The Orphaned Engine, Part Two

On Apr 9, 10:58*am, Monk wrote:

My step mother and my wife's mother both passed on due to cancer so I,
for one thought you didn't have much time left Bob. *Glad to hear that
yours is treatable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welll... I'll tell ya, pard... when the doctor asked me "Do you know
what multiple myeloma is?" I swear to gawd my pump damn near stopped
right there. Because the answer was 'yes' and the fellow who had it
checked out three months later. But that was in the early 1970's.

I guess the doctor could see what I was thinking because he jumped
right in by telling me the situation wasn't as grime as it was just a
few years ago, and started giving me a run-down as to just how bad my
case was and what could be one to slow it down, how MUCH they could
slow it down and so forth. In fact, he painted a pretty rosy picture
that made incurable cancer sound about as serious as a head cold.

Reality came along one bullet at a time. Some were hits, some were
misses. Some depended on how well I was able to stand up to the
treatment, some aspects of which seemed worse than the disease because
you had to stand there and take the full bolt, whereas the disease had
spent years establishing itself -- and largely destroying some
portions of my spine.

Multiple Myeloma doesn't have any poster child. MM hits adults and
often takes them down about as quickly as a bullet. But if you're
lucky enough to be diagnosed early enough there are paths through the
mine field. We've been traveling one since I was diagnosed and are
presently examining the next patch we need to cross. No sense talking
about it. If we make the right choices I'll end up on a well-marked
trail. But make the wrong choice...

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

I'd really like to get across the principle behind the ENGINES I was
talking about. Most folks don't seem to understand that particular
choice and that's a major loss for grass-roots aviation because it
defines an engine that is almost a one-to-one match for what's needed
to power air frames that are specific to the survival of grass-roots
aviation, such as the Teenie Two, any of the KR's, the CX4, BK1.3,
VP-1, Double Eagle and so on. Bags of low-end torque which is a
virtual guarantee of high propeller efficiency at a fairly low rpm.
Developing your power down low also gives you a BIG advantage when it
comes to the engine's useful life.

But the thing is an orphan. Other than me and one other guy I've
never heard of anyone building one. In fact, in talking engines with
others who have converted more than a few VW's for flight, some of
them had never even heard of the method. And of those who had, the
ALL said the customer's wouldn't buy one even if it was available.

That might of been true back in the 1970's but I've got a hunch the
economic crunch has turned them into believers.

At 1700 cc it's not a big engine. But it's more than enough to fly
the planes I've listed. What's in its corner is a higher percentage
of stock parts. All you need do is swap-out the crank & rods. Jugs,
heads, cam... everything else stays STOCK. And there is no machining
required.

Running stock jugs under stock heads on an engine that needs no
machining, you've got an engine that costs only a few hundred dollars
more than a stone-stock 1600... except you've upped it to 1700 at the
same time you've move the torque-curve down into the region normally
occupied by real aircraft engines. (Okay, real but SMALL aircraft
engines.) 1700cc is about 103cid. Using the old rule of thumb for
normally aspirated air-cooled engines smaller than 500cid, your
maximum PEAK hp is going to be 51.8bhp @ 3200rpm. Maximum SUSTAINABLE
hp is going to be about 38.85bhp @ 2700rpm.

Right about there most homebuilders start easing out of the room
because they KNOW a converted VW is good for AT LEAST 80hp... and
there's a feller across the way who will sell them one, two. For
about six grand.

This one would cost less than half that.

I guess part of the problem is that no one wants an orphaned
engine :-)

-R.S.Hoover

On Apr 10, 4:42*am, Bob Hoover wrote:
On Apr 9, 10:58*am, Monk wrote:

My step mother and my wife's mother both passed on due to cancer so I,
for one thought you didn't have much time left Bob. *Glad to hear that
yours is treatable.

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

Welll... I'll tell ya, pard... when the doctor asked me "Do you know
what multiple myeloma is?" *I swear to gawd my pump damn near stopped
right there. *Because the answer was 'yes' and the fellow who had it
checked out three months later. *But that was in the early 1970's.

I guess the doctor could see what I was thinking because he jumped
right in by telling me the situation wasn't as grime as it was just a
few years ago, and started giving me a run-down as to just how bad my
case was and what could be one to slow it down, how MUCH they could
slow it down and so forth. *In fact, he painted a pretty rosy picture
that made incurable cancer sound about as serious as a head cold.

Reality came along one bullet at a time. *Some were hits, some were
misses. *Some depended on how *well I was able to stand up to the
treatment, some aspects of which seemed worse than the disease because
you had to stand there and take the full bolt, whereas the disease had
spent years establishing itself -- and largely destroying some
portions of my spine.

Multiple Myeloma doesn't have any poster child. *MM hits adults and
often takes them down about as quickly as a bullet. *But if you're
lucky enough to be diagnosed early enough there are paths through the
mine field. *We've been traveling one since I was diagnosed and are
presently examining the next patch we need to cross. *No sense talking
about it. *If we make the right choices I'll end up on a well-marked
trail. *But make the wrong choice...

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

I'd really like to get across the principle behind the ENGINES I was
talking about. *Most folks don't seem to understand that particular
choice and that's a major loss for grass-roots aviation because it
defines an engine that is almost a one-to-one match for what's needed
to power air frames that are specific to the survival of grass-roots
aviation, such as the Teenie Two, any of the KR's, the CX4, BK1.3,
VP-1, Double Eagle and so on. *Bags of low-end torque which is a
virtual guarantee of high propeller efficiency at a fairly low rpm.
Developing your power down low also gives you a BIG advantage when it
comes to the engine's useful life.

But the thing is an orphan. *Other than me and one other guy I've
never heard of anyone building one. *In fact, in talking engines with
others who have converted more than a few VW's for flight, some of
them had never even heard of the method. *And of those who had, the
ALL said the customer's wouldn't buy one even if it was available.

That might of been true back in the 1970's but I've got a hunch the
economic crunch has turned them into believers.

At 1700 cc it's not a big engine. *But it's more than enough to fly
the planes I've listed. *What's in its corner is a higher percentage
of stock parts. *All you need do is swap-out the crank & rods. *Jugs,
heads, cam... everything else stays STOCK. *And there is no machining
required.

Running stock jugs under stock heads on an engine that needs no
machining, you've got an engine that costs only a few hundred dollars
more than a stone-stock 1600... except you've upped it to 1700 at the
same time you've move the torque-curve down into the region normally
occupied by real aircraft engines. *(Okay, real but SMALL aircraft
engines.) *1700cc is about 103cid. *Using the old rule of thumb for
normally aspirated air-cooled engines smaller than 500cid, your
maximum PEAK hp is going to be 51.8bhp @ 3200rpm. *Maximum SUSTAINABLE
hp is going to be about 38.85bhp @ 2700rpm.

Right about there most homebuilders start easing out of the room
because they KNOW a converted VW is good for AT LEAST 80hp... and
there's a feller across the way who will sell them one, two. *For
about six grand.

This one would cost less than half that.

I guess part of the problem is that no one wants an orphaned
engine :-)

-R.S.Hoover

Bob, a little off topic, a slight tangent. The VW's air-cooled flat
four. Do they make those in diesel or are the WV diesels the water-
cooled inline fours only? I have heard of some of the buses,
transporters, campers and the vanagons having diesels in them, but I
guess they may have just stuffed the front-wheel drive-trains back in
the back of those maybe?

Monk schreef:

Bob, a little off topic, a slight tangent. The VW's air-cooled flat
four. Do they make those in diesel or are the WV diesels the water-
cooled inline fours only? I have heard of some of the buses,
transporters, campers and the vanagons having diesels in them, but I
guess they may have just stuffed the front-wheel drive-trains back in
the back of those maybe?

VW started to make diesel engines after they had given up the Beetle
concept. To my knowledge they only made diesels in the "conventional"
4-in-line watercooled formula.

Subaru has a new flat-four diesel, but about three times a powerful as a VW
gas engine (if you dont't mind)


"jan olieslagers" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Monk schreef:

Bob, a little off topic, a slight tangent. The VW's air-cooled flat
four. Do they make those in diesel or are the WV diesels the water-
cooled inline fours only? I have heard of some of the buses,
transporters, campers and the vanagons having diesels in them, but I
guess they may have just stuffed the front-wheel drive-trains back in
the back of those maybe?

VW started to make diesel engines after they had given up the Beetle
concept. To my knowledge they only made diesels in the "conventional"
4-in-line watercooled formula.

On Apr 10, 4:42 am, Bob Hoover wrote:

I guess part of the problem is that no one wants an orphaned
engine :-)

-R.S.Hoover

Nah. You're just too honest. You need to spin it differently. This isn't an
"orphan engine". This is "The affordable airplane engine THEY don't want
you to know about". ;-)

Tim Ward

On Apr 10, 1:42*am, Bob Hoover wrote:
On Apr 9, 10:58*am, Monk wrote:

My step mother and my wife's mother both passed on due to cancer so I,
for one thought you didn't have much time left Bob. *Glad to hear that
yours is treatable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----------------------------------

Welll... I'll tell ya, pard... when the doctor asked me "Do you know
what multiple myeloma is?" *I swear to gawd my pump damn near stopped
right there. *Because the answer was 'yes' and the fellow who had it
checked out three months later. *But that was in the early 1970's.

I guess the doctor could see what I was thinking because he jumped
right in by telling me the situation wasn't as grime as it was just a
few years ago, and started giving me a run-down as to just how bad my
case was and what could be one to slow it down, how MUCH they could
slow it down and so forth. *In fact, he painted a pretty rosy picture
that made incurable cancer sound about as serious as a head cold.

Reality came along one bullet at a time. *Some were hits, some were
misses. *Some depended on how *well I was able to stand up to the
treatment, some aspects of which seemed worse than the disease because
you had to stand there and take the full bolt, whereas the disease had
spent years establishing itself -- and largely destroying some
portions of my spine.

Multiple Myeloma doesn't have any poster child. *MM hits adults and
often takes them down about as quickly as a bullet. *But if you're
lucky enough to be diagnosed early enough there are paths through the
mine field. *We've been traveling one since I was diagnosed and are
presently examining the next patch we need to cross. *No sense talking
about it. *If we make the right choices I'll end up on a well-marked
trail. *But make the wrong choice...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*----------------------------------

I'd really like to get across the principle behind the ENGINES I was
talking about. *Most folks don't seem to understand that particular
choice and that's a major loss for grass-roots aviation because it
defines an engine that is almost a one-to-one match for what's needed
to power air frames that are specific to the survival of grass-roots
aviation, such as the Teenie Two, any of the KR's, the CX4, BK1.3,
VP-1, Double Eagle and so on. *Bags of low-end torque which is a
virtual guarantee of high propeller efficiency at a fairly low rpm.
Developing your power down low also gives you a BIG advantage when it
comes to the engine's useful life.

But the thing is an orphan. *Other than me and one other guy I've
never heard of anyone building one. *In fact, in talking engines with
others who have converted more than a few VW's for flight, some of
them had never even heard of the method. *And of those who had, the
ALL said the customer's wouldn't buy one even if it was available.

That might of been true back in the 1970's but I've got a hunch the
economic crunch has turned them into believers.

At 1700 cc it's not a big engine. *But it's more than enough to fly
the planes I've listed. *What's in its corner is a higher percentage
of stock parts. *All you need do is swap-out the crank & rods. *Jugs,
heads, cam... everything else stays STOCK. *And there is no machining
required.

Running stock jugs under stock heads on an engine that needs no
machining, you've got an engine that costs only a few hundred dollars
more than a stone-stock 1600... except you've upped it to 1700 at the
same time you've move the torque-curve down into the region normally
occupied by real aircraft engines. *(Okay, real but SMALL aircraft
engines.) *1700cc is about 103cid. *Using the old rule of thumb for
normally aspirated air-cooled engines smaller than 500cid, your
maximum PEAK hp is going to be 51.8bhp @ 3200rpm. *Maximum SUSTAINABLE
hp is going to be about 38.85bhp @ 2700rpm.

Right about there most homebuilders start easing out of the room
because they KNOW a converted VW is good for AT LEAST 80hp... and
there's a feller across the way who will sell them one, two. *For
about six grand.

This one would cost less than half that.

I guess part of the problem is that no one wants an orphaned
engine :-)

-R.S.Hoover

Okay, so you add to the stroke, longer rods, how do you add that
length to the stock jugs ? Also, other hardware,
pushrods, studs, etc?

Ed

On Apr 12, 6:49*pm, et wrote:

Okay, *so you add to the stroke, longer rods, how do you add that
length to the stock jugs ? * * * * * * * Also, other hardware,
pushrods, studs, etc?

Ed

Don't need longer jugs, just a spacer. 5mm works out fine for the
78mm stroke. Add more for longer rods, 1 to 1. Couldn't find a
source real quick for stock bores but they aren't hard to make if you
have a lathe. Use the bottom section from a junk cylinder for raw
material. Already has the notches to clear the studs.

Depending on what head stud set is already in the case they may be
long enough for the 5mm increase in head height. If not, longer studs
are available.

http://www2.cip1.com/ProductDetails....ACC-C10-5398-L

Longer push rods are very common and stock tubes can handle the extra
span.

http://www2.cip1.com/ProductDetails....tCode=C12-4054

No other parts needed.............
======================
Leon McAtee

On Apr 12, 7:04*pm, wrote:

No other parts needed.............
======================
Leon McAtee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Leon,

Thank you for that. A lot of folks actually think I'm whipping all
this stuff up out of hot air & wishful thinking :-)

As you've pointed out, if spacer's aren't available for stock jugs
they are easy enough to make. And it's a one-time sort of thing. In
fact, for the size we're talking about you could probably make all of
your spacers out of ONE CYLINDER... and need only a hack-saw to do
it. Why? Because you'd probably take them to a shop with a surface
grinder. That is, you'd chuck an old jug in your bench-vise then use
the Sawz-all to lop off the skirt.. then figure out how thick you want
your spacers, add about an eighth to it and slice them puppies off
like cutting salami. Take six or eight down to the fellow with a
surface scratcher, see if he wants to dicker -- most shops ALWAYS have
little nickle & dime jobs waiting to fill-in on a tool. The day of
seeing machinists standing idle is long gone; the man with the tools
calls the man with the skills only as required. So you may end up
trading $30 of your time for a $5 job, you've still got a set of
spacers outta the deal.

The other things that change size, one you buy, the other you make
ANYWAY. What you buy are the long rods... unless you want to go
through the trouble of converting for Chevy rods. Not that difficult,
just lotsa time on your feet. The stuff you need to make is your push-
rods. Why? Because they're dirty inside. Every time the engine
stops, the rods stop rotating and a film of oil oozes down to the neck
of the ball-end fitting. Where it stops. Any solids will settle
out. They will do that until the rod can store any more... you will
have filled the slope defined by the push-rod's angle of repose. So
even when building a stock engine I like to start out with new CLEAN
push-rods. Just another of those 'unimportant' details.

Based on the mail I've received about this msg... (folks are shy;
afraid to ask questions in public for fear some Internet sociopath
will jump on them. Sad to say, but it does happen. So don't feel so
bad about the private messages.)

As I was saying, based on the mail a lot of guys just didn't get it.
Which means I didn't put enough emphasis on the ADVANTAGES of the 1700
engine. Everyone got the point about it being cheaper than other
engines at the outset although more than a few doubted it's ability to
fly their particular airplane. But other than the lower initial cost,
they couldn't see any advantage.

STOCK heads. Meaning stock valves & springs. Do a couple hundred
hours behind a VW and it's going to need a valve job, pard. That is
NEED rather than GET. With stock heads you can make an identical
THIRD HEAD and keep it bagged on the shelf. Leak-down sez its time to
take a look at your exhaust valves, you pull just ONE HEAD, install
your ready-spare and keep on flying as you overhaul the head you just
pulled. (Got lotsa money? Then sure; keep TWO IDENTICAL spares on
the shelf. Indeed, that's what the really smart VW-drivers do. And
they don't wait for the Leak-Down Test to tell them when, they simply
adjust their calendar... that is, they plan ahead for the job.

But the key issue is that, not only are you looking at a significant
reduction in your initial cost --- an this for an engine that was
DESIGNED to fly --- but when it comes time to do a bit of maintenance
you're looking for a handful of STOCK parts. Nothing exotic.

Yeah, the rods and crankshaft are non-stock items but they are items
that are NOT REPLACED. Rods get overhauled; crankshafts get re-
ground... exactly as would happen if you were using stock parts.

Flying is good. It's good for you, physically & mentally. It's good
for the airplane, having someone roll it out EVERY WEEK or more.
Problems get discovered sooner... and fixed cheaper. Flying is also
good for your community. You SEE MORE than the average citizen and
are more likely to mention such things to others.

Flying keeps your skills alive. And you too, in the long run. Those
guys who log 99% of their flying trying to get to and from Oshkosh
are a hazard to us all. But a lot of your skills are embodied in
'muscle memory' -- they are skills that NEED practice and habituation
to make them useful.

-R.S.Hoover

On Apr 14, 12:53*pm, Bob Hoover wrote:
On Apr 12, 7:04*pm, wrote:

No other parts needed.............
======================
Leon McAtee

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----------

Dear Leon,

Thank you for that. *A lot of folks actually think I'm whipping all
this stuff up out of hot air & wishful thinking :-)

As you've pointed out, if spacer's aren't available for stock jugs
they are easy enough to make. *And it's a one-time sort of thing. *In
fact, for the size we're talking about you could probably make all of
your spacers out of ONE CYLINDER... and need only a hack-saw to do
it. *Why? *Because you'd probably take them to a shop with a surface
grinder. *That is, you'd chuck an old jug in your bench-vise then use
the Sawz-all to lop off the skirt.. then figure out how thick you want
your spacers, add about an eighth to it and slice them puppies off
like cutting salami. *Take six or eight down to the fellow with a
surface scratcher, see if he wants to dicker -- most shops ALWAYS have
little nickle & dime jobs waiting to fill-in on a tool. *The day of
seeing machinists standing idle is long gone; the man with the tools
calls the man with the skills only as required. *So you may end up
trading $30 of your time for a $5 job, you've still got a set of
spacers outta the deal.

The other things that change size, one you buy, the other you make
ANYWAY. *What you buy are the long rods... unless you want to go
through the trouble of converting for Chevy rods. *Not that difficult,
just lotsa time on your feet. *The stuff you need to make is your push-
rods. *Why? *Because they're dirty inside. *Every time the engine
stops, the rods stop rotating and a film of oil oozes down to the neck
of the ball-end fitting. *Where it stops. *Any solids will settle
out. *They will do that until the rod can store any more... you will
have filled the slope defined by the push-rod's angle of repose. *So
even when building a stock engine I like to start out with new CLEAN
push-rods. *Just another of those 'unimportant' details.

Based on the mail I've received about this msg... (folks are shy;
afraid to ask questions in public for fear some Internet sociopath
will jump on them. *Sad to say, but it does happen. *So don't feel so
bad about the private messages.)

As I was saying, based on the mail a lot of guys just didn't get it.
Which means I didn't put enough emphasis on the ADVANTAGES of the 1700
engine. *Everyone got the point about it being cheaper than other
engines at the outset although more than a few doubted it's ability to
fly their particular airplane. *But other than the lower initial cost,
they couldn't see any advantage.

STOCK heads. *Meaning stock valves & springs. *Do a couple hundred
hours behind a VW and it's going to need a valve job, pard. *That is
NEED rather than GET. *With stock heads you can make an identical
THIRD HEAD and keep it bagged on the shelf. *Leak-down sez its time to
take a look at your exhaust valves, you pull just ONE HEAD, install
your ready-spare and keep on flying as you overhaul the head you just
pulled. *(Got lotsa money? *Then sure; keep TWO IDENTICAL spares on
the shelf. *Indeed, that's what the really smart VW-drivers do. *And
they don't wait for the Leak-Down Test to tell them when, they simply
adjust their calendar... that is, they plan ahead for the job.

But the key issue is that, not only are you looking at a significant
reduction in your initial cost *--- an this for an engine that was
DESIGNED to fly --- but when it comes time to do a bit of maintenance
you're looking for a handful of STOCK parts. *Nothing exotic.

Yeah, the rods and crankshaft are non-stock items but they are items
that are NOT REPLACED. *Rods get overhauled; crankshafts get re-
ground... exactly as would happen if you were using stock parts.

Flying is good. *It's good for you, physically & mentally. *It's good
for the airplane, having someone roll it out EVERY WEEK or more.
Problems get discovered sooner... and fixed cheaper. *Flying is also
good for your community. *You SEE MORE than the average citizen and
are more likely to mention such things to others.

Flying keeps your skills alive. *And you too, in the long run. *Those
guys who log 99% of *their flying trying to get to and from Oshkosh
are a hazard to us all. *But a lot of your skills are embodied in
'muscle memory' -- they are skills that NEED practice and habituation
to make them useful.

-R.S.Hoover

I've been researching the VW stroker engines build up's you've
mentioned Bob and they do make a good deal of sense. One thing of
intrest though is the stroker engines offered for sale with all new
parts look suspiciously like VW airplane engines?;-) In pricing it
seems competative to purchase one of these and then add the rest of
the firewall foreward stuff. Of course theirs always some type of
hidden cost or bit of modification left to do with just about any
engine I've ever dealt with.

Joe S.

"Bob Hoover" wrote in message
...
On Apr 12, 7:04 pm, wrote:

No other parts needed.............

Delete good engine stuff

Flying is good. It's good for you, physically & mentally. It's good
for the airplane, having someone roll it out EVERY WEEK or more.
Problems get discovered sooner... and fixed cheaper. Flying is also
good for your community. You SEE MORE than the average citizen and
are more likely to mention such things to others.

Flying keeps your skills alive. And you too, in the long run. Those
guys who log 99% of their flying trying to get to and from Oshkosh
are a hazard to us all. But a lot of your skills are embodied in
'muscle memory' -- they are skills that NEED practice and habituation
to make them useful.

-R.S.Hoover


Ahhh, yes, flying is good!