Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

my 1600 VW engine

Expand Messages
  • hotnewzealander2003
    now i have a vw 1600 twin port engine....its number is AE 344686 can you kind people tell me...any more about this engine....can i use a big bore kit...with
    Message 1 of 18 , Apr 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      now i have a vw 1600 twin port engine....its number is AE 344686 can
      you kind people tell me...any more about this engine....can i use a
      big bore kit...with out haveing to machine the case....the thing i
      would need is just a slip in....is the engine i have a good place to
      start....what HP WOULD it make in standard form....
    • joe7p4247
      ... can ... to ... They make an 87mm which will go in without any machining and makes it a 1641cc, and also an 88mm slip in. I wouldn t use the 88mm due to the
      Message 2 of 18 , Apr 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In AirVW@yahoogroups.com, "hotnewzealander2003"
        <hotnewzealander2003@y...> wrote:
        > now i have a vw 1600 twin port engine....its number is AE 344686
        can
        > you kind people tell me...any more about this engine....can i use a
        > big bore kit...with out haveing to machine the case....the thing i
        > would need is just a slip in....is the engine i have a good place
        to
        > start....what HP WOULD it make in standard form....


        They make an 87mm which will go in without any machining and makes it
        a 1641cc, and also an 88mm slip in. I wouldn't use the 88mm due to
        the thin cylinder walls. I use the 1641cc, single port heads, in my
        KR-2 with good results.
      • joe7p4247
        The performance is about like a cessna 150 as far as speed and rate of climb. Fuel consumption is about three gallons per hour. It does 100mph at 2500 rpm at
        Message 3 of 18 , Apr 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          The performance is about like a cessna 150 as far as speed and rate
          of climb. Fuel consumption is about three gallons per hour. It does
          100mph at 2500 rpm at 500 ft/min. climb rate. On a cool day it does a
          little better. I have the compression ratio set at 6.5 to 1. I use a
          54x34 prop. that I make myself.

          --- In AirVW@yahoogroups.com, "Tri-Q1" <rryan@s...> wrote:

          > Joe,
          >
          > What kind of performance does your Kr2 get with the 1641cc engine?
          >
          > Ryan
          > --- In AirVW@yahoogroups.com, "joe7p4247" <joe7p4247@y...> wrote:
          > > --- In AirVW@yahoogroups.com, "hotnewzealander2003"
          > > <hotnewzealander2003@y...> wrote:
          > > > now i have a vw 1600 twin port engine....its number is AE
          344686
          > > can
          > > > you kind people tell me...any more about this engine....can i
          use
          > a
          > > > big bore kit...with out haveing to machine the case....the
          thing
          > i
          > > > would need is just a slip in....is the engine i have a good
          place
          > > to
          > > > start....what HP WOULD it make in standard form....
          > >
          > >
          > > They make an 87mm which will go in without any machining and
          makes
          > it
          > > a 1641cc, and also an 88mm slip in. I wouldn't use the 88mm due
          to
          > > the thin cylinder walls. I use the 1641cc, single port heads, in
          my
          > > KR-2 with good results.
        • oneskydog@aol.com
          In a message dated 4/1/2004 9:42:06 PM Mountain Standard Time, joe7p4247@yahoo.com writes: The performance is about like a cessna 150 as far as speed and rate
          Message 4 of 18 , Apr 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 4/1/2004 9:42:06 PM Mountain Standard Time,
            joe7p4247@... writes:
            The performance is about like a cessna 150 as far as speed and rate
            of climb. Fuel consumption is about three gallons per hour. It does
            100mph at 2500 rpm at 500 ft/min. climb rate. On a cool day it does a
            little better. I have the compression ratio set at 6.5 to 1. I use a
            54x34 prop. that I make myself.
            >>>
            That is a great prop: (34"/12"/5280ft/mile)*(2500rev/min*60min/hr =
            80.49mile/hr or did I miss something?

            Regards,

            One Sky Dog


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Kenneth B. Jones
            Maybe that was at a decent rate 500 fpm, rather than climb. ... From: oneskydog@aol.com To: AirVW@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 5:48 PM Subject:
            Message 5 of 18 , Apr 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Maybe that was at a decent rate 500 fpm, rather than climb.
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: oneskydog@...
              To: AirVW@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 5:48 PM
              Subject: Re: [AirVW] Re: my 1600 VW engine


              In a message dated 4/1/2004 9:42:06 PM Mountain Standard Time,
              joe7p4247@... writes:
              The performance is about like a cessna 150 as far as speed and rate
              of climb. Fuel consumption is about three gallons per hour. It does
              100mph at 2500 rpm at 500 ft/min. climb rate. On a cool day it does a
              little better. I have the compression ratio set at 6.5 to 1. I use a
              54x34 prop. that I make myself.
              >>>
              That is a great prop: (34"/12"/5280ft/mile)*(2500rev/min*60min/hr =
              80.49mile/hr or did I miss something?

              Regards,

              One Sky Dog


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Yahoo! Groups Links

              a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AirVW/

              b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              AirVW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Hal Hadaller
              Yup, something fishy here. Need to keep people honest with their numbers. The prop acts like a screw but with 10-15% slippage (stripped threads). So one can
              Message 6 of 18 , Apr 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Yup, something fishy here. Need to keep people honest with their numbers.

                The prop acts like a screw but with 10-15% slippage (stripped threads). So
                one can figure the speed as if the prop is screwing thru the air with the
                pitch of the prop the distance traveled forward per each revolution of the
                prop. That is how oneskydog@... did his calculation. And he did not
                deduct for prop slippage so actual speed would be more like 70 mph.

                Someone must have a very bad airspeed indicator or quoted the wrong numbers
                on the prop. I also doubt that the 3 gal/hour is at the 100 mph speed
                quoted. There is no MAGIC to low gallons/hour. Just got slow with a small
                plane and you may burn less than 1 gallon/hour - which sounds really great.

                There has been rare occasions that the prop might be considered as an
                airfoil or lifting device rather than a screw. Then the screw theory would
                not hold or give relative numbers; as lift effect could be effectively
                greater than the screw pitch. I, however, have not seen nor experienced
                this annomaly.

                Hal

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: <oneskydog@...>
                To: <AirVW@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 4:48 PM
                Subject: Re: [AirVW] Re: my 1600 VW engine


                > In a message dated 4/1/2004 9:42:06 PM Mountain Standard Time,
                > joe7p4247@... writes:
                > The performance is about like a cessna 150 as far as speed and rate
                > of climb. Fuel consumption is about three gallons per hour. It does
                > 100mph at 2500 rpm at 500 ft/min. climb rate. On a cool day it does a
                > little better. I have the compression ratio set at 6.5 to 1. I use a
                > 54x34 prop. that I make myself.
                > >>>
                > That is a great prop: (34"/12"/5280ft/mile)*(2500rev/min*60min/hr =
                > 80.49mile/hr or did I miss something?
                >
                > Regards,
                >
                > One Sky Dog
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • joe7p4247
                The air speed is accurate and also the tac. I ve checked them both. I use a gps receiver to show heading and ground speed. On cool days I ve done about 105
                Message 7 of 18 , Apr 2, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  The air speed is accurate and also the tac. I've checked them both. I
                  use a gps receiver to show heading and ground speed. On cool days
                  I've done about 105 mph. On 85+deg. days it will do about 95 at 2500
                  rpm. That's with a fixed gear. It beats renting a Cessna 150.

                  --- In AirVW@yahoogroups.com, "Hal Hadaller" <flyn95hh@n...> wrote:
                  > Yup, something fishy here. Need to keep people honest with their
                  numbers.
                  >
                  > The prop acts like a screw but with 10-15% slippage (stripped
                  threads). So
                  > one can figure the speed as if the prop is screwing thru the air
                  with the
                  > pitch of the prop the distance traveled forward per each revolution
                  of the
                  > prop. That is how oneskydog@a... did his calculation. And he did
                  not
                  > deduct for prop slippage so actual speed would be more like 70 mph.
                  >
                  > Someone must have a very bad airspeed indicator or quoted the wrong
                  numbers
                  > on the prop. I also doubt that the 3 gal/hour is at the 100 mph
                  speed
                  > quoted. There is no MAGIC to low gallons/hour. Just got slow with
                  a small
                  > plane and you may burn less than 1 gallon/hour - which sounds
                  really great.
                  >
                  > There has been rare occasions that the prop might be considered as
                  an
                  > airfoil or lifting device rather than a screw. Then the screw
                  theory would
                  > not hold or give relative numbers; as lift effect could be
                  effectively
                  > greater than the screw pitch. I, however, have not seen nor
                  experienced
                  > this annomaly.
                  >
                  > Hal
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: <oneskydog@a...>
                  > To: <AirVW@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 4:48 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [AirVW] Re: my 1600 VW engine
                  >
                  >
                  > > In a message dated 4/1/2004 9:42:06 PM Mountain Standard Time,
                  > > joe7p4247@y... writes:
                  > > The performance is about like a cessna 150 as far as speed and
                  rate
                  > > of climb. Fuel consumption is about three gallons per hour. It
                  does
                  > > 100mph at 2500 rpm at 500 ft/min. climb rate. On a cool day it
                  does a
                  > > little better. I have the compression ratio set at 6.5 to 1. I
                  use a
                  > > 54x34 prop. that I make myself.
                  > > >>>
                  > > That is a great prop: (34"/12"/5280ft/mile)*(2500rev/min*60min/hr
                  =
                  > > 80.49mile/hr or did I miss something?
                  > >
                  > > Regards,
                  > >
                  > > One Sky Dog
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                • wa4sto@aol.com
                  In a message dated 4/2/2004 10:11:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Hal This an interesting and thought provoking subject and I m now completly confused. I
                  Message 8 of 18 , Apr 3, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 4/2/2004 10:11:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                    flyn95hh@... writes:


                    > There has been rare occasions that the prop might be considered as an
                    > airfoil or lifting device rather than a screw. Then the screw theory would
                    > not hold or give relative numbers; as lift effect could be effectively
                    > greater than the screw pitch.

                    Hal
                    This an interesting and thought provoking subject and I'm now completly
                    confused. I think that a prop must be considered an airfoil at all times.
                    Everything goes fine with the 'screw' theory until you try to apply it to "P" factor.
                    It seems that if only 'screw' applies then 'P' factor wouldn't exist. If it
                    did, then the downward moving blade would be about pitch x .85 or so and the
                    upward blade would appear to have greater slippage, which can't be the case
                    when relying only on a screw as an explanation.

                    My understanding is that both blades act as an airfoil, but the downward
                    blade has greater lift. Thinking this way, up blade would exibit screw effect +,
                    and the down blade would be screw effect ++. This gives you a higher speed
                    than 'screw effect' alone in every case, but might be more noticible in a
                    streamlined plane than in a 'draggy' one.

                    I'm not being contentious here, but rather trying to get this straight in my
                    mind. As a late-life novice at flying I'm still learning and still curious.

                    Chuck S.
                    VP1 N113RS
                    Tug Hill area, NYS




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Patrick Panzera
                    * There has been rare occasions that the prop might be * considered as an airfoil or lifting device rather than * a screw. Then the screw theory
                    Message 9 of 18 , Apr 3, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      * There has been rare occasions that the prop might be

                      * considered as an airfoil or lifting device rather than

                      * a screw. Then the screw theory would not hold or

                      * give relative numbers; as lift effect could be effectively

                      * greater than the screw pitch. I, however, have not

                      * seen nor experienced this annomaly.



                      Here's a brief paragraph in an article submitted to CONTACT! Magazine which will
                      be printed in an upcoming issue:



                      ===============

                      Propellers don't slip, and they don't have pitch. A screw has pitch. A propeller
                      is not a screw. It does not screw itself through the air as a screw does in wood
                      or a nut. A propeller is a type of wing moving through the air in a helical
                      path. It develops lift at its angle-of-attack. That lift is converted to forward
                      thrust and torque. Does a wing slip when it operates at a high angle of attack?
                      No. How about when the chord-line is pointed above its direction of travel?
                      Certainly not. By the same token, just because the helical path of the propeller
                      doesn't follow some arbitrary pitch-path does not mean that it is slipping.
                      These concepts of propeller pitch and propeller slippage cause us to view
                      propellers in a totally wrong manner. A propeller only moves air in proportion
                      to its rpm and forward travel. Propellers should only be characterized by the
                      thrust they produce at a given shaft horsepower and rpm at a given forward
                      velocity. If a propeller manufacturer gave you this, rather than some arbitrary
                      "pitch" number, you would have no trouble matching any propeller to any
                      airplane.

                      ===============

                      Speaking of CONTACT! Magazine articles, we just toured Revmaster's operation,
                      and looked at their 2100 and 3000 engines. Sweet operation! We could easily
                      devote an entire issue to this company and these 2 engines, not to mention their
                      new PLANE!!! Revmaster is getting on board with the upcoming LSA rules, and has
                      been quietly developing an all glass plane which meets the requirements (as we
                      currently know them).

                      We also got the full poop on their carb, it's not a Posa derivative, and we
                      dispel the current theory that these types of carbs have an issue with mixture
                      problems, related to the tapered needle being linear and the variable venturi
                      being non-linear.

                      Pat



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Jack Dernorsek
                      Hi Pat, I enjoy your input. Don t know if I completely agree with your formula as it relates to VW engines as it seems everyone that ever got a High HP VW
                      Message 10 of 18 , Apr 3, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Pat,
                        I enjoy your input. Don't know if I completely agree with your formula as it relates to VW engines as it seems everyone that ever got a "High"HP VW engine claimed later that it had more oomph (a seldom used technical term) than a lower size VW but that the HP numbers rarely equated to a certified engine of the same HP. Anyway, what size engine is the Revmaster 3000 based on? The type 4? Then what are they doing differently with the crank?

                        Thanks,
                        Jack D.
                        Teenie Two

                        Patrick Panzera <panzera@...> wrote:
                        * There has been rare occasions that the prop might be

                        * considered as an airfoil or lifting device rather than

                        * a screw. Then the screw theory would not hold or

                        * give relative numbers; as lift effect could be effectively

                        * greater than the screw pitch. I, however, have not

                        * seen nor experienced this annomaly.



                        Here's a brief paragraph in an article submitted to CONTACT! Magazine which will
                        be printed in an upcoming issue:



                        ===============

                        Propellers don't slip, and they don't have pitch. A screw has pitch. A propeller
                        is not a screw. It does not screw itself through the air as a screw does in wood
                        or a nut. A propeller is a type of wing moving through the air in a helical
                        path. It develops lift at its angle-of-attack. That lift is converted to forward
                        thrust and torque. Does a wing slip when it operates at a high angle of attack?
                        No. How about when the chord-line is pointed above its direction of travel?
                        Certainly not. By the same token, just because the helical path of the propeller
                        doesn't follow some arbitrary pitch-path does not mean that it is slipping.
                        These concepts of propeller pitch and propeller slippage cause us to view
                        propellers in a totally wrong manner. A propeller only moves air in proportion
                        to its rpm and forward travel. Propellers should only be characterized by the
                        thrust they produce at a given shaft horsepower and rpm at a given forward
                        velocity. If a propeller manufacturer gave you this, rather than some arbitrary
                        "pitch" number, you would have no trouble matching any propeller to any
                        airplane.

                        ===============

                        Speaking of CONTACT! Magazine articles, we just toured Revmaster's operation,
                        and looked at their 2100 and 3000 engines. Sweet operation! We could easily
                        devote an entire issue to this company and these 2 engines, not to mention their
                        new PLANE!!! Revmaster is getting on board with the upcoming LSA rules, and has
                        been quietly developing an all glass plane which meets the requirements (as we
                        currently know them).

                        We also got the full poop on their carb, it's not a Posa derivative, and we
                        dispel the current theory that these types of carbs have an issue with mixture
                        problems, related to the tapered needle being linear and the variable venturi
                        being non-linear.

                        Pat



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                        ---------------------------------
                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                        To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AirVW/

                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        AirVW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                        ---------------------------------
                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Patrick Panzera
                        * Anyway, what size engine is the Revmaster 3000 based on? * Loosely based on the VW in general, shares some parts. maybe lifters and tuff like that, but
                        Message 11 of 18 , Apr 3, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          * Anyway, what size engine is the Revmaster 3000 based on?

                          *



                          Loosely based on the VW in general, shares some parts. maybe lifters and tuff
                          like that, but 100% all new castings and forgings for the case, crank,
                          cylinders, heads... etc.



                          * Then what are they doing differently with the crank?



                          The 3000 crank is very similar to their 2100 engine crank, which is a Revmaster
                          specific, patented forging (not a Scat blank)

                          You can read a little about it on their website:

                          http://www.revmasteraviation.com/products/under_development/index.htm

                          ..and here's some info in the 2100 crankshaft:

                          http://www.revmasteraviation.com/products/crankshaft/index.htm



                          Pat








                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Hal Hadaller
                          It somewhat puzzles me how folks can develop a new engine and come out finacially. Sales must be extremely low for Revmaster and now they are trying their
                          Message 12 of 18 , Apr 4, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            It somewhat puzzles me how folks can develop a new engine and come out
                            finacially. Sales must be extremely low for Revmaster and now they are
                            trying their hand on a 3 liter version. Only one problem with all these
                            engines is the high rpm; thus application is rather limited as many of the
                            100hp crowd have slow draggy airplanes.

                            People have been hanging the Jabaru on everything but I can't help but
                            wonder about the performance on the WWII scaled clones, etc. - Neuiports,
                            small pipes., etc. I have concluded that most folks don't know or care as
                            long as it flies.

                            The Sonex is in another class and might do well with the big Revmaster. But
                            I bet I could just about buy an Continental IO-240 for the same bucks. One
                            can buy an factory new 100 hp Cont. O-200 for the same price as a Rotax 912
                            S.

                            Hal


                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@...>
                            To: <AirVW@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 1:56 PM
                            Subject: RE: [AirVW] Re: my 1600 VW engine


                            > * Anyway, what size engine is the Revmaster 3000 based on?
                            >
                            > *
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Loosely based on the VW in general, shares some parts. maybe lifters and
                            tuff
                            > like that, but 100% all new castings and forgings for the case, crank,
                            > cylinders, heads... etc.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > * Then what are they doing differently with the crank?
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > The 3000 crank is very similar to their 2100 engine crank, which is a
                            Revmaster
                            > specific, patented forging (not a Scat blank)
                            >
                            > You can read a little about it on their website:
                            >
                            > http://www.revmasteraviation.com/products/under_development/index.htm
                            >
                            > ..and here's some info in the 2100 crankshaft:
                            >
                            > http://www.revmasteraviation.com/products/crankshaft/index.htm
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Pat
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • Hal Hadaller
                            The screw principal is much simpler to comprehend and calculate with the us of a fudge factor called SLIP. I assume that air behaves much as water does on
                            Message 13 of 18 , Apr 4, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              The screw principal is much simpler to comprehend and calculate with the us
                              of a fudge factor called SLIP. I assume that air behaves much as water
                              does on boat props except for the slippage factor due to a less dense
                              medium. I have read/studied all the theories of wings, lift, etc., but
                              it is surprising how close most aircraft speeds are related to the prop
                              pitch and rpm as if it were a screw.

                              What bothers me here is the stated speed of 95mph achieved with a 34" pitch
                              at 2500 rpm. This corresponds very closely to a Cessna 150 at this rpm
                              with a standard 48" pitch prop. I have concluded that the carvers pitch is
                              not really 34" although that was his intentions. I will not argue with the
                              speed and rpm. Wether we use the lift theory of screw theory does not
                              really matter for this magnitude of discrepency.

                              Hal


                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@...>
                              To: <AirVW@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 10:59 AM
                              Subject: RE: [AirVW] Re: my 1600 VW engine


                              > * There has been rare occasions that the prop might be
                              >
                              > * considered as an airfoil or lifting device rather than
                              >
                              > * a screw. Then the screw theory would not hold or
                              >
                              > * give relative numbers; as lift effect could be effectively
                              >
                              > * greater than the screw pitch. I, however, have not
                              >
                              > * seen nor experienced this annomaly.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Here's a brief paragraph in an article submitted to CONTACT! Magazine
                              which will
                              > be printed in an upcoming issue:
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ===============
                              >
                              > Propellers don't slip, and they don't have pitch. A screw has pitch. A
                              propeller
                              > is not a screw. It does not screw itself through the air as a screw does
                              in wood
                              > or a nut. A propeller is a type of wing moving through the air in a
                              helical
                              > path. It develops lift at its angle-of-attack. That lift is converted to
                              forward
                              > thrust and torque. Does a wing slip when it operates at a high angle of
                              attack?
                              > No. How about when the chord-line is pointed above its direction of
                              travel?
                              > Certainly not. By the same token, just because the helical path of the
                              propeller
                              > doesn't follow some arbitrary pitch-path does not mean that it is
                              slipping.
                              > These concepts of propeller pitch and propeller slippage cause us to view
                              > propellers in a totally wrong manner. A propeller only moves air in
                              proportion
                              > to its rpm and forward travel. Propellers should only be characterized by
                              the
                              > thrust they produce at a given shaft horsepower and rpm at a given forward
                              > velocity. If a propeller manufacturer gave you this, rather than some
                              arbitrary
                              > "pitch" number, you would have no trouble matching any propeller to any
                              > airplane.
                              >
                              > ===============
                              >
                              > Speaking of CONTACT! Magazine articles, we just toured Revmaster's
                              operation,
                              > and looked at their 2100 and 3000 engines. Sweet operation! We could
                              easily
                              > devote an entire issue to this company and these 2 engines, not to mention
                              their
                              > new PLANE!!! Revmaster is getting on board with the upcoming LSA rules,
                              and has
                              > been quietly developing an all glass plane which meets the requirements
                              (as we
                              > currently know them).
                              >
                              > We also got the full poop on their carb, it's not a Posa derivative, and
                              we
                              > dispel the current theory that these types of carbs have an issue with
                              mixture
                              > problems, related to the tapered needle being linear and the variable
                              venturi
                              > being non-linear.
                              >
                              > Pat
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • Patrick Panzera
                              ... As you’ll see in the article, Revmaster is totally diversified. They make all sorts of cool stuff, completely not related to aircraft, and all that
                              Message 14 of 18 , Apr 4, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > It somewhat puzzles me how folks can develop a new engine and come out
                                > finacially.   Sales must be extremely low for Revmaster and now they are
                                > trying their hand on a 3 liter version. 

                                As you’ll see in the article, Revmaster is totally diversified. They make all
                                sorts of cool stuff, completely not related to aircraft, and all that totally
                                pays the bills. I’m not sure how low sales are for them, but that’s about to
                                seriously turn around with the upcoming LSA. They have been quietly working away
                                at their contribution, and it’ll knock everyone's socks off.

                                > Only one problem with all these engines is the high rpm;

                                The new 3000 has a different crank and end pieces which make it a bolt in for a
                                car.

                                The Sonex is in another class and might do well with the big Revmaster. But
                                I bet I could just about buy an Continental IO-240 for the same bucks. 

                                Under $10,000 complete, NEW zero time (not someone’s reused “close to the limit”
                                parts) and # 200 fully dressed.

                                That’s pretty hard to beat in a certified engine. Additionally, this new engine
                                was built to the exact same standards that a certified engine is built to, with
                                the paper trail in place and everything. Should they get bored at Revmaster,
                                certification is the next step.

                                Pat
                              • Jack Lockamy
                                Hal (and others), Still waiting for the anouncement of the first Rotax 912S or 914 being flown on a Sonex.... . I think it would be a good choice if the
                                Message 15 of 18 , Apr 4, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hal (and others),

                                  Still waiting for the anouncement of the 'first' Rotax 912S or 914 being flown on a Sonex.... . I think it would be a good choice if the price of the Jabiru 3300 (120 HP) continues to climb with the stronger AUS dollar -vs- US dollar. However, Sonex-LTD does not have an engine mount or support for the Rotax.

                                  I think the 0-200 is a bit heavy for the Sonex.

                                  Jack Lockamy
                                  Camarillo, CA
                                  ex-Sonex #300
                                  www.jacklockamy.com
                                  RV-7A instrument panel wiring complete... next step.. the canopy!


                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: Hal Hadaller
                                  To: AirVW@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 5:21 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [AirVW] Re: my 1600 VW engine


                                  It somewhat puzzles me how folks can develop a new engine and come out
                                  finacially. Sales must be extremely low for Revmaster and now they are
                                  trying their hand on a 3 liter version. Only one problem with all these
                                  engines is the high rpm; thus application is rather limited as many of the
                                  100hp crowd have slow draggy airplanes.

                                  People have been hanging the Jabaru on everything but I can't help but
                                  wonder about the performance on the WWII scaled clones, etc. - Neuiports,
                                  small pipes., etc. I have concluded that most folks don't know or care as
                                  long as it flies.

                                  The Sonex is in another class and might do well with the big Revmaster. But
                                  I bet I could just about buy an Continental IO-240 for the same bucks. One
                                  can buy an factory new 100 hp Cont. O-200 for the same price as a Rotax 912
                                  S.

                                  Hal


                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@...>
                                  To: <AirVW@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 1:56 PM
                                  Subject: RE: [AirVW] Re: my 1600 VW engine


                                  > * Anyway, what size engine is the Revmaster 3000 based on?
                                  >
                                  > *
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Loosely based on the VW in general, shares some parts. maybe lifters and
                                  tuff
                                  > like that, but 100% all new castings and forgings for the case, crank,
                                  > cylinders, heads... etc.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > * Then what are they doing differently with the crank?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > The 3000 crank is very similar to their 2100 engine crank, which is a
                                  Revmaster
                                  > specific, patented forging (not a Scat blank)
                                  >
                                  > You can read a little about it on their website:
                                  >
                                  > http://www.revmasteraviation.com/products/under_development/index.htm
                                  >
                                  > ..and here's some info in the 2100 crankshaft:
                                  >
                                  > http://www.revmasteraviation.com/products/crankshaft/index.htm
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Pat
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >


                                  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                  ADVERTISEMENT





                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Yahoo! Groups Links

                                  a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AirVW/

                                  b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  AirVW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                  c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Hal Hadaller
                                  I sure do wish success for Revmaster. The 3000 really sounds great. But all the 2+liter Revmasters that I have seen are FOR SALE and quite cheap. So
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Apr 4, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I sure do wish success for Revmaster. The 3000 really sounds great. But
                                    all the 2+liter Revmasters that I have seen are FOR SALE and quite cheap.
                                    So something sure needs to change for them on this endeavor.

                                    Another question ...... why do so many engine builders want to use VW
                                    cylinders? Seems that there should be a better way to attach the head to
                                    the cylinder. VW's development was 70 years ago and was quite remarkable at
                                    that time, but newer technology is here. VW cylinders are cheap, that is
                                    for sure but I do not like this "sealing/mating" thing. The screw on
                                    cylinders used by the major aircraft engine manufacturers seldom fail or
                                    leak - even after many overhauls. The VW heads seem to be a major problem
                                    for a variety of reasons; especially the attachment.

                                    Hal


                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@...>
                                    To: <AirVW@yahoogroups.com>
                                    Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 7:39 PM
                                    Subject: RE: [AirVW] Re: my 1600 VW engine


                                    > It somewhat puzzles me how folks can develop a new engine and come out
                                    > finacially. Sales must be extremely low for Revmaster and now they are
                                    > trying their hand on a 3 liter version.

                                    As you'll see in the article, Revmaster is totally diversified. They make
                                    all
                                    sorts of cool stuff, completely not related to aircraft, and all that
                                    totally
                                    pays the bills. I'm not sure how low sales are for them, but that's about to
                                    seriously turn around with the upcoming LSA. They have been quietly working
                                    away
                                    at their contribution, and it'll knock everyone's socks off.

                                    > Only one problem with all these engines is the high rpm;

                                    The new 3000 has a different crank and end pieces which make it a bolt in
                                    for a
                                    car.

                                    The Sonex is in another class and might do well with the big Revmaster. But
                                    I bet I could just about buy an Continental IO-240 for the same bucks.

                                    Under $10,000 complete, NEW zero time (not someone's reused "close to the
                                    limit"
                                    parts) and # 200 fully dressed.

                                    That's pretty hard to beat in a certified engine. Additionally, this new
                                    engine
                                    was built to the exact same standards that a certified engine is built to,
                                    with
                                    the paper trail in place and everything. Should they get bored at Revmaster,
                                    certification is the next step.

                                    Pat





                                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  • Patrick Panzera
                                    ... I would suppose that we d have to know why they are being sold. The fact that they are being sold is only half the equation. I had one once that I sold. It
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Apr 4, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > I sure do wish success for Revmaster.  The 3000 really sounds great.  But
                                      > all the 2+liter Revmasters that I have seen are FOR SALE and quite cheap.
                                      > So something sure needs to change for them on this endeavor.

                                      I would suppose that we'd have to know why they are being sold. The fact that
                                      they are being sold is only half the equation. I had one once that I sold. It
                                      came with a Q-2 kit I bought specifically to put a Corvair on. I also sold 2
                                      HAPI engines.

                                      I guess we'd also have to ask those who are buying them.

                                      > Another question ...... why do so many engine builders want to use VW
                                      > cylinders? 

                                      In the case of the R-3000 engine, they are making their own cylinders. Although
                                      I'm not 100% sure, I believe that Revmaster makes their own 2100 cylinders. I
                                      know the heads, crank, cam and rods are proprietary.

                                      > Seems that there should be a better way to attach the head to
                                      > the cylinder.

                                      There is. The R-3000 engine, although typically VW, it has 2 extra studs per
                                      cylinder. Here's a view of a typical R-2100 head:
                                      http://www.revmasteraviation.com/products/cylinder_heads/images/1.jpg

                                      And here's a photo I shot of the R-3000 head. Notice the extra stud holes:
                                      http://www.contactmagazine.com/issue77/head.jpg
                                      Don’t worry about the lack of dual plugs. The heads I photographed were being
                                      built for a car.

                                      > VW's development was 70 years ago and was quite remarkable at
                                      > that time, but newer technology is here. 

                                      I won’t go in to the details of just how old the certified engine design is, but
                                      the R-3000 technology should change your mind. Have you noticed the new
                                      ignition system Revmaster is supplying with their R-2100? They've done away with
                                      the archaic magneto system. Additionally, they now have a dual alternator
                                      system.

                                      Both of these systems retrofit on the current R-2100 installations, with a minor
                                      modification to the engine mount, and cost less than what they were being
                                      charged (wholesale) for the magneto only.

                                      Pat


                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@...>
                                      To: <AirVW@yahoogroups.com>
                                      Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 7:39 PM
                                      Subject: RE: [AirVW] Re: my 1600 VW engine


                                      > It somewhat puzzles me how folks can develop a new engine and come out
                                      > finacially. Sales must be extremely low for Revmaster and now they are
                                      > trying their hand on a 3 liter version.

                                      As you'll see in the article, Revmaster is totally diversified. They make
                                      all
                                      sorts of cool stuff, completely not related to aircraft, and all that
                                      totally
                                      pays the bills. I'm not sure how low sales are for them, but that's about to
                                      seriously turn around with the upcoming LSA. They have been quietly working
                                      away
                                      at their contribution, and it'll knock everyone's socks off.

                                      > Only one problem with all these engines is the high rpm;

                                      The new 3000 has a different crank and end pieces which make it a bolt in
                                      for a
                                      car.

                                      The Sonex is in another class and might do well with the big Revmaster. But
                                      I bet I could just about buy an Continental IO-240 for the same bucks.

                                      Under $10,000 complete, NEW zero time (not someone's reused "close to the
                                      limit"
                                      parts)  and # 200 fully dressed.

                                      That's pretty hard to beat in a certified engine. Additionally, this new
                                      engine
                                      was built to the exact same standards that a certified engine is built to,
                                      with
                                      the paper trail in place and everything. Should they get bored at Revmaster,
                                      certification is the next step.

                                      Pat





                                      Yahoo! Groups Links







                                      ________________________________________
                                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      • To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AirVW/
                                       
                                      • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                      AirVW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                       
                                      • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                    • Steve Chilcott
                                      Another question ...... why do so many engine builders want to use VW cylinders? Perhaps the cost for a set of pistons cylinders rings and pins, $160.00 for
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Apr 6, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Another question ...... why do so many engine builders want to use VW
                                        cylinders?

                                        Perhaps the cost for a set of pistons cylinders rings and pins, $160.00 for
                                        92mm , may have something to do with it !


                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@...>
                                        To: <AirVW@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 7:39 PM
                                        Subject: RE: [AirVW] Re: my 1600 VW engine


                                        > It somewhat puzzles me how folks can develop a new engine and come out
                                        > finacially. Sales must be extremely low for Revmaster and now they are
                                        > trying their hand on a 3 liter version.

                                        As you'll see in the article, Revmaster is totally diversified. They make
                                        all
                                        sorts of cool stuff, completely not related to aircraft, and all that
                                        totally
                                        pays the bills. I'm not sure how low sales are for them, but that's about to
                                        seriously turn around with the upcoming LSA. They have been quietly working
                                        away
                                        at their contribution, and it'll knock everyone's socks off.

                                        > Only one problem with all these engines is the high rpm;

                                        The new 3000 has a different crank and end pieces which make it a bolt in
                                        for a
                                        car.

                                        The Sonex is in another class and might do well with the big Revmaster. But
                                        I bet I could just about buy an Continental IO-240 for the same bucks.

                                        Under $10,000 complete, NEW zero time (not someone's reused "close to the
                                        limit"
                                        parts) and # 200 fully dressed.

                                        That's pretty hard to beat in a certified engine. Additionally, this new
                                        engine
                                        was built to the exact same standards that a certified engine is built to,
                                        with
                                        the paper trail in place and everything. Should they get bored at Revmaster,
                                        certification is the next step.

                                        Pat





                                        Yahoo! Groups Links









                                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.