VWs

Put all that together and you'll have the equivalent of Rotax 912...
and for about the same price (!!) ...but at significantly more weight.


You've covered all the things I had thought of or seen for sale;
yes ... after all of that thinking and measuring and modifying you
have spent a good bit $$$ to get homemade version of Rotax 912.

Don't take my word for any of this. *Hit the books. *Build some
engines. *THINK FOR YOURSELF. *Get stuck into it, you're only about
four years and maybe ten thousand dollars away from REALLY knowing
about VW conversions. *Of course, once you arrive there no one will
believe you anyway :-) *People believe what they WANT to be true. *And
there are plenty of hucksters out there eager to prey upon that
ignorance.

Trying to modify engines beyond what they were originally engineered
to do has got to bring the problems. No silver bullet, but all you see
in the brochures is SILVER.

It's easy to be drawn in if you aren't careful. You have to ask
questions of REAL VW conversion folks if you haven't yet stepped into
the arena. I looked around at places like GP and Aeroconversions and
they have these products claiming 80 - 100 HP. You read on
aircooled.net that it's possible to get that 80 - 100 out of the
engine. But all of the people saying that are SELLING engines and
engine components.

The people in the trenches say "uh-uh" and provide technical details
about why not. Where's the technical details of problems on GP or in
Aerocon? Well. I imagine they provide assembly manuals -- but not
critically thinking and problem averting conversion manuals like
Wynne's conversion book for Corvairs (I'm so impressed with Wynne's
approach that I don't even know how to applaud it enough). Testing
man, and telling the truth about it, and LEARNING from the one's
who've done it.

I don't know why that's so hard for so many -- to listen to those
who've been there. I think it's easy.

After eight or ten years of fumbling around you're going to have to
decide if you want to spend all of your time tinkering with engines or
building an airframe that will probably never fly. *Of course, those
things reflect the social aspect of homebuilding... which today makes
up about 99% of ALL homebuilt activities.

I like tinkering with engines but not THIS MUCH!!!

If on the off chance you're actually interested in FLYING then simply
follow the well-trodden path to a VP-1 or Teenie Two, bang it out --
keeping it as light as possible -- stick a STOCK 1600VW on the nose...
and go fly. *You don't absolutely need to jump through all the FAA's
hoops -- there's no traffic cops in the sky. *You will have divorced
yourself from the SOCIAL aspects of aviation more than the legal, but
if your primary interest is FLYING you will find it's an itch that's
pretty easy to scratch.

-R.S.Hoover

That's right. I like building things, but I keep looking up at the
planes and thinking, I gotta be able to do that for less than $90 an
hour ... I like that part every bit as much.

If I stick with the 701 I'll see how Wynne's corvair conversion works
out and take a lesson from that. If I don't stick with the 701 I'll
pick one of the smaller designs that looks really fun and I've been
researching over the last year or so (Thatcher, Teenie, others, and
now maybe Texas Parasol!) and use a stock VW.

Thanks again. This is the kind of info I knew was out there with the
people who have been working on VWs but not writing conversion manuals
about them.

About 302 or so was the lightest one I've seen so it fell into the
fat catagory - which expires in 9,8,7,6... days

So you really need a PPL - or a big farm?


Er, uh ... what? I don't get.

I've got a PPL and ... hmm ... I'd like to have a big farm with a
grass strip ... don't want to "buy the farm"?

I suppose what I'm asking is -- if you build a TP and it comes in
heavier (say you want to make the wing or structure stronger, for some
reason), you then have to certify it in the regular old experimental
or elsa category?

Or will TPs be "invalid" in a few more days?

And I will go look at the FAR to understand ultra-light requirements.

wrote:
About 302 or so was the lightest one I've seen so it fell into the
fat catagory - which expires in 9,8,7,6... days

So you really need a PPL - or a big farm?


Er, uh ... what? I don't get.

I've got a PPL and ... hmm ... I'd like to have a big farm with a
grass strip ... don't want to "buy the farm"?

I suppose what I'm asking is -- if you build a TP and it comes in
heavier (say you want to make the wing or structure stronger, for some
reason), you then have to certify it in the regular old experimental
or elsa category?

Or will TPs be "invalid" in a few more days?

And I will go look at the FAR to understand ultra-light requirements.



I assume the previous poster with his countdown was talking about the
E-LSA exemption for fat ULs. After Jan. 31 2008 (today). This was an
exemption designed to allow aircraft that had been flying without
meeting the UL standards to become legal. If your registered your
aircraft under the E-LSA exemption you would then need an LSA
certificate or better to fly it. After today the only aircraft that can
be registered as E-LSA are those that are kits sold by the manufacturer
of S-LSA class aircraft that match the S-LSA aircraft. And you can't
build them in any way different from the way the kit designer tells you.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
|
| "Anyolmouse" wrote
|
| My low powered 1959 Bug Eyed AH Sprite made Vets look silly in the
| corners. Soon as we hit a straight away, the Vet was no where to be
| seen.
|
| Yep, but from what my dad said (he test drove a friends turbo) when
the
| turbo kicks in, it puts you right back in your seat. He said at some
unreal
| speed, he let off of it; it finally scared him!
|
| I'll give the Vet the top end, because I'm sure the 'Vair did not have
| anywhere near the top end, but I'd like to see a 45 MPH roll on, turbo
Vair
| against a Vet.
|
| Now, if you want to make sure you leave the Vet eating Corvair dust,
there
| was a kit available back in the day that would insure just that.
|
| The kit turned the transaxle 180 degrees, then you bolted up a 327
Chevy
| V-8, right to it. Add a van type of cover over the engine in what
used to
| be the back seat, add a radiator, some sway bars, other suspension
mods, and
| some wide rear tires, and say goodbye to everything on the road.
|
| I saw a write up in one of the car magazines of the day, and they
raved over
| it. I would love to have one!
|
| Well, this thread has wandered far enough off topic. I'll cease and
all
| that stuff! g
| --
| Jim in NC
|

Known as a sleeper G When I was in high school one of the guys had a
Chevy delivery van with a 6 cylinder in it. He left in the smoking,
noisy 6 and installed a souped up 55 Chevy V-8 just behind the front
seat that was connected to the drive train. He would pull up to a stop
light and rev up the 6 to get a drag race. He would sucker them in by
letting them win at least once before he took their money.

I agree this has gotten too far OT. But fun!

--
Anyolmouse

---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

wrote in message
...

That's right. I like building things, but I keep looking up at the
planes and thinking, I gotta be able to do that for less than $90 an
hour ... I like that part every bit as much.

If I stick with the 701 I'll see how Wynne's corvair conversion works
out and take a lesson from that. If I don't stick with the 701 I'll
pick one of the smaller designs that looks really fun and I've been
researching over the last year or so (Thatcher, Teenie, others, and
now maybe Texas Parasol!) and use a stock VW.

Thanks again. This is the kind of info I knew was out there with the
people who have been working on VWs but not writing conversion manuals
about them.

----------------------------------------------------------
(The lack of quoted line markers is due to continued news reader problems)

Just be very afraid of trying to build the lightest engine of its type ever
successfully flown--those harmonic dampeners that are approximately matched
to the crankshaft and flywheel (or starter disk) weights are there for a
reason. The crank doesn't break right away, but is a gradual process of
internal damage until the "symptom" of a failed engine suddenly occurs!

So, stay with the tried and true. That way, at least, you will have a good
idea of the reliable service life of the system (and any warning signs to
watch) before you start.

Peter

On Jan 29, 7:20 pm, " wrote:

If I wanted a two-cylinder air cooled engine I'd go buy one, following
the lead of Leeon Davis.

What engine did he use? I did a quick Google but all I
could find was a reference to a 40-hp two-banger in his airplane. No
details.
Found, too, that Leeon has died. Too bad.

Dan

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...
wrote:
About 302 or so was the lightest one I've seen so it fell into the
fat catagory - which expires in 9,8,7,6... days

So you really need a PPL - or a big farm?


Er, uh ... what? I don't get.

I've got a PPL and ... hmm ... I'd like to have a big farm with a
grass strip ... don't want to "buy the farm"?

I suppose what I'm asking is -- if you build a TP and it comes in
heavier (say you want to make the wing or structure stronger, for some
reason), you then have to certify it in the regular old experimental
or elsa category?

Or will TPs be "invalid" in a few more days?

And I will go look at the FAR to understand ultra-light requirements.



I assume the previous poster with his countdown was talking about the
E-LSA exemption for fat ULs. After Jan. 31 2008 (today). This was an
exemption designed to allow aircraft that had been flying without meeting
the UL standards to become legal. If your registered your aircraft under
the E-LSA exemption you would then need an LSA certificate or better to
fly it. After today the only aircraft that can be registered as E-LSA are
those that are kits sold by the manufacturer of S-LSA class aircraft that
match the S-LSA aircraft. And you can't build them in any way different
from the way the kit designer tells you.

However, as mentioned several times elsewhere, amateur built experimentals
which happen to fit the LSA definitions of weight, speed, etc can be used as
LSA.

Ultralight Vehicles are defined under Part 103, and the limitations include
a maximum weight of 254 pounds, plus an allowance for a ballistic recovery
parachute if so equipped, in the case of land planes. According to wide
spread rumor, strict enforcement of Part 103 has rarely (if ever) been a
strong priority in the past; but that is presumed subject to change with the
end of the grace period--during which non conforming ultralights were
invited to registere and become LSA. BTW, fully conforming ultralights
could do the same; although the motivation to do so is subtle because it is
based upon individual usage--and once the status is changed, the newly
created LSA can no longer be an ultralight vehicle.

No guarantees; but if you parse it carefully, I believe that I got the sense
of it.

Peter

wrote:
On Jan 29, 7:20 pm, " wrote:

If I wanted a two-cylinder air cooled engine I'd go buy one, following
the lead of Leeon Davis.

What engine did he use? I did a quick Google but all I
could find was a reference to a 40-hp two-banger in his airplane. No
details.
Found, too, that Leeon has died. Too bad.

Dan




This posting has information and links:

http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/rec.../msg06267.html

Charles

wrote:
On Jan 29, 7:20 pm, " wrote:

If I wanted a two-cylinder air cooled engine I'd go buy one, following
the lead of Leeon Davis.

What engine did he use? I did a quick Google but all I
could find was a reference to a 40-hp two-banger in his airplane. No
details.
Found, too, that Leeon has died. Too bad.

Dan




Here is another link:

http://www.aircraft-spruce.com/da11.html


Charles

wrote

What engine did he use? I did a quick Google but all I
could find was a reference to a 40-hp two-banger in his airplane. No
details.
Found, too, that Leeon has died. Too bad.

Sorry to hear that, too. He never got around to publishing plans for that
tiny one seater that used the 25 HP Briggs and Stratton lawn mower motor,
either.

I hope whoever gets that plane reverse engineers the plans and makes it
available. That plane is way too cool, to never be duplicated!
--
Jim in NC