Veeduber and Others, what about the VP-1

Bob and other Group members,

I’ve purchased plans to the VP-1 and downloaded study plans for the
VP-2, all research and background indicates the VP-1 is the best build
of the two. Some have lengthened the wingspan or created a bit more
fuselage space for storage and it appears the 1835cc is engine of
choice for many. However, I communicated with some fine people who
prefer the 2180cc either with or without a redrive installed.

It’s a fascinating airplane, not as charismatic as a Bower’s Fly Baby,
but still has a timeless aura about it. What experience have you had
with this aircraft with respect to building, flying or inspecting a
flying sample? Do you consider it to be a feasible initial build for a
novice builder? Insofar as engine size what would you consider as most
feasible? My concern with redrives or VW engines larger than the 2180
are engine head temperature as I’m not entirely certain this problem
can be totally controlled without a greatly reduced rpm level.

Best regards to all

Joe

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:46:48 -0700 (PDT), Copperhead
wrote:


Bob and other Group members,

I’ve purchased plans to the VP-1 and downloaded study plans for the
VP-2, all research and background indicates the VP-1 is the best build
of the two. Some have lengthened the wingspan or created a bit more
fuselage space for storage and it appears the 1835cc is engine of
choice for many. However, I communicated with some fine people who
prefer the 2180cc either with or without a redrive installed.

It’s a fascinating airplane, not as charismatic as a Bower’s Fly Baby,
but still has a timeless aura about it. What experience have you had
with this aircraft with respect to building, flying or inspecting a
flying sample? Do you consider it to be a feasible initial build for a
novice builder? Insofar as engine size what would you consider as most
feasible? My concern with redrives or VW engines larger than the 2180
are engine head temperature as I’m not entirely certain this problem
can be totally controlled without a greatly reduced rpm level.

Best regards to all

Joe

I have had experience with flying a VP-2 and would have to
characterize it as a total toad. The ailerons were heavy enough to
require a gorilla to move them. It is slow and unresponsive.

I believe a VP-1 is better, but given the difference in performance I
would opt for a Fly Baby or a Pietenpol every time. I built my
Jungster II twenty two years ago and am still enjoying it.

Ed Sullivan

Dear Joe,

Go to....

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/volksp...guid=200730979

....join the Group.

All of your questions have been asked and answered numerous times over
the years.

-R.S.Hoover

On Sep 23, 6:35*pm, " wrote:
Dear Joe,

Go to....

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/volksp...guid=200730979

...join the Group.

All of your questions have been asked and answered numerous times over
the years.

-R.S.Hoover

I'm a member in that group Bob, was hoping to glean a little bit more
with this rather diverse group of folks. I've already picked up
something I didn't know about with what Ed said, I'd never heard of a
Jungster II and wasn't quite sure enough about the Fly Baby or
Pietenpol being that much of a step up from the VP-1. I consider any
time I learn something new time well spent.

Joe

On Sep 23, 5:29*pm, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:46:48 -0700 (PDT), Copperhead



wrote:

Bob and other Group members,

I’ve purchased plans to the VP-1 and downloaded study plans for the
VP-2, all research and background indicates the VP-1 is the best build
of the two. Some have lengthened the wingspan or created a bit more
fuselage space for storage and it appears the 1835cc is engine of
choice for many. However, I communicated with some fine people who
prefer the 2180cc either with or without a redrive installed.

It’s a fascinating airplane, not as charismatic as a Bower’s Fly Baby,
but still has a timeless aura about it. What experience have you had
with this aircraft with respect to building, flying or inspecting a
flying sample? Do you consider it to be a feasible initial build for a
novice builder? Insofar as engine size what would you consider as most
feasible? My concern with redrives or VW engines larger than the 2180
are engine head temperature as I’m not entirely certain this problem
can be totally controlled without a greatly reduced rpm level.

Best regards to all

Joe

I have had experience with flying a VP-2 and would have to
characterize it as a total toad. The ailerons were heavy enough to
require a gorilla to move them. It is slow and unresponsive.

I believe a VP-1 is better, but given the difference in performance I
would opt for a Fly Baby or a Pietenpol every time. I built my
Jungster II twenty two years ago and am still enjoying it.

Ed Sullivan

The VP-1 has to be one of the uglier homebuilts and one with
poor resale value. Given that you have to build wings, a fuselage, a
tail, and control surfaces anyhow, if you want to use wood and a VW
why not build a wooden airplane that will go faster, handle better and
look much nicer? Lemme see...there's the Taylor Monoplane:
http://www.taylormonoplane.4t.com/

Or its younger brother, the Titch:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3040/...582bb2.jpg?v=0

Or the Jodel D9: http://www.jodel.com/index.asp?p=d9&themodels

Or any number of other nice airplanes. The Rand-Robinson KR-1/
KR-2s outrun most other VW-powered airplanes and are based on the
Taylor Monoplane, with construction simplified through the use of Foam
and dacron and resin as well as the basic wood structure.
http://www.airventure.org/2006/event...rks_rand5.html

Lots of options. Biggest problem now is finding decent wood.

Dan

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Copperhead
wrote:

On Sep 23, 6:35*pm, " wrote:
Dear Joe,

Go to....

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/volksp...guid=200730979

...join the Group.

All of your questions have been asked and answered numerous times over
the years.

-R.S.Hoover

I'm a member in that group Bob, was hoping to glean a little bit more
with this rather diverse group of folks. I've already picked up
something I didn't know about with what Ed said, I'd never heard of a
Jungster II and wasn't quite sure enough about the Fly Baby or
Pietenpol being that much of a step up from the VP-1. I consider any
time I learn something new time well spent.

Joe

Well Joe, I think the Fly Baby and the Pietenpol would both be better
performers, the Jungster although it was my first project is a little
more difficult build and uses a bigger engine up to 180 hp. Another
easy all wood good performer is the Boredom Fighter.

On Sep 24, 12:22*am, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Copperhead





wrote:
On Sep 23, 6:35*pm, " wrote:
Dear Joe,

Go to....

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/volksp...guid=200730979

...join the Group.

All of your questions have been asked and answered numerous times over
the years.

-R.S.Hoover

I'm a member in that group Bob, was hoping to glean a little bit more
with this rather diverse group of folks. I've already picked up
something I didn't know about with what Ed said, I'd never heard of a
Jungster II and wasn't quite sure enough about the Fly Baby or
Pietenpol being that much of a step up from the VP-1. I consider any
time I learn something new time well spent.

Joe

Well Joe, I think the Fly Baby and the Pietenpol would both be better
performers, the Jungster although it was my first project is a little
more difficult build and uses a bigger engine up to 180 hp. Another
easy all wood good performer is the Boredom Fighter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank's for all of the feedback everyone! A set of plans for the Fly
Baby and LMA Taylorcraft (still trying to find empty and gross weight
on this one) are on my short list of plans I still want. I understand
one of the reasons for unused plans being sold now! I always though it
was because the person gave up on the build, never though it was
because they were doing their homework.;-)

Joe

On Sep 23, 12:46*pm, Copperhead wrote:
Bob and other Group members,

I’ve purchased plans to the VP-1 and downloaded study plans for the
VP-2, all research and background indicates the VP-1 is the best build
of the two. Some have lengthened the wingspan or created a bit more
fuselage space for storage and it appears the 1835cc is engine of
choice for many. However, I communicated with some fine people who
prefer the 2180cc either with or without a redrive installed.

It’s a fascinating airplane, not as charismatic as a Bower’s Fly Baby,
but still has a timeless aura about it. What experience have you had
with this aircraft with respect to building, flying or inspecting a
flying sample? Do you consider it to be a feasible initial build for a
novice builder? Insofar as engine size what would you consider as most
feasible? My concern with redrives or VW engines larger than the 2180
are engine head temperature as I’m not entirely certain this problem
can be totally controlled without a greatly reduced rpm level.

Best regards to all

Joe

Mr. Hoover knows the designer, and built a VP-1 on a Navy enlisted
man's salary while raising a family. 40 years ago, or thereabouts.

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

It's not a design I'm wild about, me. Heavy, draggy, and uses a LOT of
plywood. And a lot of people build them that have NO IDEA what
they're doing. There was a VP-1 on the cover of "Dune Buggies and Hot
VWs" a while back, and the story of it's building and development
(many, many changes) made it really clear the proud owner was
clueless, in spite of his fancy paint job.

I second R.S. Hoover's shout-out to the Yahoo Group. It's a pretty
active group, with a lot of posts by RAH's favorite Senior Chief.

On Sep 24, 9:34*pm, flybynightkarmarepair wrote:

Mr. Hoover knows the designer,
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hahahaha... That's funny. I've MET Bud (several times, in fact) but
I doubt he'd recognize me if I walked up and pee'd on his shoes :-)

------------------------------------------------------------------
and built a VP-1 on a Navy enlisted
man's salary while raising a family. *40 years ago, or thereabouts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, it was a VP-2 (N6886)

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

It's not a design I'm wild about, me. Heavy, draggy, and uses a LOT of
plywood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That should probably be modified to read: '...uses a lot of 1/4" A-A
Douglas Fir marine-grade plywood...', which is what the ribs are made
from. But over the years there have been a number of modifications
that have reduced its weight without compromising its strength. I
have seen examples that used ribs similar to the Fly Baby's (ie, 1/8"
shear-web with upper & lower cap strips) and even stick ribs (although
I don't know if the latter ever flew). There are several examples in
which the original fiberglas fuel tank has been replaced with one made
of aluminum that ended up weighing less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And a lot of people build them that have NO IDEA what
they're doing. *There was a VP-1 on the cover of "Dune Buggies and Hot
VWs" a while back, and the story of it's building and development
(many, many changes) made it really clear the proud owner was
clueless, in spite of his fancy paint job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Worse-case I can think of would be the fellow in Virginia who spent 11
YEARS building a VP-2... which has yet to fly, in so far as I know.

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

I second R.S. Hoover's shout-out to the Yahoo Group. *It's a pretty
active group, with a lot of posts by RAH's favorite Senior Chief.

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

Lots of good stuff in the archives of the Volksplane Group. One
interesting point is that of the VP-2's that are actually flying, most
are using something OTHER than a Volkswagen engine. (Also some good
pointers toward video clips. The thing DOES fly.)

The VP-1's do pretty well with the VW, assuming the PILOT isn't 'over
gross' :-)

Bottom Line on the VP-1 is that it CAN be built by a complete novice.
And it WILL fly behind a properly converted VW engine. And it will do
all that without breaking the bank.

-R.S.Hoover

PS -- Being an 'engine guy' puts me in a position to see (and to fly!)
a lot of VW-powered homebuilts. Since my interest is largely in the
powerplant, usually in an airframe that is already covered & signed
off, I can't say much about the structure. But I've seen numerous
examples of VW-powered airplanes that I would NOT fly, usually because
I thought they were too heavy. By the same token, I have seen
examples of VW-powered airplanes that weighed as much as 100 pounds
LESS than the same plane built by someone else.

The lesson here is that it's pretty easy to build 'heavy' ...but
damned difficult to build 'light.' If you should opt for the VP-1
your FIRST consideration, in my opinion, should be in keeping the
weight down. For those who do, their honest opinion of the VP is that
it comes close to being the ultimate Fun Machine.

In article
,
" wrote:

On Sep 24, 9:34*pm, flybynightkarmarepair wrote:

Mr. Hoover knows the designer,
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hahahaha... That's funny. I've MET Bud (several times, in fact) but
I doubt he'd recognize me if I walked up and pee'd on his shoes :-)

After that, though, he'd have no problem remembering for a very long
time.