FA: 75 hp Revmaster VW engine w/accessories

This assumes you need to turn a 6 foot diameter propeller, which seems
pretty
generous for the power. I calculate nearly 80 HP at about 3200 rpm, which
is
similar to the crankshaft speed of the Jabiru engines, so the 75 HP figure
should be acheivable.

Hopefully, any resonance problems have been dealt with by the engine or
crankshaft manufacturer, and you are using the same propeller as they
recommend.

Peter

Peter, the VW I'll be flying is on a Dragonfly, which is pretty low to the
ground, and will only be swinging a 52" prop (one recommended by GPAS). Max
RPM on the engine is 3600 (takeoff power), but you're correct that cruise
RPM is 3200.

Bob, I'll accept both your luck and your warning :-)

Eric

This assumes you need to turn a 6 foot diameter propeller, which seems
pretty
generous for the power. I calculate nearly 80 HP at about 3200 rpm, which
is
similar to the crankshaft speed of the Jabiru engines, so the 75 HP figure
should be acheivable.

Hopefully, any resonance problems have been dealt with by the engine or
crankshaft manufacturer, and you are using the same propeller as they
recommend.

Peter

Peter, the VW I'll be flying is on a Dragonfly, which is pretty low to the
ground, and will only be swinging a 52" prop (one recommended by GPAS). Max
RPM on the engine is 3600 (takeoff power), but you're correct that cruise
RPM is 3200.

Bob, I'll accept both your luck and your warning :-)

Eric

Peter, the VW I'll be flying is on a Dragonfly, which is pretty low to the
ground, and will only be swinging a 52" prop (one recommended by GPAS). Max
RPM on the engine is 3600 (takeoff power), but you're correct that cruise
RPM is 3200.

Bob, I'll accept both your luck and your warning :-)

Eric
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you gotta fly behind VW power...
It appears the 'Great Pains' version is one of the best.
You will give us a Pirep from time to time, right?
3rd party talk without the walk is soooo meaningless.

FWIW....
I've seen a lot of neat canards at Ottawa Filed of Dreams.
I favor the 0-200 sort naturally, but the most curious specimen
was a single place powered by an ONAN of 18 hp?

ARRGH.....


Barnyard BOb -- 50 successful flight years

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote

If you gotta fly behind VW power...
It appears the 'Great Pains' version is one of the best.
You will give us a Pirep from time to time, right?
3rd party talk without the walk is soooo meaningless.

FWIW....
I've seen a lot of neat canards at Ottawa Filed of Dreams.
I favor the 0-200 sort naturally, but the most curious specimen
was a single place powered by an ONAN of 18 hp?

ARRGH.....

Barnyard BOb -- 50 successful flight years

I've heard good things about Great Plains. In fact, the insurance company I
got a quote from would only insure Revmaster, Aeroconversion and Great
Plains conversions.

One of the good things about VWs, aside from their simplicity is... there's
are a lot of hours and history behind them, so that failure modes are well
known. Knowing what to look for and what can go wrong is a big advantage.
It's not enough to know now things work when everything goes right, knowing
how things work when they don't is just as important!

Personally, I find the twin-unreliable engine thread disturbing. In some
PRODUCTION twins, the best you can say for having two engines is that it
doubles your chance of an engine failure

Will keep the group up-to-date. I gotta get it signed off again first.

Eric

I've heard good things about Great Plains. In fact, the insurance company I
got a quote from would only insure Revmaster, Aeroconversion and Great
Plains conversions.

I never bet against insurance companies.... sorta. g

Think about this, concerning life insurance....
The life insurance company bets that you are going to live.
The insured bets that he/she is going to die.
Should the insured really want to win the bet? bfg

Speaking on insurance...
Are you going to be insured for 1st flight?
If so, what are the insurance company requirements?

Personally, I find the twin-unreliable engine thread disturbing. In some
PRODUCTION twins, the best you can say for having two engines is that it
doubles your chance of an engine failure

Eric

Disturbing fer sure. Could be a dreamy eyed, totally
indestructible youth or....an adult without a shred
of sanity or possibly a subconscious death wish.

Doubling the engine trouble is anything but sane for
those of us that have real multi-engine flying savvy.
I can't imagine even Lloyds of London wanting a
piece of this kind of suicidal thinking or 'execution'.

I comprehend, but do not agree with, where the author is
coming from when he is banking on a high power to weight
unreliable 2 stroke to RELIABLY carry the crippled aircraft
to automatic safety and ready repairs.

Why not assume once safely on terra firma, one can zipper
in a 3rd engine that is to be carried along in the baggage
compartment? Why be inconvenienced one wit while cock-
a-mayme dreaming out loud to one's internet wannabe buddies?

In fact...
JAY, if you were a true world class concept DREAMER...
You'd be advocating at least *FOUR* UNRELIABLE ENGINES.


Barnyard BOb -- the sky's the limit

"You know who" wrote in message
...

I've heard good things about Great Plains. In fact, the insurance company
I
got a quote from would only insure Revmaster, Aeroconversion and Great
Plains conversions.

I never bet against insurance companies.... sorta. g

Think about this, concerning life insurance....
The life insurance company bets that you are going to live.
The insured bets that he/she is going to die.
Should the insured really want to win the bet? bfg

Definitely a bet you're gonna lose one way or the other!


Speaking on insurance...
Are you going to be insured for 1st flight?
If so, what are the insurance company requirements?

Insurance requirements from Falcon Insurance, with underwriting from Global
Aerospace were as follows:
At least 20 hours tailwheel time and tailwheel endorsement
At least 5 hours in make and model
Must complete EAA's Flight Advisor Program.
And since I mentioned that I have an experienced test pilot (the DAR :-)
willing to do the first flights, that became a requirement too.

The breakdown was about $750 for liability ($1 mil total, $100k individual)
and $600 for full hull coverage of $15k (which doesn't kick in until after
first 10 hours). $0 deductibles for both In-Motion and Not-In-Motion (as a
benefit of belonging to EAA).

Since hull coverage doesn't kick in right away, I'll probably self-insure
that.
Still deciding about liability... what do other people on the group do?

Eric

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message
...
FWIW....
I've seen a lot of neat canards at Ottawa Filed of Dreams.
I favor the 0-200 sort naturally, but the most curious specimen
was a single place powered by an ONAN of 18 hp?

ARRGH.....

BOb.........

Did you know that Claude Piel (Emeraude designer) also came up with a canard
of 12 hp?

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/shankland/onyx.jpg

Rich S.

Speaking on insurance...
Are you going to be insured for 1st flight?
If so, what are the insurance company requirements?

Insurance requirements from Falcon Insurance, with underwriting from Global
Aerospace were as follows:
At least 20 hours tailwheel time and tailwheel endorsement
At least 5 hours in make and model
Must complete EAA's Flight Advisor Program.
And since I mentioned that I have an experienced test pilot (the DAR :-)
willing to do the first flights, that became a requirement too.

The breakdown was about $750 for liability ($1 mil total, $100k individual)
and $600 for full hull coverage of $15k (which doesn't kick in until after
first 10 hours). $0 deductibles for both In-Motion and Not-In-Motion (as a
benefit of belonging to EAA).

Since hull coverage doesn't kick in right away, I'll probably self-insure
that.
Still deciding about liability... what do other people on the group do?

Eric
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Your candor is appreciated.

Myself, liability is the most important to me.
To lose the plane is nothing compared to losing
my house and other assets if I'm found liable.

In my case, it is relatively cheap compared to hull.
Liability was appx $300 a year for $1 mil coverage.
My $31,000 full hull was under 2%.. nearly $500.

To have my RV-3 first flight flight covered....
all I needed was a CFI sign off. Bob Lynch RV
CFI @ JEF handled that chore without fanfare.

I'm a granfathered tail wheel pilot of many years and
many hours. I think having an instrument ticket, CFI
and Commercial may have helped moderate rates.
The RV series also has a relatively low loss rate...
with Lycomings installed, anyway. {8-D

Others that I have checked with are all over the place
on insurance from nothing at all, to everything. There is
no common denominator on income or intellect that
allows me to predict what anyone will gamble.....
including their lives on auto conversions. smirk

Have you checked to see if you can get hull coverage
without liability? In the back of my mind, some companies
won't insure that way. CAUTION: Could be a brain fart.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

"You know who" wrote in message
...

Myself, liability is the most important to me.
To lose the plane is nothing compared to losing
my house and other assets if I'm found liable.

My assets are limited so I'm not *that* concerned about liability as far as
that goes.
My thoughts are more directed towards my responsibilities and obligations to
the test pilot (who BTW did the first few flights the first time it was in
Phase I) and towards any targets on the ground.

Have you checked to see if you can get hull coverage
without liability? In the back of my mind, some companies
won't insure that way. CAUTION: Could be a brain fart.

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

I was considering liability w/o hull insurance; I agree finding hull w/o
liability might be hard to find!

Eric

I'm not sure where the "unreliable" thing came in unless you are
referring to all single ignition engines as unreliable. The term I've
been using is "ordinary reliability" deferring (quiet generously I
should add) to the traditional aero engines as "hi-rel".

I don't really understand the insurance thing for experimentals, I
mean, a lot of GA accidents end with a fatality of the guy with the
policy, so what good is money to the dearly departed(pun intended)?

Multi-engine arrangments are commonly used for high-rel applications
like flight over water, carrying passengers, etc. I believe the Navy
has been big proponants of the twin engine concept for the assumed
insurance against total loss of power (F/A-18 vs. F-16). From what
I've read it was a real hard sell getting them to go along with their
new single engine fighter (JSF?).

The only thing new here is the application to small 2 seater aircraft
that already have single power plants available (albeit expensive)
with enough power lift them.

I'll try to address any technical points people might have and ignore
the "Thats crazy talk!" and calling people young whipper-snapers. So
BOb asked why not carry a 3rd engine and install it when you land afer
a failure? Because you wouldn't want to fly around carrying an extra
100lbs of iron for that once in 10 year event when you need to divert
to an airport after an engine problem in flight.

Regarding the VW conversions. We've had a lot of the stock engines in
my family through the years and I can't say I've been inspired by
their reliability. Cheap parts yes, easy to work on. But I'm not
sure I'd be comfortable flying behind just one of these. To their
credit, they weren't inspected before every outing, I didn't have the
time or interest to do the level of detail I'd need to do to be
absolutely sure it wouldn't stop. I don't check my brakes either,
although they are critically important to my health and well being.
Instead I use a redundant system with soft failure mode and you do to.

You know who wrote in message . ..
Personally, I find the twin-unreliable engine thread disturbing. In some
PRODUCTION twins, the best you can say for having two engines is that it
doubles your chance of an engine failure

Eric

Disturbing fer sure. Could be a dreamy eyed, totally
indestructible youth or....an adult without a shred
of sanity or possibly a subconscious death wish.

Doubling the engine trouble is anything but sane for
those of us that have real multi-engine flying savvy.
I can't imagine even Lloyds of London wanting a
piece of this kind of suicidal thinking or 'execution'.

I comprehend, but do not agree with, where the author is
coming from when he is banking on a high power to weight
unreliable 2 stroke to RELIABLY carry the crippled aircraft
to automatic safety and ready repairs.

Why not assume once safely on terra firma, one can zipper
in a 3rd engine that is to be carried along in the baggage
compartment? Why be inconvenienced one wit while cock-
a-mayme dreaming out loud to one's internet wannabe buddies?

In fact...
JAY, if you were a true world class concept DREAMER...
You'd be advocating at least *FOUR* UNRELIABLE ENGINES.


Barnyard BOb -- the sky's the limit