A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Double Eagle + orphaned engine = a winner?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 29th 08, 11:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Anthony W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default Double Eagle + orphaned engine = a winner?

wrote:
In so far as I know, clearancing and other 'hand-work' is not
considered 'machining' in that it is a 'go/no-go' sort of thing. You
simply remove metal until you have adequate clearance.

As a point of interest, the last air-cooled engines made by Volkswagen
were apparently designed to accept a 74mm crankshaft, which will drop
into a 1600 crankcase without any clearancing at all. With 85.5mm jugs
this gives a displacement of 1699cc and appears to reflect
Volkswagen's assumption that the USA would not adopt the stringent
California air-pollution laws.

The normal method of increasing the VW's displacement is to replace
the stock 85.5mm cylinders with those having a larger diameter. This
requires boring a hole, centered on the existing hole in the
crankcase, and a matching hole in the heads Most don't realize it but
the accuracy of these eight is of critical importance to the
durability of the engine. This is a task best done on a milling
machine. Unfortunately, most VW conversions are done with portable
tooling and the accuracy is all over the map.

By increasing the STROKE rather than the bore you not only eliminate
the need to machine the eight holes, you have eliminated a chronic
source of compression leaks that arise from inaccurate spigot bores.

-R.S.Hoover


I was assuming that this was hand work but I wasn't sure. Thanx for
cleaning it up. In the mean time I will be looking for a good deal on a
78mm crank.

Tony
  #2  
Old July 30th 08, 01:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default Double Eagle + orphaned engine = a winner?

On Jul 29, 3:33 pm, Anthony W wrote:

I was assuming that this was hand work but I wasn't sure. Thanx for
cleaning it up. In the mean time I will be looking for a good deal on a
78mm crank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Tony,

A 78mm stroke under a stock jug will give you a displacement of
1791cc.
76mm x 85.5 = 1745
74mm x 85.5 = 1699

You may wish to consider ANY crank having a throw greater than 69 but
less than 82. But your primary qualification is the QUALITY of the
crank. Unless the thing is offered at a give-away price (meaning you
can always pass it along to the dune-buggy crowd) full blue-printing
and NDT must be a condition of sale. (This is why it makes good sense
to have someone like Tony make the crank to your specs.)

For ANY increase in stroke you will see an increase in displacement
AND an iincrease in torque. But what makes this configuration of
value in FLYING VW conversions is that the altered ratio of bore-to-
stroke causes the torque to peak BELOW the rpm. This phenomenon may
be enhanced by careful selection of the cam. In fact, even the stock
cam can provide a significant improvement by simply retarding its
timing by a few degrees. This allows you to use a longer propeller
with a more aggresive pitch, resulting in greater efficiency.

If that sounds too good to be true, it is :-) The greater efficiency
is the product of tailoring your valve-train geometry to take full
advantage of the engine's configuration. This is an alien world to
the typical dune-buggy guru for whom success is defined as maximum
horsepower at high rpm. What you will end up with is an engine that
produces high torque at a relatively LOW rpm, making it the perfect
choice for slinging a prop. You won't find a lot of information on
engines of this configuration... unless you study aircraft engines.
Or industrial engines.

Keep in mind that the changes are relative to the change in
displacement and the ratio of bore to stroke. You will see anything
very dramatic but you will see your usable power coming in at a lower
rpm. That lower rpm will lend itself to the engine's durability. It
may not be much but over the life of the engine, it is signifcant;
more than enough to justify the configuration even if the output is
the SAME as before.

-R.S.Hoover
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Orphaned Engine [email protected] Home Built 17 July 22nd 08 11:41 PM
Westland Wyvern Prototype - RR Eagle Engine - Rolls Royce Eagle 24cyl Liq Cooled Engine.jpg Ramapo Aviation Photos 0 April 17th 07 09:14 PM
Was the Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp the best engine of WW II? Dave Kearton Aviation Photos 18 January 12th 07 07:20 PM
Double Eagle (AEG - Albuquerque NM) Fly-in 8-9 Oct 2005 Ron Lee Piloting 1 October 1st 05 06:52 AM
Double Eagle NM (AEG) Fly in 8-9 Oct 2005; Balloon Fiesta time Ron Lee Piloting 4 September 2nd 05 03:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.