Serious STOL fun

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
wrote in
news:5929b616-fa26-4bd1-acde-baf81ddc4b29
@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

Hey, I found this on the same page, about a VW miracle engine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4zSld30cmw&feature=related

It claims 211 HP out of a modified VW engine.

Very interesting.

If you buy that one, I have a bridge to sell you. It's right next
to th
e
ocean-front property in Arizona.
--
Jim in NC

It is possible to build VW engines that have much higher HP than
that. Some racing engines top 400, I think.


I wouldn't be surpised if you couldn't get more than that, even.
Blown F1 engines based on engines almsot as simple ( the BMW M10, for
instane) were knocking on 1,000 HP thirty years ago.
Wouldnt like to fly behind one though!

Even a bit over a hundred has to be the limit for a reliable VW
engine, and
even then it's not going to be very torquey.



Bertie


This is the wrong NG to really attract a firestorm on this subject;
however I am really inclined to agree with you about the practical
limit for a VW. However, there is a major caveat--according to sources
that I trust, ram air will not provide enough cooling during climb for
more than about half of that. Therefore, in addition to the obvious
of a PSRU, a high horsepower VW would also require a relatively high
pressure cooling fan and the attendant machinery to regulate it. And
that is still no guarantee of a successfull outcome.

There is also a second point about automotive racing engines that is
frequently overlooked: I don't have any source of real numbers, but
an occasional few minutes of "standing by the fence and watching the
cars pass by" has convinced me that that road racing averages out to
around 30 to 35% of maximum horsepower--although some oval track
racing on super speedways should be a much higher percentage of power.
In any case, the design life expectancy (and reliability) of an
engine for endurance road racing is obviously far less than I would
consider acceptable for flying--with the obvious exception of air
racing.

When you add it all up, a good conservative automotive conversion can
save money at the expense of performance; but a purpose designed
aircraft engine is still the least expensive source of reliable
lightweight power. I am not happy about that, and I keep looking, but
around 70 to 75% of the power that an engine developed for its
original (factory warranteed) application still looks like a practical
limit.

Yeah, an automotive conversion really doesn;t appeal to me for a lot of
reasons. Some VW designs are realyl fun though! And breaths there a
pilot with a soul so dead as to not turn and look at a nice model A
poswered Piet?

Bertie

Very true!

Peter

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

Yeah, an automotive conversion really doesn;t appeal to me for a lot of
reasons.

Depends on the auto engine, to me. IF all of the other things like the
ignition, fuel system, cooling and prop speed reducer are done right on the
right engine, there are many auto engines that have not been babied in and
airplane and have done quite well, for 2000 hours plus. That's the gottcha;
all of the other stuff on the engine.

It helps if the engine has been raced in some class. The GM 4.3 and the
Ford 3.8 earned their wings in NASCAR, before they went back to the V-8's.

Some VW designs are realyl fun though!

Yes, but show me a standard VW head that does not melt down at more than an
honest 50 HP continuous, and I'll change my tune. I don't think I'll have
to buy a new songbook anytime soon! They just can not get rid of any more
waste heat than that.

And breaths there a pilot with a soul so dead as to not turn and look at a
nice model A
poswered Piet?

Yep, they sound and look really unique. They hark back to an earlier time
in history, and that "poppity pop" just can not be duplicated.
--
Jim in NC

"William Hung" wrote

C'on Jim, it's not so ugly. Looks like a Jeep Willy of the sky to me,
and I think the Willy's jeeps look great. My plan is to one day get a
C150, I'm leaning towards building the 701 now. Maybe with a 582 or
if finances allow, a 912.

Yeah, I guess it isn't all that ugly; but it looks "bulldog ugly"; its
straight out top just has no streamlined look to it, I think.

Put a Jubaru 3300 on it, if you want to do it right. None of the sewing
machine Rotax engines, for me.
--
Jim in NC

wrote

After reading a detailed pilot report of it with 100, I've decided 80
is fine. I'm going for a VW, 2149 cc. Nitrided crank. "Geared down"
with one of Great Plain's pulleys. More thrust, power 80 to 100

You need to do some reading over in rec.aviation.homebuilt. A guy over
there will tell you that a VW can not do that many HP continuous, and for
good reason, I think.

Try this link, http://bobhooversblog.blogspot.com and read "The Christmas
Engine" (I think that is the name of the article)
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:



It helps if the engine has been raced in some class. The GM 4.3 and
the
Ford 3.8 earned their wings in NASCAR, before they went back to the
V-8's.

Some VW designs are realyl fun though!

Yes, but show me a standard VW head that does not melt down at more
than an honest 50 HP continuous, and I'll change my tune. I don't
think I'll have to buy a new songbook anytime soon! They just can not
get rid of any more waste heat than that.



Mmm.yeah, that sounds about right. I have to say, if I was going for a
Sonex, I think I'd go for a Rotax 912 in it rather than a VW

And breaths there a pilot with a soul so dead as to not turn and look
at a nice model A
poswered Piet?

Yep, they sound and look really unique. They hark back to an earlier
time in history, and that "poppity pop" just can not be duplicated.


They just look so cool.
That engine was actually certified at one point. I think the only
certified airplane with the model A was the Wiley Post. The Model B made
it into the early Funks and the V8 into a at least one certified
aircraft as well.



Bertie

"Morgans" wrote in news:Pxsnj.56$zV2.27
@newsfe06.lga:


"William Hung" wrote

C'on Jim, it's not so ugly. Looks like a Jeep Willy of the sky to me,
and I think the Willy's jeeps look great. My plan is to one day get a
C150, I'm leaning towards building the 701 now. Maybe with a 582 or
if finances allow, a 912.

Yeah, I guess it isn't all that ugly; but it looks "bulldog ugly"; its
straight out top just has no streamlined look to it, I think.

Put a Jubaru 3300 on it, if you want to do it right. None of the sewing
machine Rotax engines, for me.

In fact, I've heard the opposite, that the Jabirus seldom make it past 500
hours and often a lot less before needing a rebuild..

Bertie

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

Yeah, an automotive conversion really doesn;t appeal to me for a lot of
reasons.

Depends on the auto engine, to me. IF all of the other things like the
ignition, fuel system, cooling and prop speed reducer are done right on
the right engine, there are many auto engines that have not been babied in
and airplane and have done quite well, for 2000 hours plus. That's the
gottcha; all of the other stuff on the engine.

It helps if the engine has been raced in some class. The GM 4.3 and the
Ford 3.8 earned their wings in NASCAR, before they went back to the V-8's.

Some VW designs are realyl fun though!

Yes, but show me a standard VW head that does not melt down at more than
an honest 50 HP continuous, and I'll change my tune. I don't think I'll
have to buy a new songbook anytime soon! They just can not get rid of any
more waste heat than that.

The VP-1, KR-1, and a number of others fly quite well on that--and flew well
enough on the earlier and smaller VWs as well.

And breaths there a pilot with a soul so dead as to not turn and look at
a nice model A
poswered Piet?

Yep, they sound and look really unique. They hark back to an earlier time
in history, and that "poppity pop" just can not be duplicated.
--
I have never personally seen nor heard one, but I'm still watching and
listening.

Peter

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

wrote

After reading a detailed pilot report of it with 100, I've decided 80
is fine. I'm going for a VW, 2149 cc. Nitrided crank. "Geared down"
with one of Great Plain's pulleys. More thrust, power 80 to 100

You need to do some reading over in rec.aviation.homebuilt. A guy over
there will tell you that a VW can not do that many HP continuous, and for
good reason, I think.

Try this link, http://bobhooversblog.blogspot.com and read "The
Christmas Engine" (I think that is the name of the article)
--
Jim in NC


I also believe that he is about the best source--if you want th fly behind a
VW and also live to be quite old.

Peter

What do you suppose the life expectancy is of someone who flies like
that routinely?
--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

(Edward A. Falk) wrote in news:fnls60$a77$2
@blue.rahul.net:

What do you suppose the life expectancy is of someone who flies like
that routinely?

Like any other kind of flying it depends.

if you do it shirt tail out without seperating the unnecesary risks from
the necessary ones and setting up a series of checks and balances as you go
along, not long.
if you do, then as experience builds ( hopefully without too many bent
airplanes) then you'll probably die in your own bed at a ripe old age.
It's all dangerous and in a way, it's all pushing it. You identify the
risks and approach them intelligently adn there's no reason why you can't
do anything that;s physically possible,


Bertie