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