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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
----------
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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|