Well said. Thanks for the sanity.

bildan

wrote in message
...
*******************************************
"...the great little VW
conversion with a 2.0:1 reduction producing 103 HP."
---------------------------------------------------------

To All:

In the context of an engine converted for flight the figures above are
wildly fallacious. At best, they represent a 'dyno blip,' at worst
they may be an out-right lie. Here's why:

The maximum SUSTAINABLE power available from ANY air-cooled engine is
determined by the engine's ability to cool itself -- to couple its
waste-heat to the atmosphere. And with a carburetted, spark-ignited,
gasoline-fueled engine there is a LOT of waste heat to be managed
since such engines are no more than 25% efficient when it comes to
converting the heat of combustion into torque at the crankshaft. That
means that for every horsepower measured at the crank you must
generate at least four horsepower's-worth of heat in combustion.
These basic rules of thermodynamics are made even worse by two
additional factors, the first being 'Economy of Scale' in that smaller
engines are LESS thermally efficient than larger engines, and the
basic definition of Standard Day conditions -- 59.9 degrees on the
Fahrenheit scale and an atmospheric pressure of 29.92 inches of
mercury -- a fairly cool day.

With those laws of physics as preamble the next factor worthy of note
is the physical dimensions of the Volkswagen cylinder head and the
fact that ALL VW heads have the same exterior dimensions. This is
because they must fit under the stock VW engine shrouding. No
manufacturer of VW heads, either stock or after-market, offers a head
having more fin area. Indeed, most after-market heads have LESS, due
either to thickening of the combustion chamber wall or even
eliminating one of the eight fins -- and in a few cases they have done
both.

All -- ALL -- Volkswagen heads in common use today are derived from
the heads developed for the 1300cc engine; their external physical
dimensions remained exactly the same for the later 1500 and 1600
engines. The output of the 1300 engine was approximately 40hp and
could SUSTAIN that level of output indefinitely under Standard Day
conditions. This engine was bored-out to 83mm to produce the 1500
engine, then over-bored to 85.5mm to create the 1600 (actual
displacement 1584cc), the maximum output of which was 57bhp for
carburetted models, achieved in the 1971 model year. But that level
of output could only be sustained for a bit less than FOUR MINUTES,
until the cylinder head temperature exceeded safe levels, again under
Standard Day conditions.

So what's this 'safe level' of CHT? About 450 degrees on the
Fahrenheit scale. This reflects the fact that VW heads are made of
CAST aluminum (as opposed to a forging) and the fact aluminum is a
'white short' metal, meaning it becomes frangible when its temperature
enters the 'plastic' range. A characteristic of white-short metals is
that when heated they fracture like a cube of sugar when subjected to
stress. The floor of the frangible range is a bit higher for a
forging -- about 550F according to Pratt-Whitney -- but can be as low
as 400F in a casting, depending upon the alloy.

A common thread used to impress technologically naive buyers is tales
of driving a Volkswagen bug or bus for hours on end with the throttle
wide open. The fact the engine was was probably producing LESS THAN
TWENTY HORSEPOWER goes unsaid. This involves the Horsepower Myth and
generally leaves a large black question mark hanging over the heads of
those without an engineering background but it needs to be touched
upon since ignorance can be as deadly as a machine gun when it comes
to aviation.

The Horsepower Myth was create by James Watt in order to sell his
modified Newcommen steam engine to mine owners. To do so he added the
element of TIME to the power equation and from that day to this the
general public has been comfortable with the idea that 'horsepower'
represents a given quanta of energy... which it does... but only
within a defined unit of TIME. And from that day to this, that
arithmetical loophole has been used by those eager to prey upon
technologically naive consumers.

Indeed, in the early days of aviation those predations cost so many
lives that government agencies had to step in, requiring the
manufacturers of aircraft engines to justify their claims of power and
durability.

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

All of which tends to leave the average homebuilder with more
questions than answers. Fortunately, the ENGINES themselves are
incapable of lying, especially when it comes to FUEL CONSUMPTION.

The Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC) of all -- ALL -- air-cooled,
gasoline-fueled, normally aspirated Otto-cycle engines is clumped near
the 0.5 mark, meaning it takes about 0.5 POUNDS of 'gasoline' (*) per
HOUR to produce ONE HORSEPOWER'S worth of torque at the crankshaft.
For aviation gasoline that works out to about 12bhp per gallon per
hour. For a 103hp engine that works out to 8.58 gph.
--------------------------------------------

(*) -- Thanks to additives and dilutants (such as alcohol) gasoline
intended for automobiles has LESS potential energy.

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

So when someone tries to sell you their Whiz-Bang 103hp VW engine,
simply ask about its fuel consumption. If they give you an honest
answer, such as 'nine gallons per hour' your next question should be
'For what TBO?' (And if they try to feed you the usual '3gph'
bull****, simply walk away.)

The truth is, by simply spinning an engine faster you can claim an
impressive amount of 'horsepower' -- up to 1500bhp for some 'VW'
powered dragsters (but with a TBO measured in MINUTES). Some years
ago turbosupercharged VW engines were all the rage... until people
learned they needed a valve job about every ten hours, no big deal if
you're only SELLING such engines -- but of some importance to the
folks who actually FLY them :-)

-R.S.Hoover