular.
>>
>> Interestingly, the guys I knew who broke cranks (amoung other interesting
>> problems) were also flying KR2s--although they were based in Florida.
>>
>> Personally, that is not a level of reliability that I could accept; and I
>> have never considered an application that I believed would draw much more
>> than 40 HP continuously from a VW--even though I have been willing to
>> consider ideas that asserted a theoretical peak power of 60 HP.
>
>
> I've always thought that the broken cranks were the cast versions not
> forged cranks.
>
>
> I've never heard of anyone breaking a forged crank.
>
> FWIW
>
> Richard

I had thought that as well, but it appears that my information was
incomplete and Veeduber included some probable reasons in an adjacent post.

In any case, the broken cranks that locally came to my attention occurred in
the range of 150 to 160 hours of operation and I was told at that time that
failures of that type were well known at a similar time in service.
Although I no longer recall what I was told about the exact nature of the
breaks, the engines involved were driving props on the accessory end and the
failure was probably the gradual crack progression that Veeduber describes
from a point between the threads and the woodruff key slot.

Peter

[[email protected]]

On Jan 15, 6:23*am, "Anyolmouse" > wrote:

> Hope you don't mind my jumping in here Bob. Do you remember the Porsche
> engine with the cooling fan behind the prop?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you mean the engine for the British blimp, yeah, I remember it.

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

> It was supposed to
> eliminate the need for cowl flaps and also prevent shock cooling too.
> What happened to it?

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

They had trouble with the blimp, as best I can recall.

Come on... you should be able to remember it. It was in most of the
magazines back then.

The blimp could not provide the forward velocity needed to cool the
engine, so instead of going to Fat Fins or any of the other possible
solutions (the Porsche engine was already Type Certified -- they
couldn't mess with it without running into the CAA. So they came up
with the idea of providing a 140mph cooling air-flow INSIDE THE
COWLING. The engine didn't know any better. It would stick out it's
toe, feel that blast of 140 mph cooling air and say, "Oh goody!" (but
in Chermann of course) and fly off into the sunset... with half a
dozen tourists on-board (at about $50 per, as I recall). Quick tour
around the pea-patch, niffty landing to the portable Pylon Tower,
commerative T-shirts, coffee mugs and an autographed picture of the
Fearless Aviator, and off they go for another trip around the pea
patch.

Ah, the wonders of aviation...

It wasn't the ENGINE'S fault that the thing was not a howling
success... and the truth is, I've forgotten the details as to WHY it
was not a success... if I ever even knew them.

-Bob

[[email protected]]

On Jan 15, 8:13*am, "Anyolmouse" > wrote:

> Nice site. It isn't the same configuration as the one I saw in a
> magazine here in the US though.
> --
> Anyolmouse

Are you thinking about the Mooney/Porsche?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Porsche_PFM_3200.jpg/800px-Porsche_PFM_3200.jpg

[Anyolmouse]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 6:23 am, "Anyolmouse" > wrote:

> Hope you don't mind my jumping in here Bob. Do you remember the
Porsche
> engine with the cooling fan behind the prop?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------

If you mean the engine for the British blimp, yeah, I remember it.

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

> It was supposed to
> eliminate the need for cowl flaps and also prevent shock cooling too.
> What happened to it?

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

They had trouble with the blimp, as best I can recall.

Come on... you should be able to remember it. It was in most of the
magazines back then.

The blimp could not provide the forward velocity needed to cool the
engine, so instead of going to Fat Fins or any of the other possible
solutions (the Porsche engine was already Type Certified -- they
couldn't mess with it without running into the CAA. So they came up
with the idea of providing a 140mph cooling air-flow INSIDE THE
COWLING. The engine didn't know any better. It would stick out it's
toe, feel that blast of 140 mph cooling air and say, "Oh goody!" (but
in Chermann of course) and fly off into the sunset... with half a
dozen tourists on-board (at about $50 per, as I recall). Quick tour
around the pea-patch, niffty landing to the portable Pylon Tower,
commerative T-shirts, coffee mugs and an autographed picture of the
Fearless Aviator, and off they go for another trip around the pea
patch.

Ah, the wonders of aviation...

It wasn't the ENGINE'S fault that the thing was not a howling
success... and the truth is, I've forgotten the details as to WHY it
was not a success... if I ever even knew them.

-Bob

It was in one of the aviation magazines with picture(s) of it in an
airplane. Didn't see any reference to a blimp in the write up. I wish I
could recall more about it. Thanks for the reply though-

--
Anyolmouse

[Anyolmouse]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 8:13 am, "Anyolmouse" > wrote:

> Nice site. It isn't the same configuration as the one I saw in a
> magazine here in the US though.
> --
> Anyolmouse

Are you thinking about the Mooney/Porsche?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Porsche_PFM_3200.jpg/800px-Porsche_PFM_3200.jpg

Could be it without the fan and prop.

--
Anyolmouse

[[email protected]]

On Jan 15, 10:41*am, " > wrote:

> It wasn't the ENGINE'S fault that the thing was not a howling
> success... and the truth is, I've forgotten the details as to WHY it
> was not a success... if I ever even knew them.

History repeats. Only this time the government is paying the bill for
a Porsche powered English blimp.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/PMA262/blimp/blimp_patrol_10July2008.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyship_600
===============
Leon McAtee

[Charles Vincent]

wrote:
> On Jan 14, 11:10 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> On Jan 13, 10:06 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>
>>> At the obvious cost of proving myself a heretic regarding VWs....
>>> We could go back into the old debate about whether a nearly stock VW
>>> engine
>>> could be a reliable 50 to 60hp powerplant with the right sort of pressure
>>> cooling system. With all due respect to Bob, a/k/a Veeduber, I am still
>>> convinced that it can
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Mybe it CAN. All I'm saying is that it never happened for me and I
> gave it a pretty good go. Failures ALWAYS pointed to excessive
> heating/lack of cooling.
>

Doubling the velocity of the air through a given cooling fin design only
gives a 60% or so improvement, but of course, the cost of accelerating
that air is operating on a curve going the opposite direction, i.e. it
takes 300% of the energy. Low horsepower designs use thick short
widely spaced fins with a turbulent air stream for the most efficient
cooling (i.e. least power) The fact that these are cheaper to build just
happens to work with the model that low horsepower designs are applied
to. The longer a fin is, the less efficient it is. So the VW head needs
more fins, not just longer fins, or even more air. All of this is
exacerbated by the fact that as load goes up, the percentage of heat in
the cylinder head vs the cylinder itself goes up disproportionately.
Same thing happens with RPM. So punching them and revving them to get
more horsepower just highlights the limitation of the original design.
I can of course cite sources for all of this, but real engineering
textbooks are frowned upon, so to go with the flow, I will ascribe it
all to a friend of my cousin named Mackerle and his partner Liston who
has been building these things for years and stuff and knows all about
it.

Charles

[[email protected]]

On Jan 15, 10:43*am, "
> wrote:
> History repeats. *Only this time the government is paying the bill for
> a Porsche powered English blimp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm delighted to see that my Memory Bone has not been attacked by this
cancer :-) But I'm still stuck with trying to recall the details that
went into a successful finned pattern, as explained to me (about 40
years ago!!) by a fellow Chief. I really hate to say it but my best
recollection of FINS was that in each case, the FIN had to be made of
two pieces of CLEAR lumber, glued back-to-back. For example, to
produce a 1/8" fin, measured at the tip, you had to start with two
pieces of clear wood about 3/16" (each!) at the root or base of the
fin. These were then sanded or planed so as to provide a MINIMUM
draft of 1/8".

Right now I'm looking at FIFTEEN fins (vs the stock VW head's which
have only eight).

Using the best head I could find (I had no idea how many of the damn
things I've accumulated!) and making up half a coffee-can of green
sand (using a mix of aluminum oxide(?) & #100 silica, there's no way
in the world I can come up with a green-sand having enough strength to
produce a fin even as deep as the STOCK depth (ie, approximately 1").
Plus, I run into an interesting problem: With a draft of 1/8" and a
depth of 1", things appear to work out pretty well. But to then make
the depth ANY GREATER than 1" I will have to increase the distance
between the fins, which is presently 1/4" for the four HOTTEST fins
but only 3/16" apart for the five coolest fins. Then comes the main
problem: I don't have a planer, which sanding down each of the
'biscuits' I'll need to make the fins.

Then comes an even trickier problem: There is a clear parting line
showing how the fins were rammed-up & parted but the flask holding the
fins next to the valve gallery has to make use of a false bottom (I
know what it is but I've forgotten the name of the thing) so that you
end up using three flasks, one of which is rammed and pulled
perpendicular to the other two.

-Bob

[Peter Dohm]

"Charles Vincent" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 11:10 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>> On Jan 13, 10:06 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> At the obvious cost of proving myself a heretic regarding VWs....
>>>> We could go back into the old debate about whether a nearly stock VW
>>>> engine
>>>> could be a reliable 50 to 60hp powerplant with the right sort of
>>>> pressure
>>>> cooling system. With all due respect to Bob, a/k/a Veeduber, I am still
>>>> convinced that it can
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Mybe it CAN. All I'm saying is that it never happened for me and I
>> gave it a pretty good go. Failures ALWAYS pointed to excessive
>> heating/lack of cooling.
>>
>
> Doubling the velocity of the air through a given cooling fin design only
> gives a 60% or so improvement, but of course, the cost of accelerating
> that air is operating on a curve going the opposite direction, i.e. it
> takes 300% of the energy. Low horsepower designs use thick short widely
> spaced fins with a turbulent air stream for the most efficient cooling
> (i.e. least power) The fact that these are cheaper to build just happens
> to work with the model that low horsepower designs are applied to. The
> longer a fin is, the less efficient it is. So the VW head needs more fins,
> not just longer fins, or even more air. All of this is exacerbated by the
> fact that as load goes up, the percentage of heat in the cylinder head vs
> the cylinder itself goes up disproportionately. Same thing happens with
> RPM. So punching them and revving them to get more horsepower just
> highlights the limitation of the original design. I can of course cite
> sources for all of this, but real engineering textbooks are frowned upon,
> so to go with the flow, I will ascribe it all to a friend of my cousin
> named Mackerle and his partner Liston who has been building these things
> for years and stuff and knows all about it.
>
> Charles

I really had decided to let this whole matter slide; since, in the end,
everything that I might actually want to build would require 80 to 120
horsepower--and more if I really want the aircraft to have utility for
transportation. So this mostly an intellectual exercise.

However, since you phrase your response in the above manner:
1) To get from a thermal limitation of 45 horsepower to 60 horsepower looks
like a 33% increase. If you dissagree, please respond to
Hewlett-Packard--since I have been using their calculators for the past 25
years or so.
2) Doubling the velocity of airflow should require 400% (not 300'%) of the
energy, according to the old engineering texts that I can no longer find.
3) By the combining the above calculations, and using the latest trusty
Hewlett-Packard calculator, the 33% increase in cooling should require 177%
of the energy.
4) The basic point was that: if you climb at 60 (kph, mph, kts, or
whatever) and you would need to be climbing at 90 to adiquately cool the
engine; then the difference could be made up by the addition of a cooling
fan.
5) As to the real engineering textbooks: BRING 'EM ON.

Peter

[Charles Vincent]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> I really had decided to let this whole matter slide; since, in the end,
> everything that I might actually want to build would require 80 to 120
> horsepower--and more if I really want the aircraft to have utility for
> transportation. So this mostly an intellectual exercise.
>
> However, since you phrase your response in the above manner:
> 1) To get from a thermal limitation of 45 horsepower to 60 horsepower looks
> like a 33% increase. If you dissagree, please respond to
> Hewlett-Packard--since I have been using their calculators for the past 25
> years or so.

As I understand it, it doesn't actually work that way. As the power
goes up, an increasing proportion of the heat goes out the exhaust, but
it is probably close enough. According to various reports and Mackerle,
the proportion of heat going into the head goes up though, and the
proportion going into the cylinder goes down, so if you are trying to
maintain the head temp it is likely to be more than 33% difference.

> 2) Doubling the velocity of airflow should require 400% (not 300'%) of the
> energy, according to the old engineering texts that I can no longer find.

If you could find those texts, they would tell you that when driving a
fan, the power required actually goes up as the cube of the difference
in RPM and the CFM at subsonic speeds scales with the rpm, so doubling
the CFM results in 800% increase in power required. For ram air it is
slightly more complicated, but it essentially rises as a cube of the
airflow as well. NACA did some tests on fan cooled radials and the
Japanese actually deployed some (Kawanishi N1K is one) so there is
research out there. As for the 300% I picked it up off of where I had
actually started to calculate the power difference required for a 33%
increase in HP and a diminished heat transfer coefficient and then left
off unfinished. My mistake, but it understates not overstates the
problem of improving cooling by just increasing the airflow. As in all
things, it depends on just where on the curve you are. The bottom
almost looks like a straight line, the top like a brick wall.

> 3) By the combining the above calculations, and using the latest trusty
> Hewlett-Packard calculator, the 33% increase in cooling should require 177%
> of the energy.

See above....

> 4) The basic point was that: if you climb at 60 (kph, mph, kts, or
> whatever) and you would need to be climbing at 90 to adiquately cool the
> engine; then the difference could be made up by the addition of a cooling
> fan.

You would have to figure out how to connect the fan. I think the stock
VW fan moves about 1000CFM at 3000rpm and about 1500CFM at 4000rpm (when
I have been told the belt starts slipping). Veeduber I am sure has the
proper numbers. I don't think it would be a minor thing hooking it up
mechanically and not losing everything you gained in additional weight,
additional drag and HP losses to the fan. If your design speed is slow
enough, I guess you can drop the drag. The Japanese did it with a
geared coaxial fan on a radial, so they had a simpler task. They ended
up with a smaller nose that was almost completely filled with the
spinner and a really small air intake ringing that.

> 5) As to the real engineering textbooks: BRING 'EM ON.
>
> Peter
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Jan 16, 4:39*pm, Charles Vincent > wrote:

> You would have to figure out how to connect the fan. *I think the stock
> VW fan moves about 1000CFM at 3000rpm and about 1500CFM at 4000rpm (when
> I have been told the belt starts slipping). *Veeduber I am sure has the
> proper numbers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The numbers,, proper or not, are 1300cfm, according to the VW Factory
Service Manual... or whatever... (black covers w/embossed silver
printing). But I think it's a giant LEAP backwards. Somebody out
there is sand-casting VW crankcases in aluminum. Torture them with
lotsnlotsa money and get them to shuffle things around a bit, allowing
a BORE of about 4.625" and a stroke of 88mm, then cast a LONG #1 main
bearing and throw away the tranny flange... might even get them to
cast a Dyna-Focal mount on the other end... and make some entirely NEW
1-cylinder per head headz, and we can stop calling it a VW (although
we'd still be using a lot of VW parts) and start calling it a DIY
Homebuilder Engine... with about 100bhp @ 2700 rpm (or whatever... use
the C-90 cam timing; get someone like Dick (sp?) Schneider to grind us
some wiggle sticks. 40A. coaxial alternator. Itty-bitty geared
starter. Electronic ignition. Holes for two plugs. SIX head-stays.
Juice valves outta the little Chevy. Absolutely NOTHING
certified...although EVERYTHING has done a million miles or more in
other engines. That is to say, there ain't nothing new in such a
design.

Kinda heavy, though... about 181 bare, mostly because of the crank.

-Bluesky Bob

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 4:39 pm, Charles Vincent > wrote:

> You would have to figure out how to connect the fan. I think the stock
> VW fan moves about 1000CFM at 3000rpm and about 1500CFM at 4000rpm (when
> I have been told the belt starts slipping). Veeduber I am sure has the
> proper numbers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The numbers,, proper or not, are 1300cfm, according to the VW Factory
Service Manual... or whatever... (black covers w/embossed silver
printing). But I think it's a giant LEAP backwards. Somebody out
there is sand-casting VW crankcases in aluminum. Torture them with
lotsnlotsa money and get them to shuffle things around a bit, allowing
a BORE of about 4.625" and a stroke of 88mm, then cast a LONG #1 main
bearing and throw away the tranny flange... might even get them to
cast a Dyna-Focal mount on the other end... and make some entirely NEW
1-cylinder per head headz, and we can stop calling it a VW (although
we'd still be using a lot of VW parts) and start calling it a DIY
Homebuilder Engine... with about 100bhp @ 2700 rpm (or whatever... use
the C-90 cam timing; get someone like Dick (sp?) Schneider to grind us
some wiggle sticks. 40A. coaxial alternator. Itty-bitty geared
starter. Electronic ignition. Holes for two plugs. SIX head-stays.
Juice valves outta the little Chevy. Absolutely NOTHING
certified...although EVERYTHING has done a million miles or more in
other engines. That is to say, there ain't nothing new in such a
design.

Kinda heavy, though... about 181 bare, mostly because of the crank.

-Bluesky Bob

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

Well, those weight and power numbers look mighty close to the numbers that
Continental is just bringing to market and Lycoming is working on. So, if
you feel the need to swing a 70 or 72 inch prop and ALSO prefer a direct
drive engine that can idle on approach, they are still good numbers.

I could very well be a customer in the easily foreseeable future.

Peter

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 6:43*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>. *So, if
> you feel the need to swing a 70 or 72 inch prop and ALSO prefer a direct
> drive engine that can idle on approach, they are still good numbers.
>
> I could very well be a customer in the easily foreseeable future.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact you CAN swing that biga prop doesn't mean you HAVE to.

I was think more along the lines of a crankcase machined to accept a
crankshaft machined to accept a connecting rod that was laying there
on the shelf, along with the bearing-shells to fit it. We STILL gotta
come up with four barrels an' four slugs an' four heads an' four
rods... and I've no idea in the blue-eyed world where those would come
from. Grab 'Speedway' or 'Jegs' and they got all kinds of neat stuff
but if you want four BIG finned cast-iron jugs you're still looking at
something around 4" diameter (ie, about 101mm) But they DO got some
beeeutiful rods. Old Ford style. Got enough bearing area to use in a
steam engine. (See, it has to do with the Specific Impulse and
converting Torque into Thrust an' neat **** like that... an' I show up
with a VW engine in my pocket and they just LOOK at me...

-Bob

[cavelamb[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jan 17, 6:43 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> . So, if
>> you feel the need to swing a 70 or 72 inch prop and ALSO prefer a direct
>> drive engine that can idle on approach, they are still good numbers.
>>
>> I could very well be a customer in the easily foreseeable future.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The fact you CAN swing that biga prop doesn't mean you HAVE to.
>

Say what???

[Anthony W]

wrote:

> The fact you CAN swing that biga prop doesn't mean you HAVE to.
>
> I was think more along the lines of a crankcase machined to accept a
> crankshaft machined to accept a connecting rod that was laying there
> on the shelf, along with the bearing-shells to fit it. We STILL gotta
> come up with four barrels an' four slugs an' four heads an' four
> rods... and I've no idea in the blue-eyed world where those would come
> from. Grab 'Speedway' or 'Jegs' and they got all kinds of neat stuff
> but if you want four BIG finned cast-iron jugs you're still looking at
> something around 4" diameter (ie, about 101mm) But they DO got some
> beeeutiful rods. Old Ford style. Got enough bearing area to use in a
> steam engine. (See, it has to do with the Specific Impulse and
> converting Torque into Thrust an' neat **** like that... an' I show up
> with a VW engine in my pocket and they just LOOK at me...
>
> -Bob

I would look to Harley-Davidson for the pistons. New Harleys use German
made Mahle pistons and they can go a lot of miles without service. The
sleeves could be ordered from any company that makes them and there are
more than a few to choose from. The fins could be turned out of
aluminum then pressed on or cast around the sleeve before the final boring.

All aluminum cylinders with nickasil coatings could also be made up but
the cost and R&D would both go up... There are small shops that apply
this coating...

Tony