STOL Plans

Go to the main page http://www.greatplainsas.com and just above the picture
of a KR1 there's "Download 2006 Catalog Here".

Look page 7 (Reduction Drive & Rear Drive Engine Specifications) and you
will find following information:

Type 1 - Liquid Reduction 2180

Take off HP, RPM MAX 120 @ 4400
Continuous HP, RPM 84 @ 3200
Weight in Pounds 200

(The maximum allowed continuous power setting is 70%)

JP


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

JP wrote:
Go to the main page http://www.greatplainsas.com and just above the picture
of a KR1 there's "Download 2006 Catalog Here".

Look page 7 (Reduction Drive & Rear Drive Engine Specifications) and you
will find following information:

Type 1 - Liquid Reduction 2180

Take off HP, RPM MAX 120 @ 4400
Continuous HP, RPM 84 @ 3200
Weight in Pounds 200


Oh, Horse Feathers...

If it's a VW core with liquid cooled heads - it AIN'T no type 1 VW.
It is quite something else...
More like a drag motor - fitted out with a prop reducer.

At 120 HP, I'll lay odds it will not last long either.
The VW head studs won't take that for long without pulling out of the case.

And - just for the record - my electric start 2180 Air Cooled type 1
engine weighed 208 pounds.

So, before was all get real excited....

Ok, Caveman, slow down before you lose another hair. I was very
interested in the total weight. If your 2180 is 208 and a corvair is
around the same I can't see myself going the VW route. A corvair can
get me 110 hp on 6 cyl. This has got to be a smoother engine for the
same weight.
Lou

Lou wrote:
Ok, Caveman, slow down before you lose another hair. I was very
interested in the total weight. If your 2180 is 208 and a corvair is
around the same I can't see myself going the VW route. A corvair can
get me 110 hp on 6 cyl. This has got to be a smoother engine for the
same weight.
Lou


Yeah, Lou.

For 110 I'd rather try a Corvair too.
But I think it would last longer at 80-90.

I can't see the Corvair weighing any 208 pounds installed, either...
220 - 250, depending on what's involved. (Not a Pietenpol!)

Just my opinion.
as usual, YMMV...



Richard

(this message composed of 100% recycled electrons)

Enough of that, lets move on, I made my point. Does anyone know if there are any other 100 HP engines which will turn a 96 inch wooden prop?

"Christopher" wrote in message
...

Jim,

Why do you persist, is your opinion attached to your ego? GO find the
information yourself, you don't want to listen to me.

I have. I believe it is you who is not listening.

The output of the engine is over-stated, and the durability will not prove
to be what you would hope for. It is simply too much power to pull out of
an engine of that displacement, to get aircraft durability. Other engine
manufacturers are doing the same type of thing, most notably some of the
soob engine converters.

Other people have stated that they do not believe in the stated claims of
HP.

There is no ego involved. If you want to use this engine, go ahead.
Honestly, good luck. I will not join you. Where is there any ego involved
in that?

This is the last I will post on this thread. Good luck. I hope that you
get wise, and listen and believe what I and others are saying.
--
Jim in NC

Christopher wrote:

...

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.


Can you ask them for hard numbers on the thrust they measured, the
horsepower they inferred from it, and the engine weight?

If the HP/weight ratio is similar to aircraft engines designed from
scratch then we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. A much
higher weight efficiency would seem improbable though.

--

FF

wrote:
If the HP/weight ratio is similar to aircraft engines designed from
scratch then we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. A much
higher weight efficiency would seem improbable though.

Well... using the 120hp takeoff rating and 200lbs, 0.6 hp/lb sounds
right as a takeoff rating. 84hp continuous seems like good,
conservative engineering.

Comparable popular engines of similar output like the O-235 (approx
0.55hp/lb), 912 (between 0.55-0.65 hp/lb depending mostly on which
version, 80hp or 100hp), Jabiru 3300 (approx 0.65 hp/lb).

Now, the devil is in the details. I suspect "200lbs" does not include
the radiators and plumbing. In the catalog (6MB download), cited
earlier in this thread by JP, down at the bottom of page 7, there is a
note about the engine weight figures (note, they do include reduction
drive). Anyway, leaving off the radiator weights makes the power:weight
figures less optimistic and more believable.

I think the major reasons for the improved output are
1) the liquid cooling allows a higher compression ratio
2) improved heat dissipation over the well known cooling fin limitation
on VW heads

Just my thoughts. My VW experience is that I rode in a Bug once or twice

Correction to my earlier message:

Of course the more efficient combustion makes it possible to REDUCE the
ignition timing setting if preferred and this gives more safety margin.

Sorry about this lapse

JP


"JP" wrote in
...
Such liquid cooled cylinder heads offer some noteworthy benefits. I am not
still saying that they are perfect or that this is an optimum VW engine
solutions.

These liquid cooled heads are equipped with dual sparkplugs. That means,
the combustion process is initiated more rapidly and evenly. The engine in
question does have two separate electronic ignition systems. They are
superior to any conventional magneto ignition systems and much better than
a point ignition system. That is why the ignition spark is more powerful
and the matter comes back to the more rapid ignition process activation. I
would imagine the combustion pressure build-up to be smoother and the
combustion pressure to be higher. If so, then the smoother combustion may
produce less than average shock loads to the cylinder studs and to the
cylinder block and rotating parts in general. The combustion inside the
cylinder is more complete and that is why the exhaust gas temperatures
most probably are lower than usually seen, because less burning is taking
place while the exhaust gas is moving to the exhaust system. That is why
the heat load to the cylinder head exhaust ports is reduced (less head
distortion load).

The liquid cooled cylinder head runs cooler compared to an air cooled
version. That is why the head is capable to absorb more efficiently heat
flow from the exhaust valves and the valve temperatures are reduced. This
is the major reason, why higher compression ratios can be used. That is
also the reason, why more power can be taken out of the engine compared to
the air (oil) cooled standard version. The liquid cooled head also absorbs
more efficiently heat from the spark plugs, thus reducing (together with
those reduced exhaust valve temperatures) a risk of pre-ignition under
high power settings. The risk of detonation is reduced thanks to the dual
spark plugs. This gives a possibility to increase ignition timing in order
to get more power reliably. A cooler cylinder head may even act as a heat
sink taking heat energy out of a cylinder barrel top part.

Possibly there's even more explanations but these are the ideas surfacing
right now.

JP

"Jim Carriere" wrote in
et...
wrote:

I think the major reasons for the improved output are
1) the liquid cooling allows a higher compression ratio
2) improved heat dissipation over the well known cooling fin limitation
on VW heads

Christopher wrote:
Enough of that, lets move on, I made my point. Does anyone know if there
are any other 100 HP engines which will turn a 96 inch wooden prop?




Rotax 912

Pricy, but a real contender.

http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/zac-rtx912.html