Little Wing Engine - Options - Opinions?

[mcbirdman]

We are now getting closer to deciding on engines. We are wondering if anyone has gone and looked at the Great Plains engines that were mentioned last week with the VW engine water cooled - I think 120 h.p.with a redrive but has 3 belts (they say for safety)

I also was looking at the RAM engine (subaroo) that is easily 120 hp and needs a redrive but is all metal and costs a few thousand more.

What do you think is reasonable to do concerning safety, reliability and price? The VW costs the least and is something I am familiar with because of the single place. I am not sure if a belt breaks what happens... is it possible to get it caught in the other 2 bands and have them all jam up? Is the belt system just something to be avoided? The engine would mount right on there as Ron had drawn up the motor mount for a vw in the first place.

Is it worth it to pay a few more thousand dollars and get a sub motor that will have to have a custom drawn mount, maybe not hard to do.... and try to match it up to the prop?

The other 2 guys are talking maybe ( I may be wrong) a hyundi engine or something strange and Rich is thinking Lycombing. I can't see paying that much for parts for a 40's technology engine that will not perform as well as the others because it is not tweaked as good as these newer engines. Paying more for certified but getting an old engine that is going to have to be rebuilt sounds like an expensive way to get something running decent.

Any ideas are appreciated and will be considered. I think it is too bad we are having a hard time deciding what will work best in the 3 machines. I think one of us will be more happy with his motor choice and performance/money comparison and I don't want to be one of the least happy of the 3 because I make a poor choice. I can't help what others decide and I hope it is good for them - I just figured we could all come to a concensus and save money while being equally familiar with the details of the machines. Now we are going to have different problems and details to work out on an individual basis. Thanks, jtm

[MattPearson]

James,
I am still open on the engine selection. It is interesting however, that the VW is a larger displaced engine by 399 cc. The stock EA-81 makes 100 hp, so the RAM is definitely working some magic as far as performance goes.

Lets consider the Rotax 914 as a standard of performance for the LW 2+2. The installed weight of the h2o cooled VW is only 26 lbs heavier. The 914 can produce max torque of 102 lbs for 5 minutes or 115 hp for 5 minutes. The VW is producing 154 lbs of torque @ 3400 RPM (100 hp continuous) and 150 lbs @4200 (120 hp @take-off RPM). The belt-drive which has been used successfully for a long time on VWs as well as many other engine installations. Heck, even the Carter Copter is belt driven...maybe that's not a good example! :)
Anyway, torque is what makes things go, for the most part, and the redrive allows BIG props. Consider the 65 hp Continentals used on T-crafts. They weigh a ton and put out gobbs of torque swinging huge heavy props. They also last forever.
The VW has ready made exhaust systems to suit, mounts, and true dual ignition. Anyway, thats the way I am leaning at the moment. I did a little calculating on a program that I have found to be extremely accurate: The LW2+2 at 1100 lbs gross with 29ft DWs, 72inch prop, 120 hp VW set-up, on a 90 degree day @ 500 msl would still climb out at 800 fpm. That's not too shabby.

[Spider]

I've never flown anything but have been looking at gyros for the last several months and decided the LW 2 place is the way to fly, if I can afford to put one together, which, of course brings me to the cost of the engine. I've been considering the VW and Sub, but also Raven Redrive uses the Suzuki 1300 4cyl with a turbo which they claim will perform as well or better than the 914T with only 10 -12 lbs additional wieght. Is anyone familiar with these?

[KenSandyEggo]

Wouldn't the Rotax 912 be sufficient? It's a lot less expensive than the 914, and in Minnesota or Texas, why a turbo? I'd be scared of a VW engine that's cranked up to 120 horses. What's stock, around 60? I'd be more interested in reliability rather than how many horses can be squeezed out of a VW or Soob. That's my 3 cents.

[mcbirdman]

darn, lost all that typing.... Thanks ken for the 3 cents. The vw's have always been mentioned favorably whenever someone sees the engine on my splace. They talk about all the torque .. how the engine just pushes right up the hill.

matt. Remember that it isn't the redrive that adds torque. It just slows a screaming engine at say 5000 rpm at the prop down to the 3000ish range that is desired for bigger props. The vw direct spins slow anyway so is favourable. The sub has to run high rpms to get any power out of it and so letting it run fast and gearing the prop down does make it work.

I don't know how much the Rotax engines are but they cost nowhere near what we could buy the Ram or VW package for. I could go either Ram or Vw and Vw does look appealing. If no one really has anything to say about the belts I just won't worry about that aspect.

Many of the dune buggy people have told me hundreds of hp off a souped up VW. It isn't that hard to believe that they can get 120 out of the water cooled flow tested engines. VW's are realitively simple and easy to understand / trouble shoot. The engine mounts in the plans would match...

Anyway I appreciate the effort and hints given and continue to listen. So far I am liking the Vw because I am already familiar with it but would be willing to pay a little more and get fuel injection and more from Ram. Keep me posted matt because we are probably a 2 engine deal.

The lycom. is expensive for parts, old technology that just doesn't perform as well as a modern tuned electronic engine. A custom engine mount and and a engine rebuild to get it running like a new engine.

I will have to ask bob if it was a suzuki motor he said he wanted to try. Maybe it is the one you already mentioned. He said the engine he was looking at was on display at Oshkosh and seemed very popular.

I would rather go new and get to know the engine and not have to worry about it so much from the getgo...
Well, gotta sleep ttys jtm

[jolly467]

I find it interesting that folks are bagging so much on the Lycoming flat four as being outdated technology as compared to a VW...last time I checked, the original VW engine dates to pre WWII Hitler era Germany....

All of the recip engines we have now are based on some fairly old technology as far as the engine itself goes - ignition and fuel induction are the new kids on the block as far as that goes, I would think that given enough effort, you could adapt Fuel Injection and new Ignition systems to an older aircraft engine to match or better the performance of the VW / SOOB conversions.

Remember that the aircraft engine is already designed to accept the stresses put on it by that big ol prop on it (which is quite different than what a auto engine sees). While the SOOB and VW definately can work fine, they are a compromise for an A/C....I'm kind of looking at a Franklin 4 cyl myself..the same weight range as the ROTEC radial, but puts out 125 hp and has a known history...also can be had for a bit less money. But I'm definately still in the "planning" phase! ;)

just my $.02

Steve Wages

[MattPearson]

James,
A reduction absolutely increases the torque. It multiplies the torque by what ever the ratio of reduction. What it won't add is horsepower.

[mcbirdman]

Yes but if you get all the torque from an engine at a low enough rpm - you don't have to further complicate things by going from 5500 rpm and an engine screaming down to something that slows the prop down to a range that is workable. There just seems to be a lot of guesswork trying to match the pitch of the prop with the size of the prop and to try and achieve that at the certain rpm range. (unless you are into math) Any one of those being off means loss of power that you could have enjoyed.

I heard the ground loop little wing was because the guy might have said he had the sub all going fast and yet had not enough power. I wasn't sure about revving something up that screaming fast and having it vibrating a lot more..... Maybe none of it is a problem, I just was saying I like engines just idling along and still having torque like the new big rig tractor trailers. They are amazing. But I don't want to have to buy a few props just to try to get it right. we could just spend the money (in that circumstance) and just do it right.

Still open to consider whatever you find. I am sure we can get power.... So far both of those have exceeded hp recomendations Ron had stated (min 100hp). Are we having fun yet? Is it plans yet?

[mcbirdman]

Steve, I think the difference is that the reason for the lycoming is because he can just get certified parts and bolt them on. Not really any changes available that I am aware of to bring this technology forward. He likes the simplicity of it and that is about it.

Since the VW's started being used for dune buggies to aircraft for many years, it is hard to see how they have been able to get so much power out of an old engine also except for the fact that many new parts are available that make the engine Core VW and everything from crank cylinders , actually the block too, rod ends and more are all "supercharged" by comparison. These engines are built way up for performance and now that Matt found the watercooled engine... brings even brighter things for it's future. IT is a VW but not a normal one. The lycoming is just what it is and has been. That is why there is such an increase in hp with the VW. It just has been getting reworked and changing from all the things we have been learning. The difference is that it is nowhere near the same cost. It is much less.
Fun Stuff to consider and I appreciate your help trying to add to this thread. It is a big decision for me. jtm

[MattPearson]

I'm just thrilled we have options!!!

[mcbirdman]

yes, I am still stunned about the water cooled VW. You snuck that one right by me....

[richard lidke]

:) :) Just one point that I would like to make to all you redrive enthusiasts, yes a redrive does change torque at a lower speed, however, after designing belt drives for years and years, I can assure all of you that a loss of between 2 and 5 percent occurs when a belt drive is used. This is never given back in the torque, so figure it out, horsepower is measured in foot pounds, and if you loose between 2 and 5 percent of the horsepower in the drive, that much torque is also lost, period. Thus the horsepower is always compromised a littlebit in this fashion, so if you have a 120 horsepower with a belt redrive, figure on loosing about 6 horsepower continuously to the belts. The torque curve on the engine changes with the speed, but the belt loss doesn't. Littlewing Booster Rich.

[SNelson]

I would like to say that whether you use a belt drive or a gear drive
there is always a penalty to pay. The rule of thumb is for every gear change, or set of gears, approximately a 5% loss is incurred.

[mcbirdman]

Well, I might be wrong (again) but aside from the given fact that you lose power through belts/redrives.... If something is 120 hp I would assume that this is the number that is achieved in dyno testing with the drive on. In other words when they run the curve I can't see how they could hit 120 hp and then say minus 6 hp for the drive. More probable is that it was putting out 126 and what isn't lost..... is what shows up on the charts..... 120 is pretty darn good I would say....
jtm

[j4flyer]

For what it's worth I had a sub motor in my gyro. It would not put out the power as advertised and I continued to invest money to try and get it equal to 100 hp. I gave up and sold the motor. I had approx $5300.00 in the engine when finished and I got 2k out of it. I replaced it with a Lyc. I never worried about engine outs, I had three with the sub, and the engine performed as advertised and made the gyro a true aircraft. My buddy has been flying his gyro with a cont 0-200. He has 1000 hours on it and he can get more for the 0-200 than what he paid if he ever sells. Parts are more expensive but, you will probably fly a life time on a mid time engine without ever spending the large sums of money to keep it in the air. If you fly into an airport and you do have a problem, any a&p will be able to help you and will probably have the necessary part if a part is needed. Look at aircraft that have certified engines and those that have subs or vw's, you will notice a real difference in resale price. My opinion, bite the bullet, spend the money and get the Lyc or Cont. I took tried the less expensive route. Take a look at mid time engines in trade a plane. You can get them at a similar price to a fully equipped Sub or VW. -Bob L.

[mcbirdman]

Hi Bob, thanks for taking the time to write. On the sub, I don't know who built it but the ones we have are flow tested and if needed dyno'd. I think there is a lot of people that work on subs but that doesn't mean they are all good or know what they are doing to bring peak efficiency. So, other than you didn't get the power someone claimed in an engine you bought, and they evidently couldn't improve the performance - you feel like you wasted money. If you want to personal message me to let me know if it was what you would think would be a reputable known engine maker that would be nice.

Rich said the same thing about getting a used engine and rebuilding it. The problem is that since it isn't fuel injected there is no way to know before you buy the engine if it has been run lean or abused such as over-revved or anything. Then you have to rebuild it which brings the cost up. A Little Wing is not really an aircraft that you are ever going to want to sell. It is something you will fly the heck out of and if someone was going to buy it you won't get anything near the time you put into building it. I think you can't charge enough to sell without being in the hole anyway. So I think it seems a reasonable consideration but the only advantage is that there are alot of those engines and parts around.

So I guess putting so much time into the project, knowing I can't get what I think it is worth - adding in a lycombing is a bonus only to the buyer but won't really grow your sale price because it will only reap so much anyway. I don't even know what a completed LW project is. That is something I have never seen or heard mentioned.

So, if I could get a new engine that is fuel injected and actually putting out the power advertised I would rather do that. I really don't feel like tearing an engine apart that has questionable history. I am not sure what the REAL cost would be to do so. Yes there are parts available and if you needed a part you could probably get it around many more airports than if I went Sub but With so few parts on board I am pretty sure that if anything on the engine broke I would be grounded for a while anyway since it would likely not a quicky job.

Anyway, I agree with theory of parts being available at the airport but I don't think that neccesarily means an immediate fix. And I know there is engines that are putting out high horsepower - although we don't need that. We just need it to run - and run a long time. Thanks for bringing up the point though, we have been kicking that around and I appreciate your help. AND it wouldn't hurt to go down to the airport and talk to my mechanic. Maybe he knows of some engine that might fit the bill and have a known history. Thanks. jtm

[MattPearson]

o-200 for sale on Ebay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=26437&item=2492980846&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW#ebayphotohosting

Link to certified engine install weights:

http://home1.gte.net/ikvamar/avlinks/engines.htm#certified

[Brent_Brown]

Engine For Sale
170cid (2,787cc) Zero-Timed Corvair
Personally Built by William Wynne
this is 100 hp

Go to fly corvair dot com and see it.

[MikeBoyette]

If price is not a consideration I would go with a Rotax 914. This is a well proven powerplant for use in aircraft. I wish Sandy Love was on this forum. He could tell you how he let the sandrail guys snookerd him into getting the VW bug. He ended up getting rid of it and replacing it with an AMW three cylinder after many engine outs. I used to joke with him and tell him he would be better off with a Mac. Just my 5.5 cents.

[mcbirdman]

Ron Herron really has enjoyed his VW engine. Don't think he would have put it in there if engine outs were a recurring problem in the first place. Mike - what year was this Sandy Love having this problem? Was it a while ago? Was this an engine HE overhauled / upgraded or was this one from a place like .... say .... Great Plains?

I already have a Vw with dual ignition on my single place. I have and they now have dual ignition. Carb heat to prevent icing. Other than a massive failure - what is causing the "outs"? There is no way that they should be less reliable than a mac.

[RHerron]

Mike,

I agree, the 914 IS the engine-of-choice.

Concerning the VW, I think it is fine for a single-place. I found the RevMaster, Total Engine Concepts and Great Plains versions very reliable.
I had one on an airplane that was "flown hard and put up wet". After over 500 hours it was still running fine.
I had one on my Little Wing for 200 trouble-free hours. I sold it and installed the radial. I hope it holds up as well as the VW.

[Spider]

I checked out the operator's manual for the 914 from the Rotax website. Article 4.2 Safety information says "This engine shall not be used on rotor wing aircraft (helicopters, gyrocopters, etc.) or any similar aircraft." What's this all about?

[MattPearson]

It's called "release of liability"

[richard lidke]

Mike,

I agree, the 914 IS the engine-of-choice.

Concerning the VW, I think it is fine for a single-place. I found the RevMaster, Total Engine Concepts and Great Plains versions very reliable.
I had one on an airplane that was "flown hard and put up wet". After over 500 hours it was still running fine.
I had one on my Little Wing for 200 trouble-free hours. I sold it and installed the radial. I hope it holds up as well as the VW.
:) :) Hi Ron. Littlewing Booster Rich here. Check out this site for possible use on the two place version. http://usa.vw-engines.com/ This is a beefed up version which was supposedly producing 115+ during a test. I have had several conversions on the e, but I am still not completely clear on how the test results were obtained. They used a car and included the losses for the two speed gears, transmission etc. It is a very nice looking update and I hope that it is what they say it is. Have a look. If you want I can also send you the letters in their response to my request. :)

[MikeBoyette]

James,
The Year Sandy Love was having problem was around 97.
Spider,
Both recent world altitude record holders used 914's on their gyros.

[mcbirdman]

Thanks Mike - It sounded like an older problem but I wasn't sure. Also I just am not convinced that it is neccesary to put 23 or 24 thousand dollars on the front end to get reliable performance. However, if that is what it needs.... jtm

[Spider]

I just got off the phone with Jeron at Raven Redrive in Colorado (303) 440-6234. He makes some good points about the 1.3 liter suzuki engine: rebuilt intake for tubo(same turbo the 914 uses) to reduce wieght, fuel injected so less chance of running lean, water cooled and able to mantain full power for extended periods of time due to better cooling, lighter than the Sub by about 30 lbs, only about 10 lbs heavier than the 914 turbo, engines often go 200,000 plus miles in autos, conversion kit $4,495.00 plus turbo $1,700.00. Might be worth considering.

[MikeBoyette]

Spider,
Maybe Chuck or someone else with a little more knowledge can tell you why, but I was told the three cylinder engines have a nasty harmonics problem. I would have thought if they were a great alternantive there would be more flying on gyros. How reliable an engine is in a car is just about irrelivant. An Engine in an auto very rarely sees the upper RPM range except for short bursts. A gyro engine usually runs at 60 to 100% it's whole life. I personally would like to see the various auto conversions run on a dyno flat out. Just to see which ones will last and for how long. I'll bet the 914 would run full power untill it ran out of gas. I doubt the rest would. As for engine cost, I have found in gyros and in life, if you buy cheap you get cheap.

[Brent_Brown]

Mike the 1.3 is a 4 cylinder

[Spider]

www.raven-rotor.com/ The 1300SVS is a four cylinder, They claim the rpm they run at hwy speed is the same as when flying, the 914 can only run at max power for about 3, or is it 5, minutes. You can download the 914 engine manual from the Rotax website for free.

[Spider]

www.ultralightnews.com/reviews/202404review.htm How about turbo for the VW the hot rodders do it all the time and may have the bugs worked out?

[rwr]

Yes, VW and Subaru motors can be reliable, but notice that the guys that get lots of longevity do NOT run huge horsepower.

This is because the cooling systems, especially on the VW, simply can't get rid of the heat at full-power for very long.

RPM is a big factor, but the strain that will cause you to look for a nice flat place to land all of sudden is thermal load. A two-liter 140hp VW running 3,500 rpm at full power for very long will get hot quickly and quiet fairly soon thereafter.

Maybe if you had the discipline to run the thing at full power only during takeoff and then throttle back to 65% from then on, it might work well.

This concept is also why motorcycle engines seldom work well in aircraft. One of my bikes is only 1300cc, but has 145 HP. Extremely exciting for several seconds at a time. I'd hate to have that motor in an aircraft at full power for very long.

There's a lot to be said for using aircraft motors, either certified or just specially built aircraft motors like the Rotax 503 or 582. The engineers (guys who know WAY more about this than all of us put together) design those motors to do exactly what we need them to do -- make decent horsepower and be safe and reliable while doing it.

It's always tempting to find some cool way to use the unusual, or to build something that works well for real cheap. I guess that's part of the fun of experimental aircraft. If you want to minimize your real-world engine-out activity, though, stick to tried and true aircraft motors.

If you really want to use a car motor, I have a very good EA-81 with a Don Parham re-drive I'll part with for what I have in it. You'll save a lot over buying the pieces and putting it together or buying an aircraft motor. I was going to use it on a gyro, but my plans have changed.

Sorry for the long post, ya'll. Sometimes I just like to chat about these things.

[GyroRon]

Bob, how much for the engine and drive? Email me

[Screw]

Screw-In

I've had nothing but good dealing with Great Plains.

This may be a viable alternative engine for the LW.
http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html

With the redrive
http://www.greatplainsas.com/scpg12a.html

Here's a quote from Great Plains: "And power! The package as designed, will produce 100 HP at 3400 rpm on a Great Plains (otherwise stock) 2180cc direct drive engine. A reduction drive 2180cc Great Plains engine, turning 4200 take off rpm, will produce 120 HP - in addition to the cooling benefit of the liquid cooled cylinder head."

Won't really know until it's tried.

Screw-Out

[mcbirdman]

Dennis I think that is the engine that Little Wing Booster 3 is looking at. He said he saw it at Oshkosh and was impressed with its 115hp (turbo). He said the price was alot better than going up against the Rotax and that it should be very reliable.... jtm

[mcbirdman]

VW's front mounted should have less problems with cooling. Turning the rpms that you mentioned are not all that high either. I am really liking the watercooled VW so far.... That is something new and exciting to come along unexpectedly....jtm

[MikeBoyette]

My bad I had a brain fart. I thought it was the three cylinder.

[mcbirdman]

John, aren't you/werent you using a vw? Did you get a lot of good use on it? Did you build it up or was it from a place like great plains?

[Screw]

Screw-In

Hey James. I did buy an 1835cc 65hp from Greeat Plains. Works great. Because of my business failing and finances being what they are, I have consulted Great Plains about possibly using my VW for the LW-4 rather than the radial. I do have the radial for sale BTW.

Great Plaines can convert my current engine over to 2180cc with a redrive for around $2500. That will hopefully give me 103hp takeoff and 80 continuous. If I invested a little more and get the water cooled heads, I could get 120hp Takeoff and about 100 continuous.

Of course, to do this I would have to abandon my current airframe. What I may do, is have it bumped up in stages until it is ready for the LW and continue to fly it off my "DaScrew-Driver."

What I mean is, I'll probably this winter send it back to Great Plains and go ahead and increase it to a 2180cc and continue to fly it with "DaScrew-Driver" as I'm completing the LW-4. I'll have the engine anytime I need it for mounting and cowling purposes. Once the Lw-4 is ready for the "Firewall forward," I'll add the redrive, Warp Prop, and Watercooled Heads, starter, alternator ect.

This way, I'm not grounded for a long period of time between aircraft. Then I'll probably sell "DaScrew-Driver" airframe complete less engine.

Whatcha think? Bad Idea?

Screw-Out

[PW_Plack]

John,

What about getting a boneyard VW for use as a dummy while fitting things to the LW, then send yours and get the upgrade all done at once? It's gotta be a major hassle and expense to ship that thing...

[Screw]

Screw-In

That's not a bad idea. I know that the case size will not change, but the jugs and assessories will. I think the intake and carburator placements will be differant.

But your right, I could use an old 1600cc case for mounting purposes.

Screw-Out

[mcbirdman]

HI John,

Hey, I don't know. When you start taking things on and off and running wires and starters alternaters and whatever... I like the idea of the mentioned about maybe using a dummy engine if you have one.

One thing I will say though is that my single place is a 2180 and from all specs I have it says 70 hp continuous. I like that water cooled idea as I think that heat is the only thing that worried me a little bit anyway.
If it is putting out that kind of power with the redrive and belts don't bother you. I think the price is great. Did you look at the sub engines from ram engines though? They aren't belts, fuel injected and under 200 lbs with redrive. Yes they cost more but would they be more reliable? They are putting out, depending on configuration - 140 hp. jtm

[B Hawley]

I’m not committed to any type of engine, although cost is a major factor. I have been reading along about several engine selections that will work, all discussed except for the Corvair. What is the history of the Corvair, is it something that I need to shy away from? According to the fly Corvair website it has a good history and a fairly large following, relatively. The larger piston configuration falls within the weight and power envelopes needed. Does anyone personally know of a flying Corvair engine with some hours on her?

Brad Hawley Grass Valley, Northern California. (AKA “R.A.V.I.N. Eye”)

[Screw]

Screw-In

I think Brent Brown can address the Corvair Issue.

About the VW, I finished conversations with Great Plains and they seem to think the LW-4 will fly just fine with the 2180cc and a Re-drive. They recommend using a large 2 blade prop like a 74inch rather than a 3 blade warp drive. They say that with the 2 blade that engine with redrive will come close to 600lbs of thrust.

I don't know why they would recommend the Warp. I thought with a three blade (more area) and you could dial in and out of pitch for desired engine RPM. Would there be any thrust change?

I don't know I stay confused, but Great plains could not give me a definate prop recommendation. I asked him what prop he got almost 600lbs of thrust out of, and he said those were calculations. :(

I woouldn't mind going with a 2 blade wood prop, but I sure would like to know which one without having to buy three and hope for the best.

Screw-Out

[GyroRon]

John, you can buy a two blade warp drive...

[scottessex]

John, Go out on a limb here, Say the hell with it and take out a second mortgage, buy the radial, and be done with it. Tell the kids they will just have to pay for thier own college. :)

[Screw]

Screw-In

That's great Scott. I'll try it.

Ron, Do you think a 2 blade Warp will give the wieght needed? Great Plains is advocating the wood.

Great plains says the torque in an 1835cc is around 92ft.lbs. In the 2180cc, it's like 120ft.lbs.

I'll ask Great plains and Ron Herron. I believe Ron is running a VW in one of his machines.

Screw-Out

[GyroRon]

Take out a big loan Steve! Oh wait, you already got the engine... You would just need to find a good Rotax 582 to put on the Sportcopter.

John, I am not sure if Warp drive makes a two blade prop to handle that much power. I know they had issues with the prop hubs failing on some two blade Rotax 912 installations. there is a guy here in my area that has a Pober Pixie - Looks Like a Corbin Baby Ace - that is powered by a VW with a Redrive and it has impressive performance. It has some type of three blade ground adjustable prop on it, Warp Drive I am pretty sure.

[Screw]

Screw-In

Hey Steven, contact Ron Herron:

ron@littlewingautogyro.com

He can get you started.

Screw-Out

[B Hawley]

Here is a link to several hundred web sites. :eek:
Engines listed in order of horse power. :)
Everything aviation under the sun. :D

www.aviator.cc/engines.html

Brad Hawley

[mcbirdman]

Hi John.

Ron was using the VW engine til something sometime after Oshkosh when he was infected with a strange sickness that could only be cured by the purchase of the Rotec radial engine. He was perfectly fine flying the VW until he came down with the fever he had to burn off by throwing large amounts of money into the the money pit to feel better. He now controls the problem by using more money to buy more gas to fuel the new engine that has to<a onMouseOver="window.status='' ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status='';" oncontextmenu="window.status=''; return true;" onclick="location.href='http://www.enhancemysearch.com/admin/results.php?q=work&id=4';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."> work </a>alot harder because of all the drag that is created by the HUGE smile that doesn't even fit in the cockpit. ( I have seen it).

I do know before he was affected by the bug he enjoyed his VW. Because his was direct drive it is neccesary to use a wooden prop. From what little I know about your, and my future purchase, the redrive means we can use an adjustable prop. I think this is a definate plus even though I like wood because we can adjust the pitch for maximum thrust as many times as we need to find the power.... With the wood prop, like on my single place, I hope it is right. I like the new possibilities that are awaiting.....

In the meantime it is just nice to know that Ron is okay and recovered just fine from pulling a perfectly good motor off his machine to stop the itching (lol)

John, We are looking at long narrow underslung tanks. With the two radiators hanging down maybe I will be able to make the radiator be the opening part of a rounded undercarrige that hides the tanks..... Did you go or do you know the physical size of the radiators? They look small like maybe 8 inch by 8 inch? If they aren't big I could probably do something like that... jtm

[mcbirdman]

Allright - what the heck is the word<a onMouseOver="window.status='' ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status='';" oncontextmenu="window.status=''; return true;" onclick="location.href='http://www.enhancemysearch.com/admin/results.php?q=work&id=4';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."> work </a>highlighted for? I didn't do anything to put it in there and it links to an advertisemt. I didn't write it !!!!! or format it to do this.....
What the heck is going on?

EDIT..... It just did it on this post too ! What is going on?

[mcbirdman]

Does anyone else see the word work highlighted? Go to Tom Miltons posts about FW photos. It is highlighted on his too.... Something is taking over this forum I think.... I haven't highlighted it here but it is like if it sees the word work it thinks it means something. There is some kind of adware going on here. There was another word that was hijacking the thread that was in his post also.... Anyone else?

[mcbirdman]

sure enough.... in Toms post he said the word shopping and the same link is highlighted... what the heck? There is something here infiltrating the forum... unless no one else sees it but I don't see how I could be the only one..... see? work shopping...... I didn't do that !

[Screw]

Screw-In

Hey James,

I talked to Steve @ Great PLains and he does not recommend a Warp Drive due to wieght. He still recommends the big wood though, so I have asked Tennesse Prop for a recommendation. If I had to get a three blade adjustable, Steve did recommend a Powerfin.

I don't know about the radiators yet, and I am actively seeking fuel tank options.

Screw-Out

[mcbirdman]

Hi John,

I like the look of the wood and have no problem with it, just the point being that we have to know the optimum sizes and it is / would be expensive to experiment. The good news however is that there are already other machines in that rpm range so it shouldn't be that hard. (or at least we aren't starting from scratch).
Fuel tanks are the easy part, once you decide where to put them and how big. Did you actually go there to Great Plains or are you just phoning it? Rich, LWB#1of3 says that we could go there...overnighter to see what he has. That would be interesting and fun.

[Ruidoso Ron]

Has anybody looked at the WAM-120. Turbo diesel, 120 HP, a little heavy, but it includes all the accessories. I think about 220#, not including the prop. Burns diesel fuel or Jet A. Sure would be nice for cross-country considerations.
http://www.wilksch.com/

[mgbbhc]

I am building a single place LW and will be installing an Australian Rotec R2800 radial engine with a collector ring - it ccame from Austalia last year and is currently on my living room floor. It will go out to Mayflower AK where Ron has finished my fuselage - it is the same engine that Ron has. Bruce Charnov

[Ruidoso Ron]

I would love to use the Rotec also, but I'm afraid that my field elevation is too high. Right now, it looks as though I'll probably wind up with the Rotax 914. Have heard nothing but good comments about it (other than the price). Probably will be too heavy by the time I get everything I want in it (heater, avionics, etc.) so I guess Andy Keech deoesn't need to worry about me breaking any of his records. But I plan to take some ambitious cross-countries, so I will enjoy all the creature comforts.
Bruce, I enjoyed your book, and look forward to meeting you.

[Cobra]

I hope this question won't highjack the thread, but has anyone seen a listing of the various engines available with weight/ peak torque rpm/ peak HP rpm comparisons?

Ive thought about this for a while, but keep in mind that my experience is totally in automotive racing. I suggest that the best way to achieve rated engine performance at altitude will require forced induction, preferably turbocharging. Turbocharging will not hurt engine reliability as long you avoid excessive heat generation and its ugly sister, detonation. To do that, use an intercooler between the turbo compressor and the carb/throttle body, keep the boost pressure low during cruise, and assure that the air/fuel mixture is correct (around 12:1). The only way to get the mixture correct is to tune with a wide band O2 meter under full power. With fuel injection, you will likely require an aftermarket fuel controller and possibly an adjustable fuel pressure regulator.

Most OEM turbo setups for autormotive apps will not work well in aircraft, because they are designed to produce peak power under high boost for only very short periods (<10 seconds at a time). To apply automotive turbo technology to aircraft use, we need to either use smaller turbos or modify the waste gate control mechanisms to set lower boost levels than automotive applications require.

Ideally the boost pressure should be cockpit adjustable and not exceed ~5 psi for extended periods, monitored by EGT. The goal here is to make up for lost O2 at high altitude for extended periods, not to produce a lot of extra HP (and heat).

If you pick an automotive engine designed specifically for turbo use (low compresioon, hardened valve seats, minimal cam overlap, etc), you might be able to use a little more boost safely. I'd avoid using one of the big aftermarket turbos- they are designed to produce high boost pressures at engine redline.

[Vance]

In my limited turbo experance I have found that more power makes more heat and the exhaust restriction makes more heat. Engines that I have installed turbos on that had marginal cooling to begin with did not respond well to turbocharging. In air cooled engines I particularly had exhaust seat challanges. In certain watercooled engines that were well designed I was not able to avoid steam pockets. An altitude compensating turbo is a little less of a problem, as only the exhaust tempeture is a challange. I believe that heat is why rotax doesn't want you to operate at full power for very long. I now believe that letting someone else experiment with turbos is a better plan than building my own instalations. It is a wonderfull way to make power though. Thank you, Vance

[Cobra]

You are correct that more power generates more heat- another way to state it is that to increase power, you have to burn more fuel to get the needed extra btu's to convert to kinetic energy. The size of the engine is not necessarily the limiting factor.

My point is that we should not over do boost pressure in an application that requires constant near-full engine loading. The goal is to compensate for air density decreases that accompany higher altitude, not so much to increase power beyond OEM design. Bringing the power output back to OEM levels will not increase heat output significantly, because the same BTUs are being burned, only with a larger air volume to get approximately the same number of oxygen molecules to mix with the same number of fuel molecules burned at sea level.

If you want to increase power output beyond the OEM design for extended periods, you will definately need to address the heat issue. Removing extra heat should not be particularly difficult with intercooling and appropriate radiator upgrades.

[Vance]

Mike, it has been my experance that if it is a fundemental cooling problem, it is not easy to fix. I am not disigreeing with you, only atempting to temper your enthusiasm with expensive, painfull experiance. Altitude compensating boost works very well. Power out put well beyond design limits does not. Thank you, Vance