A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

VW Reality



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 6th 08, 03:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Charles Vincent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default VW Reality

cavalamb himself wrote:
oilsardine wrote:

the modern 'VW engine': http://www.ulpower.com/



Now that is a sweet little motor!

165 pounds
2600 cc
claims 81 HP at 2800 RPM
500 hour TBO
FADEC
No Carb Ice problems

Only problem - I didn't catch the price?


Isn't it more aptly a modern Continental C-85? I think the "modern VW"
as far as homebuilts go is one of the subaru's.

Charles
  #2  
Old February 6th 08, 06:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
cavalamb himself[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default VW Reality

Charles Vincent wrote:

cavalamb himself wrote:

oilsardine wrote:

the modern 'VW engine': http://www.ulpower.com/




Now that is a sweet little motor!

165 pounds
2600 cc
claims 81 HP at 2800 RPM
500 hour TBO
FADEC
No Carb Ice problems

Only problem - I didn't catch the price?



Isn't it more aptly a modern Continental C-85? I think the "modern VW"
as far as homebuilts go is one of the subaru's.

Charles



A lot of people seem to think that about the Suburu, but they weight
quite a bit more than you'd think.

The extra weight means a PSRU is really mandatory to get reasonable
propeller output (HP/LB) - with all the attendent complexity, harmonic,
and weight issues.

In my mind that takes them out of the "modern VW" class.

They seem to be more at home on the nose of RV/Tailwind class airplanes.

Richard
  #3  
Old February 6th 08, 09:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Peter Dohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,754
Default VW Reality

"cavalamb himself" wrote in message
...
Charles Vincent wrote:

cavalamb himself wrote:

oilsardine wrote:

the modern 'VW engine': http://www.ulpower.com/



Now that is a sweet little motor!

165 pounds
2600 cc
claims 81 HP at 2800 RPM
500 hour TBO
FADEC
No Carb Ice problems

Only problem - I didn't catch the price?



Isn't it more aptly a modern Continental C-85? I think the "modern VW"
as far as homebuilts go is one of the subaru's.

Charles



A lot of people seem to think that about the Suburu, but they weight
quite a bit more than you'd think.

The extra weight means a PSRU is really mandatory to get reasonable
propeller output (HP/LB) - with all the attendent complexity, harmonic,
and weight issues.

In my mind that takes them out of the "modern VW" class.

They seem to be more at home on the nose of RV/Tailwind class airplanes.

Richard


A lot of good points, and the radiator plumbing also seems to provide many
happy hours of tinkering for a lot of folks.

Actually, some of the small inline engines, such as those from the Geo/Chevy
Metro, have shown some promise--which was unfortunately mixed with far too
much hype. Actually, it the basic weight is anywhere near as light as was
claimed, then a realistic power rating should work quite well.

Regrettably, I have had no opportunity to weigh any of the engines in
question.

Peter



  #4  
Old February 6th 08, 11:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Blueskies
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 979
Default VW Reality

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message .. .

A lot of good points, and the radiator plumbing also seems to provide many happy hours of tinkering for a lot of
folks.

Actually, some of the small inline engines, such as those from the Geo/Chevy Metro, have shown some promise--which was
unfortunately mixed with far too much hype. Actually, it the basic weight is anywhere near as light as was claimed,
then a realistic power rating should work quite well.

Regrettably, I have had no opportunity to weigh any of the engines in question.

Peter




One of our neighbors is flying a Geo Metro engine in his RagWing Special. Great sound and he loves it, very reliable (so
far!) and simple key start...


  #5  
Old February 7th 08, 04:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,130
Default VW Reality

On Feb 6, 8:03 am, Charles Vincent wrote:

Isn't it more aptly a modern Continental C-85? I think the "modern VW"
as far as homebuilts go is one of the subaru's.

Charles


They're not the big solution, either. I installed a Subaru 2.2
litre on a Glastar, using an RAF redrive. The problems I encountered:
-Some vibration at around 1400 engine RPM. Caused by the very light
RAF aluminum flywheel, which doesn't absorb all that much pulsation,
and this interacts with the prop's mass, which has a different
resonance. We had initially used an Ivoprop, and could not balance it
chordwise because the blades would shift a little on the hub bolts.
The subsequent Warp Drive prop was better, but had much narrower chord
and did not pull as well as the Ivo. Further, the Ivo's blades would
flutter if there was too little tension on the torque rods. Scary.

-Burned valves. The engine had a converted Holley two-barrel, with
mixture control that was way too sensitive, to the point that it
either ran or didn't. I modified the valve to get some range. On a
short-field takeoff, usual SOP with an aircraft engine is to lean to
max RPM with the brakes locked and throttle wide open; do that with
the Soob and the valves will burn real quick. The engine has four
valves per cylinder and they're about the size of the valves in a
Briggs and Stratton lawnmower engine. Tiny, with little skinny stems.
Compare them to a Lyc's valves. The 16-valve Soob was designed for
computerized fuel injection, for good reason.

-Couldn't install a mechanical fuel pump in it. No place for one. So,
since you can't rely on gravity feed (the Holley has a small float
valve designed for a 4 to 7 psi fuel pressure) you need an electric
pump. Two of them, just in case. And the ignition is run off the
aircraft's fuel system. So, since (as anyone with car or airplane
mechanical experience knows) 90% of all engine problems are
electrical, it's asking for trouble. Real quiet trouble. Avoiding that
requires another battery and a big diode to protect it, more weight
and complexity and cost and room that isn't there.

-The engine was rated at 130 hp at 5600 RPM. The Glastar was designed
for engines from 125 to 180 hp. Should be good enough, right? It was
OK for takeoff and climb, but for cruise it was lousy. A Lycoming,
redlined at 2700 RPM, is easily cruised at 2500 or even 2600. The
engine is rated for 2700 continuous, if you want that. The Subaru, if
you try to cruise it at an equivalent RPM of, say, 5300 or 5400, will
wear out in no time flat and will burn phenomenal amounts of fuel,
too. And makes the most awesome cabin noise. So you end up cruising at
4700 max, which gives an anemic cruise of 110 mph instead of the 135
that the Lyc 125 would give you. Both engines will give the claimed
143 mph at full RPM, so it's not a propeller pitch issue.

-The exhaust system was two tiny mufflers that did little to contain
the noise. There's no room under the heads, inside the cowl, since the
engine sits low to get the thrust line up where it belongs. I could
hear this airplane 7 miles away. When I flew it, I stayed away from
town.

-The engine compartment was very tight, once the radiator and its
associated baffling was put in. The cooling system was the one thing I
built that worked really well. The cabin heater was the Subaru's
heater core.

-The ultimate cost, in terms of the stupidly complicated engine mount
I had to build and have professionally tigged (17 pieces of tubing and
four special engine brackets), the time I spent, the constant
tinkering, the cowling modifications necessary to make it fit, and the
ultimately much lower resale value it had (half or less than a Lyc-
powered Glastar), it just wasn't worth it.

Dan
  #7  
Old February 8th 08, 05:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,130
Default VW Reality

On Feb 7, 3:42 pm, cavalamb himself wrote:

Dan! You are not going to sell magazines that way...


Good thing I don't rely on magazine sales, huh?

Funny, though. People are always asking me for my opinions on
mechanical stuff. Sometimes they don't like the answers. Sometimes
they want to buy an airplane, so I tell them what to look for and be
aware of and be scared of and that the pretty airplane can clean out
your bank account real fast. They don't like that because they want
that airplane so bad. They buy it and find out I was right. Usually.
I'm supposed to be working on my Hummelbird. That's why I
asked Veeduber about the 1/2 VW, and he says they aren't so good. I
believe that, and have to take it into account. Maybe, if I don't fly
much, it'll be good enough, as long as I expect to be doing the valves
every 50 hours or so. I have been warned, see. I 'm considering
sticking the whole four-cylinder VW on it, like Bruce King did; a
weight penalty, but a little less work expected from each jug.
Sometimes we don't like the opinions of others. We need to
evaluate the source, and if it's experienced in the matter at hand, we
should shut up and listen.
Even if it hurts magazine sales.

Dan

  #8  
Old February 8th 08, 05:43 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Stuart & Kathryn Fields
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 328
Default VW Reality


wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 3:42 pm, cavalamb himself wrote:

Dan! You are not going to sell magazines that way...


Good thing I don't rely on magazine sales, huh?

Funny, though. People are always asking me for my opinions on
mechanical stuff. Sometimes they don't like the answers. Sometimes
they want to buy an airplane, so I tell them what to look for and be
aware of and be scared of and that the pretty airplane can clean out
your bank account real fast. They don't like that because they want
that airplane so bad. They buy it and find out I was right. Usually.
I'm supposed to be working on my Hummelbird. That's why I
asked Veeduber about the 1/2 VW, and he says they aren't so good. I
believe that, and have to take it into account. Maybe, if I don't fly
much, it'll be good enough, as long as I expect to be doing the valves
every 50 hours or so. I have been warned, see. I 'm considering
sticking the whole four-cylinder VW on it, like Bruce King did; a
weight penalty, but a little less work expected from each jug.
Sometimes we don't like the opinions of others. We need to
evaluate the source, and if it's experienced in the matter at hand, we
should shut up and listen.
Even if it hurts magazine sales.

Dan


Dan: Totally agree. Being the Publisher of Experimental Helo magazine I
had to address the problem of publishing ethics vs money. Ethics won out.

Stu


  #9  
Old February 8th 08, 09:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Morgans[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,924
Default VW Reality


wrote

On a
short-field takeoff, usual SOP with an aircraft engine is to lean to
max RPM with the brakes locked and throttle wide open; do that with
the Soob and the valves will burn real quick.


But it isn't normal procedure for an aircraft engine on a normal take-off.
Full rich, unless you are at a pretty high field.

Recognizing that the valves can burn, what's the problem with giving it
enough fuel too keep the temperatures down? If that means you have to set
your minimum field length a little longer, then so be it.

I'm not defending the soob, but it is wise to recognize the shortcomings of
what ever engine you brung, and run it accordingly. You would be hard
pressed to find _any_ engine that does not have weaknesses.
--
Jim in NC


  #10  
Old February 8th 08, 09:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Anthony W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default VW Reality

Until the Franklin parts info post, I thought Franklin was dead and
gone. It seems to me that their air cooled 4 banger has a lot to offer
and right now they have it on special for $6900 but the regular prices
isn't listed.

Anybody know if these new Franklin engines are any good? If they are, a
complete engine for under $7 make me wonder why anybody would use a VW
engine instead of one of these...

http://www.franklinengines.com/

Tony
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HondaJet a reality [email protected] Piloting 3 July 28th 06 01:50 AM
Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality Chip Jones Piloting 125 October 15th 04 07:42 PM
Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 36 October 14th 04 06:10 PM
Reality of Tie Down (Tiedown) Space at SNA Tie Town Owning 1 May 6th 04 07:43 AM
Reality of Tie Down (Tiedown) Space at SNA Tie Town Piloting 1 May 6th 04 07:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.