VW?

----------

I would MORE likely be
leaning to an RV6! .... so that brings this discussion back around
then doesn't it...

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

As a point of interest, when folks ask my advice about basic works
covering construction of aluminum aircraft I always point them toward
Van's manual for the RV-3, so complete that at least one builder used
it scratch-build the entire airframe.


I don't doubt that at all, I'm not sure I see the point though...Many
folks have/are scratch building the Sonex and other planes from scrach...

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

Van has been building and selling the same basic design for more than thirty
years. The sample manual, which contains a full set of reduced-scale plans,
sells for about $45 and is so complete that it has been used to fabricate an
airframe, although that was not its intended purpose. Van has a factory and a
staff. They'll sell you a rivet or a whole airplane.

The point is that you've expressed an interest in building a Sonex from plans.
You have also made it clear that cost is a major consideration. I should think
the consideration of an RV as an alternative would be obvious, especially given
the cost of the Sonex plans and of the Aero-vee KIT OF PARTS as compared to a
run-out or high-time aircraft engine.
----------------------------------------------------------



Well it was just my take on a new subject learned. I seriously doubt
that John M is THAT foolish to purposly sabotage his own engine.
--------------------------------------------------------

Don't get your hopes up :-)


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

hrm, ok.. so in your opinion does any vender build a reliable VW aero
engine???
----------------------------------------------------------

You'll have to define your terms. I've already pointed out the distinction
between peak output, maximum sustainable output and the level of output which
gives maximum service life. Then comes Type and configuration. Type I or
Type IV? Magnesium case or aluminum? Special crankshaft? Oil filter?
By-pass or full-flow oil cooling? Then comes Design, for want of a better
term. The Type IV is of modern design, the Type I is not the features that
make the Type IV a modern design may be retro-fitted to the Type I. Are they?
In most cases, they are not. After that comes size -- the displacement of the
engine and if larger than stock, how the increase is achieved, followed by the
power band -- the engine's compression ratio and cam timing -- followed by
method of induction... is it carburetted or supercharged with a host of
definitions for each.

And I haven't even gotten to ignition methods, exhaust manifolding and so on
:-)

When I was in the Navy I ran into guys from the east coast who had never owned
a car and didn't even know how to drive. To them all cars were just.... cars.
In the same vein, to some people all VW engines are just... VW engines.

Flying Volkswagens do not have Type Certificates. They come in an almost
infinite variety of displacements and configurations. Your question is simply
too broad to merit a concise answer.

But having said all that, the answer by default is Great Plains, simply because
Aero-vee does not sell assembled engines (ie, you use of the term 'build') and
the claims made by Bradley and Able are simply not credible (ie, horsepower in
excess of 100, specific fuel consumption under .28, etc.)

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

I'm actually impressed with the "prevaling wisdom" in this respect. It
seems that the most respected designer of these takes an engine that
"could" be souped up to 330+hp for auto use and builds it with the
expectation of around 100-120hp.. "seems" reasonable, at least in this
stage in my research.

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

Like I said, don't get your hopes up :-)

After all is said and done, the engine itself will have the final say.

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


From the things you have written it's actually hard to figuire out if you
advocate the VW engine for aircraft at all actually...

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

The Horton brothers used one of the first (985cc) VW's in one of their flying
wings. That was in 1937. From that day to this 'VW' powered aircraft have
been flying around the globe, including crossing the Atlantic (the RF-4's
ferried home by Mira Slovak were powered by Limbach engines, a variant of the
VW design). This should provide ample evidence as to its practicality.
Personally, I think the VW is the best option for true grass-roots aviation
applications. But it isn't the only option.

The limitations of powerplants based on VW components have been clearly
defined. When properly assembled and operated within those limitations it has
proven it to be a reliable engine, as history clearly shows. My main concern is
the false expectations instilled by those catering to technologically naive
would-be aviators. Think for YOURSELF. It is not only your money, it is
literally your life.

-R.S.Hoover

Richard

Have a VW in my BEACH BOY...

How are you?

Tony Shennan


Richard Lamb wrote:

I'm just kinda curious about who here might be flying
(or building?)
a VW powered airplane?

Richard

Tony Shennan wrote:

Richard

Have a VW in my BEACH BOY...

How are you?

Tony Shennan

Richard Lamb wrote:

I'm just kinda curious about who here might be flying
(or building?)
a VW powered airplane?

Richard

Futzing with mechanical brakes.

Hi...Im considering using VW power...due to your strong feelings, Id really
like to know specifically
what engine problems you had ...so I can make more informed decision.
thanks Ken
"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
link.net...
VW let me down twice, would not fly behind one again even if it meant
I had to give up flying forever, which I almost did flying behind a VW.
When I first got into homebuilt aircraft there were many airplanes using
VW's, you do not see many anymore for a reson. YMMV

Jerry

Richard Lamb wrote:
Now, on the other hand, Bruce King has over 200 hours on his modified
Hummelbird (Great Plains 1835 - full 4 cylinder)

OVER 1000 landings.

200 hours and 1000 landings? That means his average flight time has been
12 minutes?


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:15:41 +0000 (UTC), Frank Stutzman
wrote:

Richard Lamb wrote:
Now, on the other hand, Bruce King has over 200 hours on his modified
Hummelbird (Great Plains 1835 - full 4 cylinder)

OVER 1000 landings.

200 hours and 1000 landings? That means his average flight time has been
12 minutes?

As long as it isn't his MTBF. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Frank Stutzman wrote:

Richard Lamb wrote:
Now, on the other hand, Bruce King has over 200 hours on his modified
Hummelbird (Great Plains 1835 - full 4 cylinder)

OVER 1000 landings.

200 hours and 1000 landings? That means his average flight time has been
12 minutes?

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR


It only takes about 3 minutes to go around...

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:15:41 +0000 (UTC), Frank Stutzman
wrote:

Richard Lamb wrote:
Now, on the other hand, Bruce King has over 200 hours on his modified
Hummelbird (Great Plains 1835 - full 4 cylinder)

OVER 1000 landings.

200 hours and 1000 landings? That means his average flight time has been
12 minutes?

As long as it isn't his MTBF. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Bruce is on AOL, and I guess that's a problem somehow getting the
news groups. So he can't jump in here and defend his bird.

On that subject, are there any AOL readers here that might offer help?


He has had one engine related problem that happened early on - at maybe
10 or 12 hours.

The ignition system has dual motorcycle coils and a modified
distributor. Each coil has two leads and fires two plugs, so it
fires on the exhaust stroke too. Seemed to work fine.

But the motorcycle coils didn't care for the heat where they were
mounted and one day they just melted. (not a good thing)

One shorted and quit completely, which resulted in a 1/2 VW limp
home mode that actually did get him home ok.
Humm, a 1/2 VW Hummelbird? What will they think of next?

Other than that it has been a perfectly dependable plant.

Change the oil and check valve lash every 25 hours.
(But that's hardly a "valve job".

FILTER the gas from ANY gas can.

Drain ALL yer sumps before boarding (one way to remember?)

Run it regularly.

Have fun,

Richard

200 hours and 1000 landings? That means his average flight time has been
12 minutes?

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

I've been known to make more than one touch-down per landing... but I usually
don't log them :-)

-R.S.Hoover

Just wondering if anyone has checked into Hummel Engines about their VW??
Like price to compare?


"Ken W" wrote in message
om...
Hi...Im considering using VW power...due to your strong feelings, Id
really
like to know specifically
what engine problems you had ...so I can make more informed decision.
thanks Ken
"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
link.net...
VW let me down twice, would not fly behind one again even if it meant
I had to give up flying forever, which I almost did flying behind a VW.
When I first got into homebuilt aircraft there were many airplanes using
VW's, you do not see many anymore for a reson. YMMV

Jerry