STOL Plans

Christopher wrote:

Having no experience with these modified VW engines myself I cannot
defend their claims, nor can I deny them. Just thought I'd show what
they have on their web site.

BTW: That 120 HP isn't sustained full power, just for takeoff.



Having a great deal of VW experience, I can say with full confidence -
BullS%!t...

Look at this list of VW engines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...swagen_engines

cavelamb wrote:
Christopher wrote:

Having no experience with these modified VW engines myself I cannot
defend their claims, nor can I deny them. Just thought I'd show what
they have on their web site.

BTW: That 120 HP isn't sustained full power, just for takeoff.



Having a great deal of VW experience, I can say with full confidence -
BullS%!t...

I'm no expert, but I have been looking into different engines for my
plane over the years. If you take a stock VW and build it upto aircraft
ability, add whats needed for extra HP and through in a reduction drive
and radiator (filled), doesn't the weight come close to a corvair six
cylinder without all the extras? Wouldn't it also be a simpler design
with less to go wrong?
Lou

I like that Corvair engine too, but I wonder if it can swing a 96 inch prop. Many of the individuals who are excited about the 103 HP VW engine are happy with it because of the amount of thrust it can produce swinging a big prop. Of course, most people don't want and don't need a prop that big, it causes the top end performance to suffer but for certain applications, wow.. some of those aircraft really hop off the ground:

http://www.culverprops.com/back-yard-flyer.htm

The firewall forward package for this backyard flyer is a 2276cc VW engine, 2.47:1 PSRU. I am still looking for the weight figures for this engine.


http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html

I wouldn't be as keen towards what I am seeing about this engine if it wasn't for the huge prop it can handle and my specific need for extreme STOL without high speed performance. I have been collecting links to as many extreme STOL aircraft as I can find and have listed them in the links section of the following yahoo group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Extreme_STOL - I am still undecided over which aircraft to build but I want something which has a takeoff roll of 100 feet or less which will handle a large adult with room for one average sized passenger. The CH 701 is too small, the STOL King looks good but so far I have not been able to find a second party (aside from the guy selling plans) who has built it to confirm the claimed performance.

I think the prop weight might be too high with a 96" prop on a Corvair.


"Christopher" wrote in message
...

I like that Corvair engine too, but I wonder if it can swing a 96 inch
prop. Many of the individuals who are excited about the 103 HP VW
engine are happy with it because of the amount of thrust it can produce
swinging a big prop. Of course, most people don't want and don't need a
prop that big, it causes the top end performance to suffer but for
certain applications, wow.. some of those aircraft really hop off the
ground:

http://www.culverprops.com/back-yard-flyer.htm

The firewall forward package for this backyard flyer is a 2276cc VW
engine, 2.47:1 PSRU. I am still looking for the weight figures for this
engine.

[image: http://www.greatplainsas.com/lcred.jpeg]
http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html

I wouldn't be as keen towards what I am seeing about this engine if it
wasn't for the huge prop it can handle and my specific need for extreme
STOL without high speed performance. I have been collecting links to as
many extreme STOL aircraft as I can find and have listed them in the
links section of the following yahoo group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Extreme_STOL - I am still undecided over
which aircraft to build but I want something which has a takeoff roll
of 100 feet or less which will handle a large adult with room for one
average sized passenger. The CH 701 is too small, the STOL King looks
good but so far I have not been able to find a second party (aside from
the guy selling plans) who has built it to confirm the claimed
performance.


--
Christopher

"Christopher" wrote


Many of the individuals who are excited about the 103 HP VW
engine are happy with it because of the amount of thrust it can produce
swinging a big prop.

Anyone trying to sell you a 100 HP VW is pulling your leg. (or your wallet)

Google "the Christmas Engine", with reference to this newsgroup.
--
Jim in NC

Jim,

I have had more than one real world source separate from the people who are selling this engine confirm that this specific configuration with new jugs that have vastly increased cooling and other changes will produce over 100 HP to the prop for takeoff when coupled with the right reduction unit, see: http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html

The LCCH (Liquid Cooled Cylinder Heads) have been under development for the last five years by Liquid Cooled One LLC. They have been Dyno tested and continue to be Dyno tested on a 2180cc Great Plains Aircraft Sport Aircraft Engine. The accompanying HP/RPM chart is direct from the Stuska Dynamometer.

Since this thread was started I have spoken with two independent engineers who have tested the engine and have done thrust measurements which could never have been produced without the available HP. I think your denial of being able to reach 100 peak HP on the original air cooled engine without a reduction unit is true... however, here are the specs for the 2180cc engines available horse power for takeoff when liquid cooled with redesigned jugs and a reduction drive:

http://www.greatplainsas.com/specsred.html

The continuous HP rating is 70 HP but I never implied it was spec'd to produce 103 HP on a continuous basis any more than you would want to run any piston aircraft engine at full power all of the time.

"Christopher" wrote in message
...

Jim,

Have you worked with *this* specific liquid cooled engine (not air
cooled like the original) to be qualified to continue your stamp of
disapproval and denial of both their and others test results for the
engine? No, then why insist otherwise?

Hey, it's your butt. Go for it! Knock yourself out!

I wish you luck and long life.
--
Jim in NC

Chris,
Have you come across the total weight? I can't seem to find it.
Lou

"Christopher" wrote

THE LCCH (LIQUID COOLED CYLINDER HEADS) HAVE BEEN UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR
THE LAST FIVE YEARS BY LIQUID COOLED ONE LLC. THEY HAVE BEEN DYNO
TESTED AND CONTINUE TO BE DYNO TESTED ON A 2180CC GREAT PLAINS AIRCRAFT
SPORT AIRCRAFT ENGINE. THE ACCOMPANYING HP/RPM CHART IS DIRECT FROM THE
STUSKA DYNAMOMETER.


I would give you more credit on this issue as a mechanic who has worked
on the original air cooled engine with different jugs but I have gone to
two other individuals who have actually tested *this* highly refined and
modified engine themselves who have also done thrust measurements which
could never have been produced without the available HP.

Three questions.

1. How long is it capable of putting out the100 HP? That is important.

2. What HP level is it rated at, continuous.

3. What is it's TBO, given a cycle of 100 HP, cycled with the continuous
output?

I can make a weedeater engine put out 100 HP. How long it will do that is
another question. g
--
Jim in NC