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

Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbine

Expand Messages
  • Ralh Osborn
    bd, I apologize if I came off disrespectful to you, but I really despise the exhaust fumes of turbine engines. Comes from having to fly choppers out offshore
    Message 1 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      bd, I apologize if I came off disrespectful to you, but I really despise the exhaust fumes of turbine engines. Comes from having to fly choppers out offshore years ago an I never liked them. The white nuckle stress and smell would almost make me sick. That's a personal thing. But since you ask about $3000 power , probably a Great Plains or a Revmaster VW could be found easily on the used market. DFs were originally designed to use an 1834 cc, but bigger is more in demand now. They come up for sale on the Internet all the time. I flew in a DF with a 2274 the other day and it flew 150 knots with two people. That is what I am putting in mine. Simply said, they are inexpensive, low maintainance, and very efficient. They are hard to beat for the money. My hangar mate who is also finishing out a DF wants to go with a Subaru. But they are water cooled, and as for me, I'd hate to bust a water hose while in flight, but you can get an engine very cheap. All I know
      for sure is that you won't have a lot of cowling fit problems with a vw, and they just seem to be the most popular. And having driven an old "bug" back in high school, and when I lived in Mexico, and not being able to kill it in the process, that has left me a believer.

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Feb 28, 2010, at 11:18 PM, b d <gpabruce@...> wrote:

      With that said do you have anything to add to what has already been said,
      excepting therefrom some unneeded negativity from someone? I was discussing
      the advent of micro turbine turbine shaft/prop technology is what brought
      the topic up to begin with. Later, I don't know how soon but there will be
      fuel cells and electric drives but for now the turbine technology is on the
      rise. Anything you wish to add to that would be of interest.

      Bruce




      On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM, <jon@...> wrote:




      I am interested. However; it would have to be with someone that has some
      reasonable level of intelligence, willing to discuss without being imature,
      and has communication skills beyond that of a sixth grader.

      Jon


      -----Original Message-----
      From: "b d" <gpabruce@... <gpabruce%40gmail.com>>
      Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:29pm
      To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines

      Is there anyone in the Dragonfly group who is openminded enough and has the
      desire to discuss new alternative power plants?

      I'm old myself but I love the new lightweight technology and thought anyone
      in general or sport aviation would want to consider all options. This may
      or
      maynot be true of this group, what say you all?

      I say If the piston heads don't enjoy growing, then they can ignore it.

      Bruce
      Henderson, NV.

      On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Paddy O'Connor <poconnor65@...<poconnor65%40cogeco.net>
      wrote:



      This is a Dragonfly group.
      This discussion is misplaced & belongs elsewhere.
      Please end it.

      CFEXC Dfly MkII


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "b d" <gpabruce@... <gpabruce%40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
      40gmail.com>>
      To: <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
      40yahoogroups.com>>
      Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 6:06 PM
      Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines

      Articles are just that, articles. You are wasting your time if you
      cannot
      or
      refuse to learn. I still want to see your compressed air powered boat!
      LOL.
      Will you be having a long air hose from your plane to ground or just
      how
      does that work. Sorry for snickering but I'm visualizing it and I
      suppose
      you will call this, let me guess "an air plane?"

      Thanks for the info but I think I'll go with the reliable and proven
      turbine. And I'll try not to fly below you cutting off your air supply.

      Fair winds, er air to you,

      Bruce

      On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Patrick Panzera <
      panzera@...<panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%
      40experimental-aviation.com>>
      wrote:



      Bruce,

      I'm sorry I wasted my time.

      You obviously:
      1) Didn't read the article I sent you.
      2) Don't understand the economics of scale.
      3) Don't understand BSCF.


      Pat

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com<Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
      40yahoogroups.com>
      <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
      Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
      40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
      40yahoogroups.com>]
      On Behalf Of b d
      Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 2:35 PM
      To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com<Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
      40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
      40yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines

      LOL, dam the jet boats and personal water craft that so efficiently
      use
      the
      turbine concept. You will need to convince all of them that their
      toys
      don't
      work. I think you mean the "reciprocating engine". Some turbine
      engines
      are
      internal combustion and some are external. The piston engine, an
      obsolete
      design, models after the old cast iron steam engine of the old cast
      iron
      days. Again, we can do better. I don't get your boat anaogy but
      please
      send
      pictures, you have me excited about it. Are you talking about a
      stern
      wheeler? But how much does this aircompressor weigh and what powers
      it,
      a
      steam engine? :

      *In a nutshell, imaging of you made a boat with a prop shaft running
      through
      *
      *the transom. On the wet side you have a propeller. On the dry side
      you
      also
      *
      *have a propeller, onto which you blow compressed air.*

      OK I'm having just too much fun with this I know, and I don't mean
      to
      sound
      disrespectfull because I love using the old and the new. But back to
      the
      turbine subject, they are hardly inefficient, in fact they are so
      efficient
      they are used in many of the new high tech co-gen power plants on
      the
      grid
      today. Oh and let's not forget almost all commercial aviation and
      don't
      forget the retrofits on many old reliable planes like DeHavilands
      and
      so
      on.

      Have you noticed lately that most of he old round, Radial Engines
      are
      out
      of
      service and replaced with turbine technology? This is because they
      are
      expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, very complicated, burn
      as
      much
      oil as they did gas, very unrelaiable comparitively, very low TBO.
      Yet

      I
      love the old engines that I cut my teeth on. How about that R-4360
      28 cyclinder radial engine? God they sound good big base drum unlike
      a
      turbine that sounds like a cat scratching a window. There should be
      a
      law
      that says if you drive a turbine powered anything, you must play a
      recording
      or either a nbig radial engine, or a steam engine or a john deer hit
      and
      miss just for nostagic purposes. What say you? Are you in favor of
      that?

      Check this out: http://www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg/gc_engine.html






      On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Patrick Panzera <
      panzera@...<panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
      <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
      <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>>
      wrote:



      The thing of it is, turbines are just inefficient, and there's no
      way
      around
      that; it's their nature. Anything different wouldn't be a turbine.

      In a nutshell, imaging of you made a boat with a prop shaft
      running
      through
      the transom. On the wet side you have a propeller. On the dry side
      you
      also
      have a propeller, onto which you blow compressed air.

      Now make an identical boat and take that same compressed air and
      run

      it
      through a piston engine (steam-type or two-stroke for example)
      that
      is
      directly coupled to the prop shaft.

      Which boat will go the furthest with the same limited supply of
      compressed
      air?

      Efforts would be far better served tweaking the internal
      combustion
      engine
      than trying to come up with a better turbine. Use the boat analogy
      and
      apply
      it to that comment and you'll see the relative futility of
      "building

      a
      better turbine."

      Pat

      -----Original Message-----
      From:
      Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
      40yahoogroups.com>
      <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
      <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
      Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
      40yahoogroups.com>
      <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
      40yahoogroups.com>]
      On Behalf Of b d
      Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 1:47 PM
      To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com<Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
      <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
      <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%

      40yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Fwd: (920) 725-3721 100 Hp Turbo
      Shaft

      Thanks for the article Pat. $15k for 80 lb of thrust? Yeah I
      agree
      but
      it
      doesn't have to be that way, we have to get our heads out of the
      cylinder
      and think wheels or round. It's only that way due to lack of
      innovation
      from
      the big dogs who control us little dogs. It's possible to
      design/build
      a
      simple throw away (recycled) turbine model but someone has to
      change
      mindsets. A turbine goes back to basic wheel technology, which
      is
      closer
      to
      caveman-technology than it is to neuro-technology. If we closed
      down
      NASA
      and the big auto cartels for awhile until we got some of our
      important
      issues resolved, we would find it all simple and doable but as
      long
      as
      we
      have that giant sucking sound of dollars going on, attracting
      all
      our
      best
      and brightest, we have little hope of resolving even the
      simplest
      of
      domestic problems. Anyway it gets really philosophical really
      quick
      and
      deep. I could easily piss the whole world off in less than 500
      words.
      LOL
      You wouldn't believe I'm an optimist would you?

      Bruce


      On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Patrick Panzera <
      panzera@...<panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
      <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
      <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%40experimental-


      aviation.com>>
      wrote:



      Read this:

      http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-01_turbines.asp

      Pat


      Not that you're looking at turboshaft/turboprops or the
      likes
      I
      thought
      you
      may want to just consider it amongst the other choices of
      power
      plants
      out
      there. http://www.swbturbines.com/Default.htm

      $15k for 80lbs of thrust?

      No thank you.

      Pat





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



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

      Yahoo! Groups Links








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



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

      Yahoo! Groups Links








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



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

      Yahoo! Groups Links








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

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

      Yahoo! Groups Links

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





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



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

      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • b d
      ... *No Problem here, Yeh I know what you mean, I don t like the smell either. I do like the idea of VW conversions and I m just now learning about them. How
      Message 2 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Ralh Osborn <rosbornrosborn@...>wrote:

        >
        >
        > bd, I apologize if I came off disrespectful to you, but I really despise
        > the exhaust fumes of turbine engines. Comes from having to fly choppers out
        > offshore years ago an I never liked them. The white nuckle stress and smell
        > would almost make me sick. That's a personal thing.
        >

        *No Problem here, Yeh I know what you mean, I don't like the smell either. I
        do like the idea of VW conversions and I'm just now learning about them. How
        many different conversions are out there? and which ones are better and
        worst if you know. I'm at a cross roads right now. As you may know I
        acquired a fairly nice DF but it has a Mazda Rotary Engine and it's water
        cooled. Like you I really don't like water cooled so I have to decide to go
        with it or change it to a VW conversion or whatever. But then I'm wondering
        if someone out there is looking for a water cooled rotary where we could
        just trade and both be happy. I also love gliders and motor gliders . . .
        anything that flys actually . . .even powered parachutes are fun.*
        **
        *As far as the turbine engine thing, I think it will be a long time before
        they size and price them where they are practical for sportplane use but I
        think it is possible. Hopefully by then they will burn biodiesel that smells
        like McDonalds rather than JetA1 :-) *

        *By the way, where did you fly offshore? I did a project off shore from
        Santa Barbara, CA. on Platform Hadalgo. I hated it, I swear I could see
        people drinking beer on the beach and it killed me not to have one even
        though I hardly drank any. Just the idea of not being able to. The young
        guys had the best idea, the platform was their home and when they went
        onshore, they would spend their week camping and fishing up in the Sierra
        Nevada's costing them nothing. no apartment or anything. My wife wouldn't
        let me do that. :-)*

        But since you ask about $3000 power , probably a Great Plains or a Revmaster
        VW could be found easily on the used market. DFs were originally designed to
        use an 1834 cc, but bigger is more in demand now. They come up for sale on
        the Internet all the time. I flew in a DF with a 2274 the other day and it
        flew 150 knots with two people. That is what I am putting in mine. Simply
        said, they are inexpensive, low maintainance, and very efficient. They are
        hard to beat for the money. My hangar mate who is also finishing out a DF
        wants to go with a Subaru. But they are water cooled, and as for me, I'd
        hate to bust a water hose while in flight, but you can get an engine very
        cheap. All I know
        for sure is that you won't have a lot of cowling fit problems with a vw, and
        they just seem to be the most popular. And having driven an old "bug" back
        in high school, and when I lived in Mexico, and not being able to kill it in
        the process, that has left me a believer.
        *Another thing I like about the VW concept is they are cheap enough a person
        can have a spare engine in the garage ready to go, in fact I was talking to
        someone the other day about my thoughts of building a test stand for a spare
        VW engine so I could run it in on a test stand for break-in so it would be
        ready to go with little down time. Plus it's better to run an engine rather
        than leaving it set and collect dust and dampness. At my age time is the
        bigger factor than money or building. I did all that as an A&P back in my
        starvation days and now I just want to fly on the good days. If the engine
        breaks, have a spare and throw it in. So that's kinda my thinking. I've
        heard people are doing corvair engines and subarus, I just don't know a lot
        about them and that's why I'm looking for ideas and opinions and the whole
        gambit of possibilities and options. *
        **
        *There used to be an old world war II pilot who would pull this little tail
        dragger out to Boulder City Airport, plug in the wings and get his flying
        fix, then back to the airport, package it back up in a jiffy and pull it
        back to his garage with no hanger or tie down fees. I suppose he also filled
        it at the 7-11 before flying. It sure looked good to me considering how much
        I was paying to keep my C-175 there. I don't know what kind of plane it was
        but it was small, had a VW on it and was fast as hell.*

        *Bruce*

        >
        > Sent from my iPhone
        >
        > On Feb 28, 2010, at 11:18 PM, b d <gpabruce@...<gpabruce%40gmail.com>>
        > wrote:
        >
        > With that said do you have anything to add to what has already been said,
        > excepting therefrom some unneeded negativity from someone? I was discussing
        > the advent of micro turbine turbine shaft/prop technology is what brought
        > the topic up to begin with. Later, I don't know how soon but there will be
        > fuel cells and electric drives but for now the turbine technology is on the
        > rise. Anything you wish to add to that would be of interest.
        >
        > Bruce
        >
        > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM, <jon@... <jon%40finleyweb.net>>
        > wrote:
        >
        > I am interested. However; it would have to be with someone that has some
        > reasonable level of intelligence, willing to discuss without being imature,
        > and has communication skills beyond that of a sixth grader.
        >
        > Jon
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: "b d" <gpabruce@... <gpabruce%40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
        > 40gmail.com>>
        > Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:29pm
        > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        > 40yahoogroups.com>
        > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines
        >
        > Is there anyone in the Dragonfly group who is openminded enough and has the
        > desire to discuss new alternative power plants?
        >
        > I'm old myself but I love the new lightweight technology and thought anyone
        > in general or sport aviation would want to consider all options. This may
        > or
        > maynot be true of this group, what say you all?
        >
        > I say If the piston heads don't enjoy growing, then they can ignore it.
        >
        > Bruce
        > Henderson, NV.
        >
        > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Paddy O'Connor <poconnor65@...<poconnor65%40cogeco.net>
        > <poconnor65%40cogeco.net>
        > wrote:
        >
        > This is a Dragonfly group.
        > This discussion is misplaced & belongs elsewhere.
        > Please end it.
        >
        > CFEXC Dfly MkII
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "b d" <gpabruce@... <gpabruce%40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
        > 40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
        > 40gmail.com>>
        > To: <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        > 40yahoogroups.com>>
        > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 6:06 PM
        > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines
        >
        > Articles are just that, articles. You are wasting your time if you
        > cannot
        > or
        > refuse to learn. I still want to see your compressed air powered boat!
        > LOL.
        > Will you be having a long air hose from your plane to ground or just
        > how
        > does that work. Sorry for snickering but I'm visualizing it and I
        > suppose
        > you will call this, let me guess "an air plane?"
        >
        > Thanks for the info but I think I'll go with the reliable and proven
        > turbine. And I'll try not to fly below you cutting off your air supply.
        >
        > Fair winds, er air to you,
        >
        > Bruce
        >
        > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Patrick Panzera <
        > panzera@... <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
        > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%
        > 40experimental-aviation.com>>
        > wrote:
        >
        > Bruce,
        >
        > I'm sorry I wasted my time.
        >
        > You obviously:
        > 1) Didn't read the article I sent you.
        > 2) Don't understand the economics of scale.
        > 3) Don't understand BSCF.
        >
        > Pat
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
        > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        > 40yahoogroups.com>
        > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
        > Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        > 40yahoogroups.com>]
        > On Behalf Of b d
        > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 2:35 PM
        > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
        > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        > 40yahoogroups.com>
        > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines
        >
        > LOL, dam the jet boats and personal water craft that so efficiently
        > use
        > the
        > turbine concept. You will need to convince all of them that their
        > toys
        > don't
        > work. I think you mean the "reciprocating engine". Some turbine
        > engines
        > are
        > internal combustion and some are external. The piston engine, an
        > obsolete
        > design, models after the old cast iron steam engine of the old cast
        > iron
        > days. Again, we can do better. I don't get your boat anaogy but
        > please
        > send
        > pictures, you have me excited about it. Are you talking about a
        > stern
        > wheeler? But how much does this aircompressor weigh and what powers
        > it,
        > a
        > steam engine? :
        >
        > *In a nutshell, imaging of you made a boat with a prop shaft running
        > through
        > *
        > *the transom. On the wet side you have a propeller. On the dry side
        > you
        > also
        > *
        > *have a propeller, onto which you blow compressed air.*
        >
        > OK I'm having just too much fun with this I know, and I don't mean
        > to
        > sound
        > disrespectfull because I love using the old and the new. But back to
        > the
        > turbine subject, they are hardly inefficient, in fact they are so
        > efficient
        > they are used in many of the new high tech co-gen power plants on
        > the
        > grid
        > today. Oh and let's not forget almost all commercial aviation and
        > don't
        > forget the retrofits on many old reliable planes like DeHavilands
        > and
        > so
        > on.
        >
        > Have you noticed lately that most of he old round, Radial Engines
        > are
        > out
        > of
        > service and replaced with turbine technology? This is because they
        > are
        > expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, very complicated, burn
        > as
        > much
        > oil as they did gas, very unrelaiable comparitively, very low TBO.
        > Yet
        >
        > I
        > love the old engines that I cut my teeth on. How about that R-4360
        > 28 cyclinder radial engine? God they sound good big base drum unlike
        > a
        > turbine that sounds like a cat scratching a window. There should be
        > a
        > law
        > that says if you drive a turbine powered anything, you must play a
        > recording
        > or either a nbig radial engine, or a steam engine or a john deer hit
        > and
        > miss just for nostagic purposes. What say you? Are you in favor of
        > that?
        >
        > Check this out: http://www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg/gc_engine.html
        >
        > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Patrick Panzera <
        > panzera@... <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
        > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
        > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
        > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>>
        > wrote:
        >
        > The thing of it is, turbines are just inefficient, and there's no
        > way
        > around
        > that; it's their nature. Anything different wouldn't be a turbine.
        >
        > In a nutshell, imaging of you made a boat with a prop shaft
        > running
        > through
        > the transom. On the wet side you have a propeller. On the dry side
        > you
        > also
        > have a propeller, onto which you blow compressed air.
        >
        > Now make an identical boat and take that same compressed air and
        > run
        >
        > it
        > through a piston engine (steam-type or two-stroke for example)
        > that
        > is
        > directly coupled to the prop shaft.
        >
        > Which boat will go the furthest with the same limited supply of
        > compressed
        > air?
        >
        > Efforts would be far better served tweaking the internal
        > combustion
        > engine
        > than trying to come up with a better turbine. Use the boat analogy
        > and
        > apply
        > it to that comment and you'll see the relative futility of
        > "building
        >
        > a
        > better turbine."
        >
        > Pat
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From:
        > Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        > 40yahoogroups.com>
        > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
        > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
        > Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        > 40yahoogroups.com>
        > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        > 40yahoogroups.com>]
        > On Behalf Of b d
        > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 1:47 PM
        > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
        > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
        > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
        > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
        >
        > 40yahoogroups.com>
        > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Fwd: (920) 725-3721 100 Hp Turbo
        > Shaft
        >
        > Thanks for the article Pat. $15k for 80 lb of thrust? Yeah I
        > agree
        > but
        > it
        > doesn't have to be that way, we have to get our heads out of the
        > cylinder
        > and think wheels or round. It's only that way due to lack of
        > innovation
        > from
        > the big dogs who control us little dogs. It's possible to
        > design/build
        > a
        > simple throw away (recycled) turbine model but someone has to
        > change
        > mindsets. A turbine goes back to basic wheel technology, which
        > is
        > closer
        > to
        > caveman-technology than it is to neuro-technology. If we closed
        > down
        > NASA
        > and the big auto cartels for awhile until we got some of our
        > important
        > issues resolved, we would find it all simple and doable but as
        > long
        > as
        > we
        > have that giant sucking sound of dollars going on, attracting
        > all
        > our
        > best
        > and brightest, we have little hope of resolving even the
        > simplest
        > of
        > domestic problems. Anyway it gets really philosophical really
        > quick
        > and
        > deep. I could easily piss the whole world off in less than 500
        > words.
        > LOL
        > You wouldn't believe I'm an optimist would you?
        >
        > Bruce
        >
        > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Patrick Panzera <
        > panzera@... <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
        > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
        > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
        > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%40experimental-
        >
        > aviation.com>>
        > wrote:
        >
        > Read this:
        >
        > http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-01_turbines.asp
        >
        > Pat
        >
        > Not that you're looking at turboshaft/turboprops or the
        > likes
        > I
        > thought
        > you
        > may want to just consider it amongst the other choices of
        > power
        > plants
        > out
        > there. http://www.swbturbines.com/Default.htm
        >
        > $15k for 80lbs of thrust?
        >
        > No thank you.
        >
        > Pat
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Patrick Panzera
        Probably wasting my time again, but Bruce, if you would have read the article I sent you, you d find that ALL the issues you are bring up are asked and
        Message 3 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Probably wasting my time again, but Bruce, if you would have read the
          article I sent you, you'd find that ALL the issues you are bring up are
          asked and answered, logically.

          All the hopes and dreams of a small, affordable, efficient turbine have been
          "just around the corner" for the majority of my life... and I've been a
          grandfather for 10 years.

          Pat


          > *As far as the turbine engine thing, I think it will be a long time before
          > they size and price them where they are practical for sportplane use but I
          > think it is possible. Hopefully by then they will burn biodiesel that
          > smells
          > like McDonalds rather than JetA1 :-) *
          >
          > *By the way, where did you fly offshore? I did a project off shore from
          > Santa Barbara, CA. on Platform Hadalgo. I hated it, I swear I could see
          > people drinking beer on the beach and it killed me not to have one even
          > though I hardly drank any. Just the idea of not being able to. The young
          > guys had the best idea, the platform was their home and when they went
          > onshore, they would spend their week camping and fishing up in the Sierra
          > Nevada's costing them nothing. no apartment or anything. My wife wouldn't
          > let me do that. :-)*
          >
          > But since you ask about $3000 power , probably a Great Plains or a
          > Revmaster
          > VW could be found easily on the used market. DFs were originally designed
          > to
          > use an 1834 cc, but bigger is more in demand now. They come up for sale on
          > the Internet all the time. I flew in a DF with a 2274 the other day and it
          > flew 150 knots with two people. That is what I am putting in mine. Simply
          > said, they are inexpensive, low maintainance, and very efficient. They are
          > hard to beat for the money. My hangar mate who is also finishing out a DF
          > wants to go with a Subaru. But they are water cooled, and as for me, I'd
          > hate to bust a water hose while in flight, but you can get an engine very
          > cheap. All I know
          > for sure is that you won't have a lot of cowling fit problems with a vw,
          > and
          > they just seem to be the most popular. And having driven an old "bug" back
          > in high school, and when I lived in Mexico, and not being able to kill it
          > in
          > the process, that has left me a believer.
          > *Another thing I like about the VW concept is they are cheap enough a
          > person
          > can have a spare engine in the garage ready to go, in fact I was talking
          > to
          > someone the other day about my thoughts of building a test stand for a
          > spare
          > VW engine so I could run it in on a test stand for break-in so it would be
          > ready to go with little down time. Plus it's better to run an engine
          > rather
          > than leaving it set and collect dust and dampness. At my age time is the
          > bigger factor than money or building. I did all that as an A&P back in my
          > starvation days and now I just want to fly on the good days. If the engine
          > breaks, have a spare and throw it in. So that's kinda my thinking. I've
          > heard people are doing corvair engines and subarus, I just don't know a
          > lot
          > about them and that's why I'm looking for ideas and opinions and the whole
          > gambit of possibilities and options. *
          > **
          > *There used to be an old world war II pilot who would pull this little
          > tail
          > dragger out to Boulder City Airport, plug in the wings and get his flying
          > fix, then back to the airport, package it back up in a jiffy and pull it
          > back to his garage with no hanger or tie down fees. I suppose he also
          > filled
          > it at the 7-11 before flying. It sure looked good to me considering how
          > much
          > I was paying to keep my C-175 there. I don't know what kind of plane it
          > was
          > but it was small, had a VW on it and was fast as hell.*
          >
          > *Bruce*
          >
          > >
          > > Sent from my iPhone
          > >
          > > On Feb 28, 2010, at 11:18 PM, b d
          > <gpabruce@...<gpabruce%40gmail.com>>
          > > wrote:
          > >
          > > With that said do you have anything to add to what has already been
          > said,
          > > excepting therefrom some unneeded negativity from someone? I was
          > discussing
          > > the advent of micro turbine turbine shaft/prop technology is what
          > brought
          > > the topic up to begin with. Later, I don't know how soon but there will
          > be
          > > fuel cells and electric drives but for now the turbine technology is on
          > the
          > > rise. Anything you wish to add to that would be of interest.
          > >
          > > Bruce
          > >
          > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM, <jon@...
          > <jon%40finleyweb.net>>
          > > wrote:
          > >
          > > I am interested. However; it would have to be with someone that has some
          > > reasonable level of intelligence, willing to discuss without being
          > imature,
          > > and has communication skills beyond that of a sixth grader.
          > >
          > > Jon
          > >
          > > -----Original Message-----
          > > From: "b d" <gpabruce@... <gpabruce%40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
          > > 40gmail.com>>
          > > Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:29pm
          > > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com
          > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > > 40yahoogroups.com>
          > > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines
          > >
          > > Is there anyone in the Dragonfly group who is openminded enough and has
          > the
          > > desire to discuss new alternative power plants?
          > >
          > > I'm old myself but I love the new lightweight technology and thought
          > anyone
          > > in general or sport aviation would want to consider all options. This
          > may
          > > or
          > > maynot be true of this group, what say you all?
          > >
          > > I say If the piston heads don't enjoy growing, then they can ignore it.
          > >
          > > Bruce
          > > Henderson, NV.
          > >
          > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Paddy O'Connor
          > <poconnor65@...<poconnor65%40cogeco.net>
          > > <poconnor65%40cogeco.net>
          > > wrote:
          > >
          > > This is a Dragonfly group.
          > > This discussion is misplaced & belongs elsewhere.
          > > Please end it.
          > >
          > > CFEXC Dfly MkII
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: "b d" <gpabruce@... <gpabruce%40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
          > > 40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
          > > 40gmail.com>>
          > > To: <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com
          > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
          > > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 6:06 PM
          > > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines
          > >
          > > Articles are just that, articles. You are wasting your time if you
          > > cannot
          > > or
          > > refuse to learn. I still want to see your compressed air powered boat!
          > > LOL.
          > > Will you be having a long air hose from your plane to ground or just
          > > how
          > > does that work. Sorry for snickering but I'm visualizing it and I
          > > suppose
          > > you will call this, let me guess "an air plane?"
          > >
          > > Thanks for the info but I think I'll go with the reliable and proven
          > > turbine. And I'll try not to fly below you cutting off your air supply.
          > >
          > > Fair winds, er air to you,
          > >
          > > Bruce
          > >
          > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Patrick Panzera <
          > > panzera@... <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
          > > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%
          > > 40experimental-aviation.com>>
          > > wrote:
          > >
          > > Bruce,
          > >
          > > I'm sorry I wasted my time.
          > >
          > > You obviously:
          > > 1) Didn't read the article I sent you.
          > > 2) Don't understand the economics of scale.
          > > 3) Don't understand BSCF.
          > >
          > > Pat
          > >
          > > -----Original Message-----
          > > From: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
          > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > > 40yahoogroups.com>
          > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
          > > Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com
          > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > > 40yahoogroups.com>]
          > > On Behalf Of b d
          > > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 2:35 PM
          > > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
          > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > > 40yahoogroups.com>
          > > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines
          > >
          > > LOL, dam the jet boats and personal water craft that so efficiently
          > > use
          > > the
          > > turbine concept. You will need to convince all of them that their
          > > toys
          > > don't
          > > work. I think you mean the "reciprocating engine". Some turbine
          > > engines
          > > are
          > > internal combustion and some are external. The piston engine, an
          > > obsolete
          > > design, models after the old cast iron steam engine of the old cast
          > > iron
          > > days. Again, we can do better. I don't get your boat anaogy but
          > > please
          > > send
          > > pictures, you have me excited about it. Are you talking about a
          > > stern
          > > wheeler? But how much does this aircompressor weigh and what powers
          > > it,
          > > a
          > > steam engine? :
          > >
          > > *In a nutshell, imaging of you made a boat with a prop shaft running
          > > through
          > > *
          > > *the transom. On the wet side you have a propeller. On the dry side
          > > you
          > > also
          > > *
          > > *have a propeller, onto which you blow compressed air.*
          > >
          > > OK I'm having just too much fun with this I know, and I don't mean
          > > to
          > > sound
          > > disrespectfull because I love using the old and the new. But back to
          > > the
          > > turbine subject, they are hardly inefficient, in fact they are so
          > > efficient
          > > they are used in many of the new high tech co-gen power plants on
          > > the
          > > grid
          > > today. Oh and let's not forget almost all commercial aviation and
          > > don't
          > > forget the retrofits on many old reliable planes like DeHavilands
          > > and
          > > so
          > > on.
          > >
          > > Have you noticed lately that most of he old round, Radial Engines
          > > are
          > > out
          > > of
          > > service and replaced with turbine technology? This is because they
          > > are
          > > expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, very complicated, burn
          > > as
          > > much
          > > oil as they did gas, very unrelaiable comparitively, very low TBO.
          > > Yet
          > >
          > > I
          > > love the old engines that I cut my teeth on. How about that R-4360
          > > 28 cyclinder radial engine? God they sound good big base drum unlike
          > > a
          > > turbine that sounds like a cat scratching a window. There should be
          > > a
          > > law
          > > that says if you drive a turbine powered anything, you must play a
          > > recording
          > > or either a nbig radial engine, or a steam engine or a john deer hit
          > > and
          > > miss just for nostagic purposes. What say you? Are you in favor of
          > > that?
          > >
          > > Check this out: http://www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg/gc_engine.html
          > >
          > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Patrick Panzera <
          > > panzera@... <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
          > > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
          > > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
          > > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>>
          > > wrote:
          > >
          > > The thing of it is, turbines are just inefficient, and there's no
          > > way
          > > around
          > > that; it's their nature. Anything different wouldn't be a turbine.
          > >
          > > In a nutshell, imaging of you made a boat with a prop shaft
          > > running
          > > through
          > > the transom. On the wet side you have a propeller. On the dry side
          > > you
          > > also
          > > have a propeller, onto which you blow compressed air.
          > >
          > > Now make an identical boat and take that same compressed air and
          > > run
          > >
          > > it
          > > through a piston engine (steam-type or two-stroke for example)
          > > that
          > > is
          > > directly coupled to the prop shaft.
          > >
          > > Which boat will go the furthest with the same limited supply of
          > > compressed
          > > air?
          > >
          > > Efforts would be far better served tweaking the internal
          > > combustion
          > > engine
          > > than trying to come up with a better turbine. Use the boat analogy
          > > and
          > > apply
          > > it to that comment and you'll see the relative futility of
          > > "building
          > >
          > > a
          > > better turbine."
          > >
          > > Pat
          > >
          > > -----Original Message-----
          > > From:
          > > Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com
          > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > > 40yahoogroups.com>
          > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
          > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
          > > Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com
          > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > > 40yahoogroups.com>
          > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > > 40yahoogroups.com>]
          > > On Behalf Of b d
          > > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 1:47 PM
          > > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
          > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
          > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
          > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
          > >
          > > 40yahoogroups.com>
          > > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Fwd: (920) 725-3721 100 Hp Turbo
          > > Shaft
          > >
          > > Thanks for the article Pat. $15k for 80 lb of thrust? Yeah I
          > > agree
          > > but
          > > it
          > > doesn't have to be that way, we have to get our heads out of the
          > > cylinder
          > > and think wheels or round. It's only that way due to lack of
          > > innovation
          > > from
          > > the big dogs who control us little dogs. It's possible to
          > > design/build
          > > a
          > > simple throw away (recycled) turbine model but someone has to
          > > change
          > > mindsets. A turbine goes back to basic wheel technology, which
          > > is
          > > closer
          > > to
          > > caveman-technology than it is to neuro-technology. If we closed
          > > down
          > > NASA
          > > and the big auto cartels for awhile until we got some of our
          > > important
          > > issues resolved, we would find it all simple and doable but as
          > > long
          > > as
          > > we
          > > have that giant sucking sound of dollars going on, attracting
          > > all
          > > our
          > > best
          > > and brightest, we have little hope of resolving even the
          > > simplest
          > > of
          > > domestic problems. Anyway it gets really philosophical really
          > > quick
          > > and
          > > deep. I could easily piss the whole world off in less than 500
          > > words.
          > > LOL
          > > You wouldn't believe I'm an optimist would you?
          > >
          > > Bruce
          > >
          > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Patrick Panzera <
          > > panzera@... <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
          > > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
          > > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
          > > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%40experimental-
          > >
          > > aviation.com>>
          > > wrote:
          > >
          > > Read this:
          > >
          > > http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-01_turbines.asp
          > >
          > > Pat
          > >
          > > Not that you're looking at turboshaft/turboprops or the
          > > likes
          > > I
          > > thought
          > > you
          > > may want to just consider it amongst the other choices of
          > > power
          > > plants
          > > out
          > > there. http://www.swbturbines.com/Default.htm
          > >
          > > $15k for 80lbs of thrust?
          > >
          > > No thank you.
          > >
          > > Pat
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • Ralh Osborn
          The currently building VWs companies are the Great Plains and Revmaster. They have the best updated stuff. Both have good websites. I worked in the Gulf of
          Message 4 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            The currently building VWs companies are the Great Plains and Revmaster. They have the best updated stuff. Both have good websites. I worked in the Gulf of Mexico for many years running supply boats, the fast aluminum kind. And hearing about the recent advancements in technology that has come into that industrie over the last fifteen years (from Vic Taylor, velocityone) you may well be right about the French fries thing! But as for engine size, lean toward the larger size VW , and with four bearings. Both websites will educate you on that issue.

            Sent from my iPhone

            On Mar 1, 2010, at 3:08 AM, b d <gpabruce@...> wrote:

            On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Ralh Osborn <rosbornrosborn@...>wrote:



            bd, I apologize if I came off disrespectful to you, but I really despise
            the exhaust fumes of turbine engines. Comes from having to fly choppers out
            offshore years ago an I never liked them. The white nuckle stress and smell
            would almost make me sick. That's a personal thing.


            *No Problem here, Yeh I know what you mean, I don't like the smell either. I
            do like the idea of VW conversions and I'm just now learning about them. How
            many different conversions are out there? and which ones are better and
            worst if you know. I'm at a cross roads right now. As you may know I
            acquired a fairly nice DF but it has a Mazda Rotary Engine and it's water
            cooled. Like you I really don't like water cooled so I have to decide to go
            with it or change it to a VW conversion or whatever. But then I'm wondering
            if someone out there is looking for a water cooled rotary where we could
            just trade and both be happy. I also love gliders and motor gliders . . .
            anything that flys actually . . .even powered parachutes are fun.*
            **
            *As far as the turbine engine thing, I think it will be a long time before
            they size and price them where they are practical for sportplane use but I
            think it is possible. Hopefully by then they will burn biodiesel that smells
            like McDonalds rather than JetA1 :-) *

            *By the way, where did you fly offshore? I did a project off shore from
            Santa Barbara, CA. on Platform Hadalgo. I hated it, I swear I could see
            people drinking beer on the beach and it killed me not to have one even
            though I hardly drank any. Just the idea of not being able to. The young
            guys had the best idea, the platform was their home and when they went
            onshore, they would spend their week camping and fishing up in the Sierra
            Nevada's costing them nothing. no apartment or anything. My wife wouldn't
            let me do that. :-)*

            But since you ask about $3000 power , probably a Great Plains or a Revmaster
            VW could be found easily on the used market. DFs were originally designed to
            use an 1834 cc, but bigger is more in demand now. They come up for sale on
            the Internet all the time. I flew in a DF with a 2274 the other day and it
            flew 150 knots with two people. That is what I am putting in mine. Simply
            said, they are inexpensive, low maintainance, and very efficient. They are
            hard to beat for the money. My hangar mate who is also finishing out a DF
            wants to go with a Subaru. But they are water cooled, and as for me, I'd
            hate to bust a water hose while in flight, but you can get an engine very
            cheap. All I know
            for sure is that you won't have a lot of cowling fit problems with a vw, and
            they just seem to be the most popular. And having driven an old "bug" back
            in high school, and when I lived in Mexico, and not being able to kill it in
            the process, that has left me a believer.
            *Another thing I like about the VW concept is they are cheap enough a person
            can have a spare engine in the garage ready to go, in fact I was talking to
            someone the other day about my thoughts of building a test stand for a spare
            VW engine so I could run it in on a test stand for break-in so it would be
            ready to go with little down time. Plus it's better to run an engine rather
            than leaving it set and collect dust and dampness. At my age time is the
            bigger factor than money or building. I did all that as an A&P back in my
            starvation days and now I just want to fly on the good days. If the engine
            breaks, have a spare and throw it in. So that's kinda my thinking. I've
            heard people are doing corvair engines and subarus, I just don't know a lot
            about them and that's why I'm looking for ideas and opinions and the whole
            gambit of possibilities and options. *
            **
            *There used to be an old world war II pilot who would pull this little tail
            dragger out to Boulder City Airport, plug in the wings and get his flying
            fix, then back to the airport, package it back up in a jiffy and pull it
            back to his garage with no hanger or tie down fees. I suppose he also filled
            it at the 7-11 before flying. It sure looked good to me considering how much
            I was paying to keep my C-175 there. I don't know what kind of plane it was
            but it was small, had a VW on it and was fast as hell.*

            *Bruce*


            Sent from my iPhone

            On Feb 28, 2010, at 11:18 PM, b d <gpabruce@...<gpabruce%40gmail.com>>
            wrote:

            With that said do you have anything to add to what has already been said,
            excepting therefrom some unneeded negativity from someone? I was discussing
            the advent of micro turbine turbine shaft/prop technology is what brought
            the topic up to begin with. Later, I don't know how soon but there will be
            fuel cells and electric drives but for now the turbine technology is on the
            rise. Anything you wish to add to that would be of interest.

            Bruce

            On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM, <jon@... <jon%40finleyweb.net>>
            wrote:

            I am interested. However; it would have to be with someone that has some
            reasonable level of intelligence, willing to discuss without being imature,
            and has communication skills beyond that of a sixth grader.

            Jon

            -----Original Message-----
            From: "b d" <gpabruce@... <gpabruce%40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
            40gmail.com>>
            Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:29pm
            To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
            40yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines

            Is there anyone in the Dragonfly group who is openminded enough and has the
            desire to discuss new alternative power plants?

            I'm old myself but I love the new lightweight technology and thought anyone
            in general or sport aviation would want to consider all options. This may
            or
            maynot be true of this group, what say you all?

            I say If the piston heads don't enjoy growing, then they can ignore it.

            Bruce
            Henderson, NV.

            On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Paddy O'Connor <poconnor65@...<poconnor65%40cogeco.net>
            <poconnor65%40cogeco.net>
            wrote:

            This is a Dragonfly group.
            This discussion is misplaced & belongs elsewhere.
            Please end it.

            CFEXC Dfly MkII

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "b d" <gpabruce@... <gpabruce%40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
            40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
            40gmail.com>>
            To: <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
            40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
            40yahoogroups.com>>
            Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 6:06 PM
            Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines

            Articles are just that, articles. You are wasting your time if you
            cannot
            or
            refuse to learn. I still want to see your compressed air powered boat!
            LOL.
            Will you be having a long air hose from your plane to ground or just
            how
            does that work. Sorry for snickering but I'm visualizing it and I
            suppose
            you will call this, let me guess "an air plane?"

            Thanks for the info but I think I'll go with the reliable and proven
            turbine. And I'll try not to fly below you cutting off your air supply.

            Fair winds, er air to you,

            Bruce

            On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Patrick Panzera <
            panzera@... <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
            <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%
            40experimental-aviation.com>>
            wrote:

            Bruce,

            I'm sorry I wasted my time.

            You obviously:
            1) Didn't read the article I sent you.
            2) Don't understand the economics of scale.
            3) Don't understand BSCF.

            Pat

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
            <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
            40yahoogroups.com>
            <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
            Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
            40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
            40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
            40yahoogroups.com>]
            On Behalf Of b d
            Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 2:35 PM
            To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
            <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
            40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
            40yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines

            LOL, dam the jet boats and personal water craft that so efficiently
            use
            the
            turbine concept. You will need to convince all of them that their
            toys
            don't
            work. I think you mean the "reciprocating engine". Some turbine
            engines
            are
            internal combustion and some are external. The piston engine, an
            obsolete
            design, models after the old cast iron steam engine of the old cast
            iron
            days. Again, we can do better. I don't get your boat anaogy but
            please
            send
            pictures, you have me excited about it. Are you talking about a
            stern
            wheeler? But how much does this aircompressor weigh and what powers
            it,
            a
            steam engine? :

            *In a nutshell, imaging of you made a boat with a prop shaft running
            through
            *
            *the transom. On the wet side you have a propeller. On the dry side
            you
            also
            *
            *have a propeller, onto which you blow compressed air.*

            OK I'm having just too much fun with this I know, and I don't mean
            to
            sound
            disrespectfull because I love using the old and the new. But back to
            the
            turbine subject, they are hardly inefficient, in fact they are so
            efficient
            they are used in many of the new high tech co-gen power plants on
            the
            grid
            today. Oh and let's not forget almost all commercial aviation and
            don't
            forget the retrofits on many old reliable planes like DeHavilands
            and
            so
            on.

            Have you noticed lately that most of he old round, Radial Engines
            are
            out
            of
            service and replaced with turbine technology? This is because they
            are
            expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, very complicated, burn
            as
            much
            oil as they did gas, very unrelaiable comparitively, very low TBO.
            Yet

            I
            love the old engines that I cut my teeth on. How about that R-4360
            28 cyclinder radial engine? God they sound good big base drum unlike
            a
            turbine that sounds like a cat scratching a window. There should be
            a
            law
            that says if you drive a turbine powered anything, you must play a
            recording
            or either a nbig radial engine, or a steam engine or a john deer hit
            and
            miss just for nostagic purposes. What say you? Are you in favor of
            that?

            Check this out: http://www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg/gc_engine.html

            On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Patrick Panzera <
            panzera@... <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
            <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
            <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
            <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>>
            wrote:

            The thing of it is, turbines are just inefficient, and there's no
            way
            around
            that; it's their nature. Anything different wouldn't be a turbine.

            In a nutshell, imaging of you made a boat with a prop shaft
            running
            through
            the transom. On the wet side you have a propeller. On the dry side
            you
            also
            have a propeller, onto which you blow compressed air.

            Now make an identical boat and take that same compressed air and
            run

            it
            through a piston engine (steam-type or two-stroke for example)
            that
            is
            directly coupled to the prop shaft.

            Which boat will go the furthest with the same limited supply of
            compressed
            air?

            Efforts would be far better served tweaking the internal
            combustion
            engine
            than trying to come up with a better turbine. Use the boat analogy
            and
            apply
            it to that comment and you'll see the relative futility of
            "building

            a
            better turbine."

            Pat

            -----Original Message-----
            From:
            Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
            40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
            40yahoogroups.com>
            <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
            <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
            Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
            40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
            40yahoogroups.com>
            <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
            40yahoogroups.com>]
            On Behalf Of b d
            Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 1:47 PM
            To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
            <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
            <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
            <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%

            40yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Fwd: (920) 725-3721 100 Hp Turbo
            Shaft

            Thanks for the article Pat. $15k for 80 lb of thrust? Yeah I
            agree
            but
            it
            doesn't have to be that way, we have to get our heads out of the
            cylinder
            and think wheels or round. It's only that way due to lack of
            innovation
            from
            the big dogs who control us little dogs. It's possible to
            design/build
            a
            simple throw away (recycled) turbine model but someone has to
            change
            mindsets. A turbine goes back to basic wheel technology, which
            is
            closer
            to
            caveman-technology than it is to neuro-technology. If we closed
            down
            NASA
            and the big auto cartels for awhile until we got some of our
            important
            issues resolved, we would find it all simple and doable but as
            long
            as
            we
            have that giant sucking sound of dollars going on, attracting
            all
            our
            best
            and brightest, we have little hope of resolving even the
            simplest
            of
            domestic problems. Anyway it gets really philosophical really
            quick
            and
            deep. I could easily piss the whole world off in less than 500
            words.
            LOL
            You wouldn't believe I'm an optimist would you?

            Bruce

            On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Patrick Panzera <
            panzera@... <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
            <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
            <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
            <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%40experimental-

            aviation.com>>
            wrote:

            Read this:

            http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-01_turbines.asp

            Pat

            Not that you're looking at turboshaft/turboprops or the
            likes
            I
            thought
            you
            may want to just consider it amongst the other choices of
            power
            plants
            out
            there. http://www.swbturbines.com/Default.htm

            $15k for 80lbs of thrust?

            No thank you.

            Pat

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

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

            Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

            Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

            Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

            Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

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

            Yahoo! Groups Links





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



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

            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Patrick Panzera
            ... Let s not forget Scott Casler (Hummel Engines) and AeroVee... although AeroVee only sells kits. Here s a GREAT EAA article:
            Message 5 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              > The currently building VWs companies are the Great Plains and Revmaster.



              Let's not forget Scott Casler (Hummel Engines) and AeroVee... although
              AeroVee only sells kits.

              Here's a GREAT EAA article:
              http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-02_powerplants.asp

              And there are a few others, but Revmaster GPASC, Hummel Engines and AeroVee
              are "the big four."

              Pat
            • b d
              Pat, I m sure you re a likeable guy but you re misinformed in this case and you shouldn t depend on one article in one magazine to base your total opinion on
              Message 6 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Pat, I'm sure you're a likeable guy but you're misinformed in this case and
                you shouldn't depend on one article in one magazine to base your total
                opinion on it. It's an "opinion" a "negative opinion at that" and you know
                what they say about opinoins. It's easy to say "down with turbines but look
                around you. We have some turbine busses here. Very smooth and quiet. You
                don't have to respond to me or try to convince me of the negative, I
                understand your point of view, I get you. I'm an 18 year grandfather so if
                that counts I trump you by 8 years and blah blah blah. I also have many
                years, since child hood in various areas of flying, aviation both General
                Aviation and Airlines as a Flight Engineer plus Industrial instrumentation
                control systems specializing in realtime computers and much more but I'm
                will never say to anyone"trust me because I'm a blah blah blah engineer even
                though I am. That's old school and if you want to know the truth it's
                bullyism even though it doesn't work with me. I like you, I see some of your
                conversations and I can appreciate your thinking but in this area you are
                out of your league. One cannot argue the turbine v. piston discussion in any
                one short little article, it's way to complex. The guy is obviously bias to
                recip enginesand limited in knowledge and in a manner I am too. I love the
                sound of old piston engines (the Harley Davidson mentality) and I hate the
                sound and smell of turbines. I love old planes and old steam trains and old
                cars and hit and miss engines. I remember when the Diesel Locomotive came
                in. I marvelled at them until one day, sitting by the old rail road bridge,
                that I never seen another steam engine come through and all of a sudden I
                was sad. I missed the old machines and the oil cans that keep them running.
                But we wouldn't have sport planes with that old mentality, every thing was
                cast iron back then. We went to aluminum and titanium and composites and
                carbin fiber and nanotechnology. Lighter and stronger and more efficient.
                Don't fight it, enjoy it.

                But, with that said, turbines are coming dude, they are in planes, trains,
                automobiles, powerplants and some day on the weedwhacker. I'm not trying to
                sell you on them, I'm only saying keep an open mind, someday you will want
                one in your car. Someday you or your grandchildren may drive your car home,
                not shut it off but plug it in to your home. Not to charge the battery
                because your car won't have a battery but it will have capacitors. You'll
                plug it in to run your home and sell power back to the grid while you sleep.
                At "work" you will do the same. Your car will continue to run silently and
                it will be plugged into the grid and you will make money at work from the
                power company.

                Now I'm not saying trust me, because I'm a blah blah blah, this is a fact,
                because there are many things that can get in the way and stop it but
                unlikely. Just the ink in a pen can do it. When the rich aren't getting
                richer they will impose rules like they always do that divert the money back
                up to them.

                Back to the granfather issue. I hope you're not as mind bound with your
                grandchildren as you seem to be with me and this discussion. Children are
                brillient at least until we start dumbing them down in public schools. Let
                them question anything and everything. Listen to them, don't tell them. It's
                their world now, we made a mess of it. Have an open mind and listen to your
                children/grandchildren. Give them room to think and grow like you want to
                do.

                Anyway, have a nice day Pat. If you wish I'd like to hear more about and
                from you and your experiences. We can do it off line or what ever you
                prefer.

                Bruce, GPA . . . hense: gpabruce@...
                Henderson, NV.




                On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Patrick Panzera <
                panzera@...> wrote:

                >
                >
                > Probably wasting my time again, but Bruce, if you would have read the
                > article I sent you, you'd find that ALL the issues you are bring up are
                > asked and answered, logically.
                >
                > All the hopes and dreams of a small, affordable, efficient turbine have
                > been
                > "just around the corner" for the majority of my life... and I've been a
                > grandfather for 10 years.
                >
                > Pat
                >
                > > *As far as the turbine engine thing, I think it will be a long time
                > before
                >
                > > they size and price them where they are practical for sportplane use but
                > I
                > > think it is possible. Hopefully by then they will burn biodiesel that
                > > smells
                > > like McDonalds rather than JetA1 :-) *
                > >
                > > *By the way, where did you fly offshore? I did a project off shore from
                > > Santa Barbara, CA. on Platform Hadalgo. I hated it, I swear I could see
                > > people drinking beer on the beach and it killed me not to have one even
                > > though I hardly drank any. Just the idea of not being able to. The young
                > > guys had the best idea, the platform was their home and when they went
                > > onshore, they would spend their week camping and fishing up in the Sierra
                > > Nevada's costing them nothing. no apartment or anything. My wife wouldn't
                > > let me do that. :-)*
                > >
                > > But since you ask about $3000 power , probably a Great Plains or a
                > > Revmaster
                > > VW could be found easily on the used market. DFs were originally designed
                > > to
                > > use an 1834 cc, but bigger is more in demand now. They come up for sale
                > on
                > > the Internet all the time. I flew in a DF with a 2274 the other day and
                > it
                > > flew 150 knots with two people. That is what I am putting in mine. Simply
                > > said, they are inexpensive, low maintainance, and very efficient. They
                > are
                > > hard to beat for the money. My hangar mate who is also finishing out a DF
                > > wants to go with a Subaru. But they are water cooled, and as for me, I'd
                > > hate to bust a water hose while in flight, but you can get an engine very
                > > cheap. All I know
                > > for sure is that you won't have a lot of cowling fit problems with a vw,
                > > and
                > > they just seem to be the most popular. And having driven an old "bug"
                > back
                > > in high school, and when I lived in Mexico, and not being able to kill it
                > > in
                > > the process, that has left me a believer.
                > > *Another thing I like about the VW concept is they are cheap enough a
                > > person
                > > can have a spare engine in the garage ready to go, in fact I was talking
                > > to
                > > someone the other day about my thoughts of building a test stand for a
                > > spare
                > > VW engine so I could run it in on a test stand for break-in so it would
                > be
                > > ready to go with little down time. Plus it's better to run an engine
                > > rather
                > > than leaving it set and collect dust and dampness. At my age time is the
                > > bigger factor than money or building. I did all that as an A&P back in my
                > > starvation days and now I just want to fly on the good days. If the
                > engine
                > > breaks, have a spare and throw it in. So that's kinda my thinking. I've
                > > heard people are doing corvair engines and subarus, I just don't know a
                > > lot
                > > about them and that's why I'm looking for ideas and opinions and the
                > whole
                > > gambit of possibilities and options. *
                > > **
                > > *There used to be an old world war II pilot who would pull this little
                > > tail
                > > dragger out to Boulder City Airport, plug in the wings and get his flying
                > > fix, then back to the airport, package it back up in a jiffy and pull it
                > > back to his garage with no hanger or tie down fees. I suppose he also
                > > filled
                > > it at the 7-11 before flying. It sure looked good to me considering how
                > > much
                > > I was paying to keep my C-175 there. I don't know what kind of plane it
                > > was
                > > but it was small, had a VW on it and was fast as hell.*
                > >
                > > *Bruce*
                > >
                > > >
                > > > Sent from my iPhone
                > > >
                > > > On Feb 28, 2010, at 11:18 PM, b d
                > > <gpabruce@... <gpabruce%40gmail.com><gpabruce%40gmail.com>>
                >
                > > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > With that said do you have anything to add to what has already been
                > > said,
                > > > excepting therefrom some unneeded negativity from someone? I was
                > > discussing
                > > > the advent of micro turbine turbine shaft/prop technology is what
                > > brought
                > > > the topic up to begin with. Later, I don't know how soon but there will
                > > be
                > > > fuel cells and electric drives but for now the turbine technology is on
                > > the
                > > > rise. Anything you wish to add to that would be of interest.
                > > >
                > > > Bruce
                > > >
                > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM, <jon@...<jon%40finleyweb.net>
                > > <jon%40finleyweb.net>>
                >
                > > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > I am interested. However; it would have to be with someone that has
                > some
                > > > reasonable level of intelligence, willing to discuss without being
                > > imature,
                > > > and has communication skills beyond that of a sixth grader.
                > > >
                > > > Jon
                > > >
                > > > -----Original Message-----
                > > > From: "b d" <gpabruce@... <gpabruce%40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
                > 40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
                > > > 40gmail.com>>
                > > > Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:29pm
                > > > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines
                > > >
                > > > Is there anyone in the Dragonfly group who is openminded enough and has
                > > the
                > > > desire to discuss new alternative power plants?
                > > >
                > > > I'm old myself but I love the new lightweight technology and thought
                > > anyone
                > > > in general or sport aviation would want to consider all options. This
                > > may
                > > > or
                > > > maynot be true of this group, what say you all?
                > > >
                > > > I say If the piston heads don't enjoy growing, then they can ignore it.
                > > >
                > > > Bruce
                > > > Henderson, NV.
                > > >
                > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Paddy O'Connor
                > > <poconnor65@... <poconnor65%40cogeco.net><poconnor65%40cogeco.net
                > >
                > > > <poconnor65%40cogeco.net>
                > > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > This is a Dragonfly group.
                > > > This discussion is misplaced & belongs elsewhere.
                > > > Please end it.
                > > >
                > > > CFEXC Dfly MkII
                > > >
                > > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > > From: "b d" <gpabruce@... <gpabruce%40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
                > 40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
                > > > 40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
                > > > 40gmail.com>>
                > > > To: <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
                > > > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 6:06 PM
                > > > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines
                > > >
                > > > Articles are just that, articles. You are wasting your time if you
                > > > cannot
                > > > or
                > > > refuse to learn. I still want to see your compressed air powered boat!
                > > > LOL.
                > > > Will you be having a long air hose from your plane to ground or just
                > > > how
                > > > does that work. Sorry for snickering but I'm visualizing it and I
                > > > suppose
                > > > you will call this, let me guess "an air plane?"
                > > >
                > > > Thanks for the info but I think I'll go with the reliable and proven
                > > > turbine. And I'll try not to fly below you cutting off your air supply.
                > > >
                > > > Fair winds, er air to you,
                > > >
                > > > Bruce
                > > >
                > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Patrick Panzera <
                > > > panzera@...<panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%
                > 40experimental-aviation.com>
                > > > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%
                > > > 40experimental-aviation.com>>
                > > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Bruce,
                > > >
                > > > I'm sorry I wasted my time.
                > > >
                > > > You obviously:
                > > > 1) Didn't read the article I sent you.
                > > > 2) Don't understand the economics of scale.
                > > > 3) Don't understand BSCF.
                > > >
                > > > Pat
                > > >
                > > > -----Original Message-----
                > > > From: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > 40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
                > > > Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com>]
                > > > On Behalf Of b d
                > > > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 2:35 PM
                > > > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > 40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines
                > > >
                > > > LOL, dam the jet boats and personal water craft that so efficiently
                > > > use
                > > > the
                > > > turbine concept. You will need to convince all of them that their
                > > > toys
                > > > don't
                > > > work. I think you mean the "reciprocating engine". Some turbine
                > > > engines
                > > > are
                > > > internal combustion and some are external. The piston engine, an
                > > > obsolete
                > > > design, models after the old cast iron steam engine of the old cast
                > > > iron
                > > > days. Again, we can do better. I don't get your boat anaogy but
                > > > please
                > > > send
                > > > pictures, you have me excited about it. Are you talking about a
                > > > stern
                > > > wheeler? But how much does this aircompressor weigh and what powers
                > > > it,
                > > > a
                > > > steam engine? :
                > > >
                > > > *In a nutshell, imaging of you made a boat with a prop shaft running
                > > > through
                > > > *
                > > > *the transom. On the wet side you have a propeller. On the dry side
                > > > you
                > > > also
                > > > *
                > > > *have a propeller, onto which you blow compressed air.*
                > > >
                > > > OK I'm having just too much fun with this I know, and I don't mean
                > > > to
                > > > sound
                > > > disrespectfull because I love using the old and the new. But back to
                > > > the
                > > > turbine subject, they are hardly inefficient, in fact they are so
                > > > efficient
                > > > they are used in many of the new high tech co-gen power plants on
                > > > the
                > > > grid
                > > > today. Oh and let's not forget almost all commercial aviation and
                > > > don't
                > > > forget the retrofits on many old reliable planes like DeHavilands
                > > > and
                > > > so
                > > > on.
                > > >
                > > > Have you noticed lately that most of he old round, Radial Engines
                > > > are
                > > > out
                > > > of
                > > > service and replaced with turbine technology? This is because they
                > > > are
                > > > expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, very complicated, burn
                > > > as
                > > > much
                > > > oil as they did gas, very unrelaiable comparitively, very low TBO.
                > > > Yet
                > > >
                > > > I
                > > > love the old engines that I cut my teeth on. How about that R-4360
                > > > 28 cyclinder radial engine? God they sound good big base drum unlike
                > > > a
                > > > turbine that sounds like a cat scratching a window. There should be
                > > > a
                > > > law
                > > > that says if you drive a turbine powered anything, you must play a
                > > > recording
                > > > or either a nbig radial engine, or a steam engine or a john deer hit
                > > > and
                > > > miss just for nostagic purposes. What say you? Are you in favor of
                > > > that?
                > > >
                > > > Check this out: http://www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg/gc_engine.html
                > > >
                > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Patrick Panzera <
                > > > panzera@...<panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%
                > 40experimental-aviation.com>
                > > > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
                > > > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
                > > > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>>
                > > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > The thing of it is, turbines are just inefficient, and there's no
                > > > way
                > > > around
                > > > that; it's their nature. Anything different wouldn't be a turbine.
                > > >
                > > > In a nutshell, imaging of you made a boat with a prop shaft
                > > > running
                > > > through
                > > > the transom. On the wet side you have a propeller. On the dry side
                > > > you
                > > > also
                > > > have a propeller, onto which you blow compressed air.
                > > >
                > > > Now make an identical boat and take that same compressed air and
                > > > run
                > > >
                > > > it
                > > > through a piston engine (steam-type or two-stroke for example)
                > > > that
                > > > is
                > > > directly coupled to the prop shaft.
                > > >
                > > > Which boat will go the furthest with the same limited supply of
                > > > compressed
                > > > air?
                > > >
                > > > Efforts would be far better served tweaking the internal
                > > > combustion
                > > > engine
                > > > than trying to come up with a better turbine. Use the boat analogy
                > > > and
                > > > apply
                > > > it to that comment and you'll see the relative futility of
                > > > "building
                > > >
                > > > a
                > > > better turbine."
                > > >
                > > > Pat
                > > >
                > > > -----Original Message-----
                > > > From:
                > > > Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
                > > > Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com>]
                > > > On Behalf Of b d
                > > > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 1:47 PM
                > > > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > 40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                > > >
                > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Fwd: (920) 725-3721 100 Hp Turbo
                > > > Shaft
                > > >
                > > > Thanks for the article Pat. $15k for 80 lb of thrust? Yeah I
                > > > agree
                > > > but
                > > > it
                > > > doesn't have to be that way, we have to get our heads out of the
                > > > cylinder
                > > > and think wheels or round. It's only that way due to lack of
                > > > innovation
                > > > from
                > > > the big dogs who control us little dogs. It's possible to
                > > > design/build
                > > > a
                > > > simple throw away (recycled) turbine model but someone has to
                > > > change
                > > > mindsets. A turbine goes back to basic wheel technology, which
                > > > is
                > > > closer
                > > > to
                > > > caveman-technology than it is to neuro-technology. If we closed
                > > > down
                > > > NASA
                > > > and the big auto cartels for awhile until we got some of our
                > > > important
                > > > issues resolved, we would find it all simple and doable but as
                > > > long
                > > > as
                > > > we
                > > > have that giant sucking sound of dollars going on, attracting
                > > > all
                > > > our
                > > > best
                > > > and brightest, we have little hope of resolving even the
                > > > simplest
                > > > of
                > > > domestic problems. Anyway it gets really philosophical really
                > > > quick
                > > > and
                > > > deep. I could easily piss the whole world off in less than 500
                > > > words.
                > > > LOL
                > > > You wouldn't believe I'm an optimist would you?
                > > >
                > > > Bruce
                > > >
                > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Patrick Panzera <
                > > > panzera@...<panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%
                > 40experimental-aviation.com>
                > > > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
                > > > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
                > > > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%40experimental-
                > > >
                > > > aviation.com>>
                > > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Read this:
                > > >
                > > > http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-01_turbines.asp
                > > >
                > > > Pat
                > > >
                > > > Not that you're looking at turboshaft/turboprops or the
                > > > likes
                > > > I
                > > > thought
                > > > you
                > > > may want to just consider it amongst the other choices of
                > > > power
                > > > plants
                > > > out
                > > > there. http://www.swbturbines.com/Default.htm
                > > >
                > > > $15k for 80lbs of thrust?
                > > >
                > > > No thank you.
                > > >
                > > > Pat
                > > >
                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > > >
                > > > ------------------------------------
                > > >
                > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > >
                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > > >
                > > > ------------------------------------
                > > >
                > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > >
                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > > >
                > > > ------------------------------------
                > > >
                > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > >
                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > > >
                > > > ------------------------------------
                > > >
                > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > >
                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > > >
                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > > >
                > > > ------------------------------------
                > > >
                > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > ------------------------------------
                > >
                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • b d
                Thanks, I m looking into them right now. Is there a HAPI engine too and if so where does it fit in with the other ones? ... [Non-text portions of this message
                Message 7 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks, I'm looking into them right now. Is there a HAPI engine too and if
                  so where does it fit in with the other ones?

                  On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Ralh Osborn <rosbornrosborn@...>wrote:

                  >
                  >
                  > The currently building VWs companies are the Great Plains and Revmaster.
                  > They have the best updated stuff. Both have good websites. I worked in the
                  > Gulf of Mexico for many years running supply boats, the fast aluminum kind.
                  > And hearing about the recent advancements in technology that has come into
                  > that industrie over the last fifteen years (from Vic Taylor, velocityone)
                  > you may well be right about the French fries thing! But as for engine size,
                  > lean toward the larger size VW , and with four bearings. Both websites will
                  > educate you on that issue.
                  >
                  > Sent from my iPhone
                  >
                  >
                  > On Mar 1, 2010, at 3:08 AM, b d <gpabruce@... <gpabruce%40gmail.com>>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Ralh Osborn <rosbornrosborn@...<rosbornrosborn%40yahoo.com>
                  > >wrote:
                  >
                  > bd, I apologize if I came off disrespectful to you, but I really despise
                  > the exhaust fumes of turbine engines. Comes from having to fly choppers out
                  > offshore years ago an I never liked them. The white nuckle stress and smell
                  > would almost make me sick. That's a personal thing.
                  >
                  > *No Problem here, Yeh I know what you mean, I don't like the smell either.
                  > I
                  > do like the idea of VW conversions and I'm just now learning about them.
                  > How
                  > many different conversions are out there? and which ones are better and
                  > worst if you know. I'm at a cross roads right now. As you may know I
                  > acquired a fairly nice DF but it has a Mazda Rotary Engine and it's water
                  > cooled. Like you I really don't like water cooled so I have to decide to go
                  > with it or change it to a VW conversion or whatever. But then I'm wondering
                  > if someone out there is looking for a water cooled rotary where we could
                  > just trade and both be happy. I also love gliders and motor gliders . . .
                  > anything that flys actually . . .even powered parachutes are fun.*
                  > **
                  >
                  > *As far as the turbine engine thing, I think it will be a long time before
                  > they size and price them where they are practical for sportplane use but I
                  > think it is possible. Hopefully by then they will burn biodiesel that
                  > smells
                  > like McDonalds rather than JetA1 :-) *
                  >
                  > *By the way, where did you fly offshore? I did a project off shore from
                  > Santa Barbara, CA. on Platform Hadalgo. I hated it, I swear I could see
                  > people drinking beer on the beach and it killed me not to have one even
                  > though I hardly drank any. Just the idea of not being able to. The young
                  > guys had the best idea, the platform was their home and when they went
                  > onshore, they would spend their week camping and fishing up in the Sierra
                  > Nevada's costing them nothing. no apartment or anything. My wife wouldn't
                  > let me do that. :-)*
                  >
                  > But since you ask about $3000 power , probably a Great Plains or a
                  > Revmaster
                  > VW could be found easily on the used market. DFs were originally designed
                  > to
                  > use an 1834 cc, but bigger is more in demand now. They come up for sale on
                  > the Internet all the time. I flew in a DF with a 2274 the other day and it
                  > flew 150 knots with two people. That is what I am putting in mine. Simply
                  > said, they are inexpensive, low maintainance, and very efficient. They are
                  > hard to beat for the money. My hangar mate who is also finishing out a DF
                  > wants to go with a Subaru. But they are water cooled, and as for me, I'd
                  > hate to bust a water hose while in flight, but you can get an engine very
                  > cheap. All I know
                  > for sure is that you won't have a lot of cowling fit problems with a vw,
                  > and
                  > they just seem to be the most popular. And having driven an old "bug" back
                  > in high school, and when I lived in Mexico, and not being able to kill it
                  > in
                  > the process, that has left me a believer.
                  > *Another thing I like about the VW concept is they are cheap enough a
                  > person
                  > can have a spare engine in the garage ready to go, in fact I was talking to
                  > someone the other day about my thoughts of building a test stand for a
                  > spare
                  > VW engine so I could run it in on a test stand for break-in so it would be
                  > ready to go with little down time. Plus it's better to run an engine rather
                  > than leaving it set and collect dust and dampness. At my age time is the
                  > bigger factor than money or building. I did all that as an A&P back in my
                  > starvation days and now I just want to fly on the good days. If the engine
                  > breaks, have a spare and throw it in. So that's kinda my thinking. I've
                  > heard people are doing corvair engines and subarus, I just don't know a lot
                  > about them and that's why I'm looking for ideas and opinions and the whole
                  > gambit of possibilities and options. *
                  > **
                  > *There used to be an old world war II pilot who would pull this little tail
                  > dragger out to Boulder City Airport, plug in the wings and get his flying
                  > fix, then back to the airport, package it back up in a jiffy and pull it
                  > back to his garage with no hanger or tie down fees. I suppose he also
                  > filled
                  > it at the 7-11 before flying. It sure looked good to me considering how
                  > much
                  > I was paying to keep my C-175 there. I don't know what kind of plane it was
                  > but it was small, had a VW on it and was fast as hell.*
                  >
                  > *Bruce*
                  >
                  > Sent from my iPhone
                  >
                  > On Feb 28, 2010, at 11:18 PM, b d <gpabruce@...<gpabruce%40gmail.com>
                  > <gpabruce%40gmail.com>>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > With that said do you have anything to add to what has already been said,
                  > excepting therefrom some unneeded negativity from someone? I was discussing
                  > the advent of micro turbine turbine shaft/prop technology is what brought
                  > the topic up to begin with. Later, I don't know how soon but there will be
                  > fuel cells and electric drives but for now the turbine technology is on the
                  > rise. Anything you wish to add to that would be of interest.
                  >
                  > Bruce
                  >
                  > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM, <jon@... <jon%40finleyweb.net><jon%
                  > 40finleyweb.net>>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > I am interested. However; it would have to be with someone that has some
                  > reasonable level of intelligence, willing to discuss without being imature,
                  > and has communication skills beyond that of a sixth grader.
                  >
                  > Jon
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: "b d" <gpabruce@... <gpabruce%40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
                  > 40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
                  > 40gmail.com>>
                  > Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:29pm
                  > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com>
                  > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines
                  >
                  > Is there anyone in the Dragonfly group who is openminded enough and has the
                  > desire to discuss new alternative power plants?
                  >
                  > I'm old myself but I love the new lightweight technology and thought anyone
                  > in general or sport aviation would want to consider all options. This may
                  > or
                  > maynot be true of this group, what say you all?
                  >
                  > I say If the piston heads don't enjoy growing, then they can ignore it.
                  >
                  > Bruce
                  > Henderson, NV.
                  >
                  > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Paddy O'Connor <poconnor65@...<poconnor65%40cogeco.net>
                  > <poconnor65%40cogeco.net>
                  > <poconnor65%40cogeco.net>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > This is a Dragonfly group.
                  > This discussion is misplaced & belongs elsewhere.
                  > Please end it.
                  >
                  > CFEXC Dfly MkII
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: "b d" <gpabruce@... <gpabruce%40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
                  > 40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
                  > 40gmail.com> <gpabruce%
                  > 40gmail.com>>
                  > To: <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com>>
                  > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 6:06 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines
                  >
                  > Articles are just that, articles. You are wasting your time if you
                  > cannot
                  > or
                  > refuse to learn. I still want to see your compressed air powered boat!
                  > LOL.
                  > Will you be having a long air hose from your plane to ground or just
                  > how
                  > does that work. Sorry for snickering but I'm visualizing it and I
                  > suppose
                  > you will call this, let me guess "an air plane?"
                  >
                  > Thanks for the info but I think I'll go with the reliable and proven
                  > turbine. And I'll try not to fly below you cutting off your air supply.
                  >
                  > Fair winds, er air to you,
                  >
                  > Bruce
                  >
                  > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Patrick Panzera <
                  > panzera@... <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%
                  > 40experimental-aviation.com>
                  > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%
                  > 40experimental-aviation.com>>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > Bruce,
                  >
                  > I'm sorry I wasted my time.
                  >
                  > You obviously:
                  > 1) Didn't read the article I sent you.
                  > 2) Don't understand the economics of scale.
                  > 3) Don't understand BSCF.
                  >
                  > Pat
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com>
                  > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com>
                  > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
                  > Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com>]
                  > On Behalf Of b d
                  > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 2:35 PM
                  > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com>
                  > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com>
                  > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbines
                  >
                  > LOL, dam the jet boats and personal water craft that so efficiently
                  > use
                  > the
                  > turbine concept. You will need to convince all of them that their
                  > toys
                  > don't
                  > work. I think you mean the "reciprocating engine". Some turbine
                  > engines
                  > are
                  > internal combustion and some are external. The piston engine, an
                  > obsolete
                  > design, models after the old cast iron steam engine of the old cast
                  > iron
                  > days. Again, we can do better. I don't get your boat anaogy but
                  > please
                  > send
                  > pictures, you have me excited about it. Are you talking about a
                  > stern
                  > wheeler? But how much does this aircompressor weigh and what powers
                  > it,
                  > a
                  > steam engine? :
                  >
                  > *In a nutshell, imaging of you made a boat with a prop shaft running
                  > through
                  > *
                  > *the transom. On the wet side you have a propeller. On the dry side
                  > you
                  > also
                  > *
                  > *have a propeller, onto which you blow compressed air.*
                  >
                  > OK I'm having just too much fun with this I know, and I don't mean
                  > to
                  > sound
                  > disrespectfull because I love using the old and the new. But back to
                  > the
                  > turbine subject, they are hardly inefficient, in fact they are so
                  > efficient
                  > they are used in many of the new high tech co-gen power plants on
                  > the
                  > grid
                  > today. Oh and let's not forget almost all commercial aviation and
                  > don't
                  > forget the retrofits on many old reliable planes like DeHavilands
                  > and
                  > so
                  > on.
                  >
                  > Have you noticed lately that most of he old round, Radial Engines
                  > are
                  > out
                  > of
                  > service and replaced with turbine technology? This is because they
                  > are
                  > expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, very complicated, burn
                  > as
                  > much
                  > oil as they did gas, very unrelaiable comparitively, very low TBO.
                  > Yet
                  >
                  > I
                  > love the old engines that I cut my teeth on. How about that R-4360
                  > 28 cyclinder radial engine? God they sound good big base drum unlike
                  > a
                  > turbine that sounds like a cat scratching a window. There should be
                  > a
                  > law
                  > that says if you drive a turbine powered anything, you must play a
                  > recording
                  > or either a nbig radial engine, or a steam engine or a john deer hit
                  > and
                  > miss just for nostagic purposes. What say you? Are you in favor of
                  > that?
                  >
                  > Check this out: http://www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg/gc_engine.html
                  >
                  > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Patrick Panzera <
                  > panzera@... <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%
                  > 40experimental-aviation.com>
                  > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
                  > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
                  > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > The thing of it is, turbines are just inefficient, and there's no
                  > way
                  > around
                  > that; it's their nature. Anything different wouldn't be a turbine.
                  >
                  > In a nutshell, imaging of you made a boat with a prop shaft
                  > running
                  > through
                  > the transom. On the wet side you have a propeller. On the dry side
                  > you
                  > also
                  > have a propeller, onto which you blow compressed air.
                  >
                  > Now make an identical boat and take that same compressed air and
                  > run
                  >
                  > it
                  > through a piston engine (steam-type or two-stroke for example)
                  > that
                  > is
                  > directly coupled to the prop shaft.
                  >
                  > Which boat will go the furthest with the same limited supply of
                  > compressed
                  > air?
                  >
                  > Efforts would be far better served tweaking the internal
                  > combustion
                  > engine
                  > than trying to come up with a better turbine. Use the boat analogy
                  > and
                  > apply
                  > it to that comment and you'll see the relative futility of
                  > "building
                  >
                  > a
                  > better turbine."
                  >
                  > Pat
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From:
                  > Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com>
                  > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
                  > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
                  > Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com>
                  > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com>]
                  > On Behalf Of b d
                  > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 1:47 PM
                  > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  > 40yahoogroups.com>
                  > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
                  > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com>
                  > <Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com><Dragonflylist%
                  >
                  > 40yahoogroups.com>
                  > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Fwd: (920) 725-3721 100 Hp Turbo
                  > Shaft
                  >
                  > Thanks for the article Pat. $15k for 80 lb of thrust? Yeah I
                  > agree
                  > but
                  > it
                  > doesn't have to be that way, we have to get our heads out of the
                  > cylinder
                  > and think wheels or round. It's only that way due to lack of
                  > innovation
                  > from
                  > the big dogs who control us little dogs. It's possible to
                  > design/build
                  > a
                  > simple throw away (recycled) turbine model but someone has to
                  > change
                  > mindsets. A turbine goes back to basic wheel technology, which
                  > is
                  > closer
                  > to
                  > caveman-technology than it is to neuro-technology. If we closed
                  > down
                  > NASA
                  > and the big auto cartels for awhile until we got some of our
                  > important
                  > issues resolved, we would find it all simple and doable but as
                  > long
                  > as
                  > we
                  > have that giant sucking sound of dollars going on, attracting
                  > all
                  > our
                  > best
                  > and brightest, we have little hope of resolving even the
                  > simplest
                  > of
                  > domestic problems. Anyway it gets really philosophical really
                  > quick
                  > and
                  > deep. I could easily piss the whole world off in less than 500
                  > words.
                  > LOL
                  > You wouldn't believe I'm an optimist would you?
                  >
                  > Bruce
                  >
                  > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Patrick Panzera <
                  > panzera@... <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%
                  > 40experimental-aviation.com>
                  > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
                  > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com>
                  > <panzera%40experimental-aviation.com><panzera%40experimental-
                  >
                  > aviation.com>>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > Read this:
                  >
                  > http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-01_turbines.asp
                  >
                  > Pat
                  >
                  > Not that you're looking at turboshaft/turboprops or the
                  > likes
                  > I
                  > thought
                  > you
                  > may want to just consider it amongst the other choices of
                  > power
                  > plants
                  > out
                  > there. http://www.swbturbines.com/Default.htm
                  >
                  > $15k for 80lbs of thrust?
                  >
                  > No thank you.
                  >
                  > Pat
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Letempt, Jeffrey A CIV USA
                  And Limbach, although not so much in the US any more. Limbach was way ahead of the competition back in the 80 s. My L2000 engine that was manufactured in 1989
                  Message 8 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    And Limbach, although not so much in the US any more. Limbach was way ahead of the competition back in the 80's. My L2000 engine that was manufactured in 1989 (I think), it had Nickasel cylinders.

                    The issue of Kit Planes I got last week was the alternative engine issue.

                    Jeff

                    ________________________________

                    From: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com>
                    To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Mon Mar 01 13:36:10 2010
                    Subject: RE: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbine




                    > The currently building VWs companies are the Great Plains and Revmaster.

                    Let's not forget Scott Casler (Hummel Engines) and AeroVee... although
                    AeroVee only sells kits.

                    Here's a GREAT EAA article:
                    http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-02_powerplants.asp <blockedhttp://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-02_powerplants.asp>

                    And there are a few others, but Revmaster GPASC, Hummel Engines and AeroVee
                    are "the big four."

                    Pat






                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Patrick Panzera
                    Do me a favor Bruce, read the article and then let s discuss its merits or errors. Other that that, we re pissing into the wind debating something that does
                    Message 9 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Do me a favor Bruce, read the article and then let's discuss its merits or
                      errors.

                      Other that that, we're pissing into the wind debating something that does
                      not exist; a viable turbine engine for experimental aircraft.

                      All of the positive aspects of the current successful uses of gas-turbine
                      engines do not scale for our use... which boils down to high power output
                      for extended periods of time being the key to its success. That does not
                      describe experimental aviation.

                      Pat

                      PS Our time would be much better spent working out the details of a
                      successful 12A installation in a Dragonfly, the rotary engine being very
                      turbine-like. Step 1, Remove the 12A and replace it with a 13B.


                      > Pat, I'm sure you're a likeable guy but you're misinformed in this case
                      > and you shouldn't depend on one article in one magazine to base your total
                      > opinion on it. It's an "opinion" a "negative opinion at that" and you know
                      > what they say about opinoins.
                    • Patrick Panzera
                      Do me a favor Bruce, read the article and then let s discuss its merits or errors. Other that that, we re pissing into the wind debating something that does
                      Message 10 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Do me a favor Bruce, read the article and then let's discuss its merits or
                        errors.

                        Other that that, we're pissing into the wind debating something that does
                        not exist; a viable turbine engine for experimental aircraft.

                        All of the positive aspects of the current successful uses of gas-turbine
                        engines do not scale for our use... which boils down to high power output
                        for extended periods of time being the key to its success. That does not
                        describe experimental aviation.

                        Pat

                        PS Our time would be much better spent working out the details of a
                        successful 12A installation in a Dragonfly, the rotary engine being very
                        turbine-like. Step 1, Remove the 12A and replace it with a 13B.


                        > Pat, I'm sure you're a likeable guy but you're misinformed in this case
                        > and you shouldn't depend on one article in one magazine to base your total
                        > opinion on it. It's an "opinion" a "negative opinion at that" and you know
                        > what they say about opinoins.
                      • b d
                        Pat, I did read the article. You are hopeless and I don t often say that to people. You only know what you know and you refuse to know more. Please read you
                        Message 11 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Pat, I did read the article. You are hopeless and I don't often say that to
                          people. You only know what you know and you refuse to know more. Please read
                          you article, over and over and over and see if it changes. The world will
                          change around you but that article won't. It will always be the same. As
                          Einstein once said, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
                          expecting different results. You have a brain freeze because of one article.
                          One cannot begin to understand the turbine boom with this one short
                          article. Why are you so hung up on this one article and it's author?

                          God, what do you do when you contemplate complex issues like global warming,
                          health care, war on terror v. the invasion for power control and oil? Geez,
                          I mean Turbine v Piston is a no brainer compared to these other topics. It's
                          like round v. square. Some like it round and some like it square. Sure the
                          auto cartels are hung up on recips because they have made a virtual killing
                          selling self destructable autos for the last 100 years and we think
                          victimization is fact we have to accept . . yes and yes and yes I understand
                          those arguments but there are other sides to it. But that provides no
                          reasonble argument that they are better, it's only that it's the best they
                          can do, the best we can buy right now, hardly that its the best that can be
                          produced. If you have your mind made up that the world cannot get any better
                          then you should have been around when those same people said their never be
                          sport aviation.

                          Like the four letter word work! We all have been brainwashed to believe we
                          have to work, we have to have a job, we have to pick cotten or we will
                          starve. That's victimization not logic. Can you see beyond that and see that
                          we could turn the tables with a stroke of a pen, making the wealthy work
                          while we relax and enjoy life? It's all who owns the pen and the words.

                          I'm going to read your article again to appease you, to see if it changed
                          from the last time I read it. OKAY? I don't suspect it has but then maybe
                          you hacked my computer to make me look bad :-)

                          Thanks Bruce
                          Hemderson, NV.





                          On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Patrick Panzera <
                          panzera@...> wrote:

                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Do me a favor Bruce, read the article and then let's discuss its merits or
                          > errors.
                          >
                          > Other that that, we're pissing into the wind debating something that does
                          > not exist; a viable turbine engine for experimental aircraft.
                          >
                          > All of the positive aspects of the current successful uses of gas-turbine
                          > engines do not scale for our use... which boils down to high power output
                          > for extended periods of time being the key to its success. That does not
                          > describe experimental aviation.
                          >
                          > Pat
                          >
                          > PS Our time would be much better spent working out the details of a
                          > successful 12A installation in a Dragonfly, the rotary engine being very
                          > turbine-like. Step 1, Remove the 12A and replace it with a 13B.
                          >
                          > > Pat, I'm sure you're a likeable guy but you're misinformed in this case
                          > > and you shouldn't depend on one article in one magazine to base your
                          > total
                          > > opinion on it. It's an "opinion" a "negative opinion at that" and you
                          > know
                          > > what they say about opinoins.
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • ttcse/Tom
                          Ahh, make that Canadian Dragonfliers,   If I get one OT I want to use it and say: I enjoyed watching the televised games from up there and yesterdays
                          Message 12 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Ahh, make that Canadian Dragonfliers,
                             

                            If I get one OT I want to use it and say: I enjoyed watching the televised games from up there and yesterdays great scraping on the ice.  I used my car remote to trigger my car alarm each time we scored. 
                             
                            Salute!
                            Tom
                             
                             
                             
                             




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • f.worrell@comcast.net
                            Pat and/or Group, I am about to make the wooden form to bend the 2 inch 4130 steel part for Pat s Mk II landing gear. I know I should over bend so it will
                            Message 13 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Pat and/or Group,


                              I am about to make the wooden form to bend the 2 inch 4130 steel part for Pat's Mk II landing gear. I know I should over bend so it will spring back to the correct shape. Does anyone have any guidance as to how much to over bend? I will make the wooden bending forms in the exaggerated shape so after it springs back it will be pretty much the correct shape. Any help would be appreciated.


                              Thanks,


                              Fred
                              EA-81 DDT



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Patrick Panzera
                              Hi Fred, I drew the plans but had the work farmed out. But someone had a webpage, maybe Jon Crawford?.. that showed the whole process. Maybe Google can help
                              Message 14 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Fred,

                                I drew the plans but had the work farmed out.

                                But someone had a webpage, maybe Jon Crawford?.. that showed the whole
                                process. Maybe Google can help find that? I'm certain that oak forms were
                                made, with spring-back in mind, but I can't tell you just how much.

                                Sorry.

                                Pat


                                > Pat and/or Group,
                                >
                                >
                                > I am about to make the wooden form to bend the 2 inch 4130 steel part for
                                > Pat's Mk II landing gear. I know I should over bend so it will spring back
                                > to the correct shape. Does anyone have any guidance as to how much to over
                                > bend? I will make the wooden bending forms in the exaggerated shape so
                                > after it springs back it will be pretty much the correct shape. Any help
                                > would be appreciated.
                                >
                                >
                                > Thanks,
                                >
                                >
                                > Fred
                                > EA-81 DDT
                              • Guy
                                Since I am the current owner of Jon Crawford s gear legs now...I have a few pics of Jon s gear from his web page (I don t think his site is up now). I would be
                                Message 15 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Since I am the current owner of Jon Crawford's gear legs now...I have a few pics of Jon's gear from his web page (I don't think his site is up now). I would be happy to post them if Jon's OK with it...or maybe he has the originals. He still looks in on the list from time to time...I think.

                                  Regards, Guy

                                  --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Panzera <panzera@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Hi Fred,
                                  >
                                  > I drew the plans but had the work farmed out.
                                  >
                                  > But someone had a webpage, maybe Jon Crawford?.. that showed the whole
                                  > process. Maybe Google can help find that? I'm certain that oak forms were
                                  > made, with spring-back in mind, but I can't tell you just how much.
                                  >
                                  > Sorry.
                                  >
                                  > Pat
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > Pat and/or Group,
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > I am about to make the wooden form to bend the 2 inch 4130 steel part for
                                  > > Pat's Mk II landing gear. I know I should over bend so it will spring back
                                  > > to the correct shape. Does anyone have any guidance as to how much to over
                                  > > bend? I will make the wooden bending forms in the exaggerated shape so
                                  > > after it springs back it will be pretty much the correct shape. Any help
                                  > > would be appreciated.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Thanks,
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Fred
                                  > > EA-81 DDT
                                  >
                                • oneskydog@aol.com
                                  Bruce, There is an engine that in my opinion is worth looking at for the Dragonfly. Higher reving than a O-200 but suited to the short prop of a Dragonfly
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Bruce,

                                    There is an engine that in my opinion is worth looking at for the
                                    Dragonfly. Higher reving than a O-200 but suited to the short prop of a Dragonfly
                                    and about the cost of a single hot VW. VW's are not cheap life cycle engines
                                    you will need more than one. Check out:

                                    _www.flycorvair.com_ (http://www.flycorvair.com)

                                    I hope to be in the air and gathering data this year ( fingers crossed)
                                    flying behind a 164 cu in Corvair engine rated by GM to be able to take 180
                                    hp. I only want 90 hp or so at 3500 rpm to fly the Dragonfly well with 2
                                    full sized adults at my altitude.

                                    I have 550 hours behind 2 VW cores and find that you can buy a smaller VW
                                    <1835cc for a reasonable cost for what it is. To get to the 2K+ cc engines
                                    bring a lot more money. You still get an engine block and head fin area
                                    designed for 36 hp output. VW never increases the cooling capacity of the
                                    engine. The marketing department cried for more HP, the engine was bored,
                                    stroked, run faster, bored, stroked again until it became a Super Beatle with
                                    gobs of HP. On a Dragonfly a 1835 cc rated at 60 HP is running at 167% of
                                    the engine design. Pump it up to 2300 cc and you can get 75 hp that is 208%
                                    of what the engine was designed for.

                                    The VW providers have done a lot with a little engine and to make them live
                                    with the prop hung on the generator drive pulley end. They are ok if you
                                    are small in stature, low in altitude, and just want to fly locally.
                                    I want to be able to fly 1000 miles a day and do it again and again
                                    reliably. I know the Dragonfly can fly on 45 hp so running my Corvair at 75 hp
                                    will be about 40% of what the block and heads were designed for.

                                    My engine choices for the Dragonfly are: Corvair 164 cu in WW, Corvair 176
                                    cu in custom, Continental O-200. Water cooling adds too much weight to the
                                    Dragonfly in my opinion plus the additional system complexity. Jabbies
                                    are lots of money and on the other end of the world. Rotary engines seem to
                                    end up being complex installations. I am sure this is not the whole list of
                                    practical and available engines you can get that will drag a Dragonfly
                                    through the air.

                                    Where do you live again?

                                    Regards,

                                    Charlie Johnson a.k.a. One Sky Dog
                                    Ogden, Utah


                                    In a message dated 3/1/2010 3:14:52 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
                                    gpabruce@... writes:

                                    *No Problem here, Yeh I know what you mean, I don't like the smell either.
                                    I
                                    do like the idea of VW conversions and I'm just now learning about them.
                                    How
                                    many different conversions are out there? and which ones are better and
                                    worst if you know. I'm at a cross roads right now. As you may know I
                                    acquired a fairly nice DF but it has a Mazda Rotary Engine and it's water
                                    cooled. Like you I really don't like water cooled so I have to decide to go
                                    with it or change it to a VW conversion or whatever. But then I'm wondering
                                    if someone out there is looking for a water cooled rotary where we could
                                    just trade and both be happy. I also love gliders and motor gliders . . .
                                    anything that flys actually . . .even powered parachutes are fun.*



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Ralh Osborn
                                    This is aquestion for Pat or Dave, or anyone else for that matter, I have an 1834 Hapi, and my question is whether or not they had an updated 4th bearind in
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      This is aquestion for Pat or Dave, or anyone else for that matter, I
                                      have an 1834 Hapi, and my question is whether or not they had an
                                      updated 4th bearind in their engines to compensate for the torque and
                                      thrust created by prop action.

                                      Sent from my iPhone

                                      On Mar 1, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Patrick Panzera <panzera@...
                                      > wrote:

                                      > > The currently building VWs companies are the Great Plains and
                                      > Revmaster.
                                      >
                                      > Let's not forget Scott Casler (Hummel Engines) and AeroVee... although
                                      > AeroVee only sells kits.
                                      >
                                      > Here's a GREAT EAA article:
                                      > http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-02_powerplants.asp
                                      >
                                      > And there are a few others, but Revmaster GPASC, Hummel Engines and
                                      > AeroVee
                                      > are "the big four."
                                      >
                                      > Pat
                                      >
                                      >





                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Ralh Osborn
                                      God, I love this channel! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2010, at 6:29 PM, Ralh Osborn wrote: This is aquestion for Pat or Dave, or
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        God, I love this channel!

                                        Sent from my iPhone

                                        On Mar 1, 2010, at 6:29 PM, Ralh Osborn <rosbornrosborn@...> wrote:

                                        This is aquestion for Pat or Dave, or anyone else for that matter, I
                                        have an 1834 Hapi, and my question is whether or not they had an
                                        updated 4th bearind in their engines to compensate for the torque and
                                        thrust created by prop action.

                                        Sent from my iPhone

                                        On Mar 1, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Patrick Panzera <panzera@...
                                        > wrote:

                                        > > The currently building VWs companies are the Great Plains and
                                        > Revmaster.
                                        >
                                        > Let's not forget Scott Casler (Hummel Engines) and AeroVee... although
                                        > AeroVee only sells kits.
                                        >
                                        > Here's a GREAT EAA article:
                                        > http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-02_powerplants.asp
                                        >
                                        > And there are a few others, but Revmaster GPASC, Hummel Engines and
                                        > AeroVee
                                        > are "the big four."
                                        >
                                        > Pat
                                        >
                                        >

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







                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Randy Irons
                                        Greetings oneskydog, I m not even far enough along to be leaning, but I ve researched the corvair engine a bit. Did you make your own mount or get one from
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Greetings oneskydog, I'm not even far enough along to be leaning, but
                                          I've researched the corvair engine a bit. Did you make your own mount
                                          or get one from WW?

                                          Randy Irons
                                          Broomfield, CO


                                          On 3/1/2010 5:19 PM, oneskydog@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Bruce,
                                          >
                                          > There is an engine that in my opinion is worth looking at for the
                                          > Dragonfly. Higher reving than a O-200 but suited to the short prop of
                                          > a Dragonfly
                                          > and about the cost of a single hot VW. VW's are not cheap life cycle
                                          > engines
                                          > you will need more than one. Check out:
                                          >
                                          > _www.flycorvair.com_ (http://www.flycorvair.com
                                          > <http://www.flycorvair.com>)
                                          >
                                          > I hope to be in the air and gathering data this year ( fingers crossed)
                                          > flying behind a 164 cu in Corvair engine rated by GM to be able to
                                          > take 180
                                          > hp. I only want 90 hp or so at 3500 rpm to fly the Dragonfly well with 2
                                          > full sized adults at my altitude.
                                          >
                                          > I have 550 hours behind 2 VW cores and find that you can buy a smaller VW
                                          > <1835cc for a reasonable cost for what it is. To get to the 2K+ cc
                                          > engines
                                          > bring a lot more money. You still get an engine block and head fin area
                                          > designed for 36 hp output. VW never increases the cooling capacity of the
                                          > engine. The marketing department cried for more HP, the engine was bored,
                                          > stroked, run faster, bored, stroked again until it became a Super
                                          > Beatle with
                                          > gobs of HP. On a Dragonfly a 1835 cc rated at 60 HP is running at 167% of
                                          > the engine design. Pump it up to 2300 cc and you can get 75 hp that is
                                          > 208%
                                          > of what the engine was designed for.
                                          >
                                          > The VW providers have done a lot with a little engine and to make them
                                          > live
                                          > with the prop hung on the generator drive pulley end. They are ok if you
                                          > are small in stature, low in altitude, and just want to fly locally.
                                          > I want to be able to fly 1000 miles a day and do it again and again
                                          > reliably. I know the Dragonfly can fly on 45 hp so running my Corvair
                                          > at 75 hp
                                          > will be about 40% of what the block and heads were designed for.
                                          >
                                          > My engine choices for the Dragonfly are: Corvair 164 cu in WW, Corvair
                                          > 176
                                          > cu in custom, Continental O-200. Water cooling adds too much weight to
                                          > the
                                          > Dragonfly in my opinion plus the additional system complexity. Jabbies
                                          > are lots of money and on the other end of the world. Rotary engines
                                          > seem to
                                          > end up being complex installations. I am sure this is not the whole
                                          > list of
                                          > practical and available engines you can get that will drag a Dragonfly
                                          > through the air.
                                          >
                                          > Where do you live again?
                                          >
                                          > Regards,
                                          >
                                          > Charlie Johnson a.k.a. One Sky Dog
                                          > Ogden, Utah
                                          >



                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • f.worrell@comcast.net
                                          Thanks Guy and Pat, I have a set of the blue line plans for the landing gear. I will google it and see what I get. Pat, you are lucky, last time I farmed
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Thanks Guy and Pat,


                                            I have a set of the blue line plans for the landing gear. I will google it and see what I get. Pat, you are lucky, last time I farmed something out they really screwed it up. When I do get it figured out, I will post the specs.


                                            Fred



                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: "Guy" <yyz_ttr@...>
                                            To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Monday, March 1, 2010 5:47:43 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
                                            Subject: [Dragonflylist] Re: Pats Most Excellent Landing Gear






                                            Since I am the current owner of Jon Crawford's gear legs now...I have a few pics of Jon's gear from his web page (I don't think his site is up now). I would be happy to post them if Jon's OK with it...or maybe he has the originals. He still looks in on the list from time to time...I think.

                                            Regards, Guy

                                            --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com , Patrick Panzera <panzera@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Hi Fred,
                                            >
                                            > I drew the plans but had the work farmed out.
                                            >
                                            > But someone had a webpage, maybe Jon Crawford?.. that showed the whole
                                            > process. Maybe Google can help find that? I'm certain that oak forms were
                                            > made, with spring-back in mind, but I can't tell you just how much.
                                            >
                                            > Sorry.
                                            >
                                            > Pat
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > > Pat and/or Group,
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > I am about to make the wooden form to bend the 2 inch 4130 steel part for
                                            > > Pat's Mk II landing gear. I know I should over bend so it will spring back
                                            > > to the correct shape. Does anyone have any guidance as to how much to over
                                            > > bend? I will make the wooden bending forms in the exaggerated shape so
                                            > > after it springs back it will be pretty much the correct shape. Any help
                                            > > would be appreciated.
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > Thanks,
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > Fred
                                            > > EA-81 DDT
                                            >




                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • jon@finleyweb.net
                                            Ralph, The HAPI 1835 that I put in my Q1 long ago did not have bearing that were any different than a VW used in a car. I may be wrong but I think it was HAPI
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Ralph,

                                              The HAPI 1835 that I put in my Q1 long ago did not have bearing that were any different than a VW used in a car. I may be wrong but I think it was HAPI that came out with the Force 1 hub/bearing but they only used it only(?) in their 2180 (Magnum??) engine.

                                              Probably not terribly helpful...

                                              Jon Finley
                                              N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22
                                              [http://www.finleyweb.net/Q2Subaru.aspx%5d http://www.finleyweb.net/Q2Subaru.aspx


                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: "Ralh Osborn" <rosbornrosborn@...>
                                              Sent: Monday, March 1, 2010 5:29pm
                                              To: "Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com" <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com>
                                              Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] OT Turbine

                                              This is aquestion for Pat or Dave, or anyone else for that matter, I
                                              have an 1834 Hapi, and my question is whether or not they had an
                                              updated 4th bearind in their engines to compensate for the torque and
                                              thrust created by prop action.

                                              Sent from my iPhone

                                              On Mar 1, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Patrick Panzera <panzera@...
                                              > wrote:

                                              > > The currently building VWs companies are the Great Plains and
                                              > Revmaster.
                                              >
                                              > Let's not forget Scott Casler (Hummel Engines) and AeroVee... although
                                              > AeroVee only sells kits.
                                              >
                                              > Here's a GREAT EAA article:
                                              > http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-02_powerplants.asp
                                              >
                                              > And there are a few others, but Revmaster GPASC, Hummel Engines and
                                              > AeroVee
                                              > are "the big four."
                                              >
                                              > Pat
                                              >
                                              >





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



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

                                              Yahoo! Groups Links





                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • oneskydog@aol.com
                                              Randy, I have two engine mounts. I welded up one patterned after one I saw at Ottawa. I load tested it and it failed. I consulted with an office mate to give a
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Mar 1, 2010
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Randy,

                                                I have two engine mounts. I welded up one patterned after one I saw at
                                                Ottawa. I load tested it and it failed. I consulted with an office mate to give
                                                a sanity check on the mod I planned. I made the mod and load tested it
                                                again. Two pulls at 3.8 G for 2 minutes no permanent deflection.

                                                I purchased the second mount with one of my Corvair motors. It was similar
                                                to the one I failed in load test. I made the modification that I made to
                                                the first one. I have enough confidence in the test to not test the second
                                                one.

                                                After I get flying I plan on welding up a new mount for my other Dragonfly.
                                                I might take the original one to yield then to ultimate destruction.

                                                The mount starts with the basic WW bed. If I ever get flying and the
                                                conversion is proven I would expect a mount would be available from someone.

                                                Look in the photos for One Sky Dog albums, there is a folder with a cad
                                                model of a failed mount. I called it a WW but I do not think William designed
                                                or built it. In the One Sky Dog 2009 album you can see the rear truss mod
                                                that makes it work.

                                                Regards,

                                                Charlie


                                                In a message dated 3/1/2010 5:38:48 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
                                                randy.irons@... writes:

                                                Greetings oneskydog, I'm not even far enough along to be leaning, but
                                                I've researched the corvair engine a bit. Did you make your own mount
                                                or get one from WW?

                                                Randy Irons
                                                Broomfield, CO




                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • b d
                                                Randy, if you haven t made a committment on an engine yet, check out the Subaru engine(s) They look very promising but they are water cooled which has it s
                                                Message 23 of 23 , Mar 2, 2010
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Randy, if you haven't made a committment on an engine yet, check out the
                                                  Subaru engine(s) They look very promising but they are water cooled which
                                                  has it's pros and cons. I'm getting a warm fuzzy about them and may buy one
                                                  and build a test stand. I may even see my self putting one on my C-150 and
                                                  put it in experimental class. The C-150's are screaming for a more modern
                                                  engine than a 100 hp Continental O-200 with a $25k price tag for anew .

                                                  On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Randy Irons <randy.irons@...> wrote:

                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Greetings oneskydog, I'm not even far enough along to be leaning, but
                                                  > I've researched the corvair engine a bit. Did you make your own mount
                                                  > or get one from WW?
                                                  >
                                                  > Randy Irons
                                                  > Broomfield, CO
                                                  >
                                                  > On 3/1/2010 5:19 PM, oneskydog@... <oneskydog%40aol.com> wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Bruce,
                                                  > >
                                                  > > There is an engine that in my opinion is worth looking at for the
                                                  > > Dragonfly. Higher reving than a O-200 but suited to the short prop of
                                                  > > a Dragonfly
                                                  > > and about the cost of a single hot VW. VW's are not cheap life cycle
                                                  > > engines
                                                  > > you will need more than one. Check out:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > _www.flycorvair.com_ (http://www.flycorvair.com
                                                  > > <http://www.flycorvair.com>)
                                                  > >
                                                  > > I hope to be in the air and gathering data this year ( fingers crossed)
                                                  > > flying behind a 164 cu in Corvair engine rated by GM to be able to
                                                  > > take 180
                                                  > > hp. I only want 90 hp or so at 3500 rpm to fly the Dragonfly well with 2
                                                  > > full sized adults at my altitude.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > I have 550 hours behind 2 VW cores and find that you can buy a smaller VW
                                                  > > <1835cc for a reasonable cost for what it is. To get to the 2K+ cc
                                                  > > engines
                                                  > > bring a lot more money. You still get an engine block and head fin area
                                                  > > designed for 36 hp output. VW never increases the cooling capacity of the
                                                  > > engine. The marketing department cried for more HP, the engine was bored,
                                                  > > stroked, run faster, bored, stroked again until it became a Super
                                                  > > Beatle with
                                                  > > gobs of HP. On a Dragonfly a 1835 cc rated at 60 HP is running at 167% of
                                                  > > the engine design. Pump it up to 2300 cc and you can get 75 hp that is
                                                  > > 208%
                                                  > > of what the engine was designed for.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > The VW providers have done a lot with a little engine and to make them
                                                  > > live
                                                  > > with the prop hung on the generator drive pulley end. They are ok if you
                                                  > > are small in stature, low in altitude, and just want to fly locally.
                                                  > > I want to be able to fly 1000 miles a day and do it again and again
                                                  > > reliably. I know the Dragonfly can fly on 45 hp so running my Corvair
                                                  > > at 75 hp
                                                  > > will be about 40% of what the block and heads were designed for.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > My engine choices for the Dragonfly are: Corvair 164 cu in WW, Corvair
                                                  > > 176
                                                  > > cu in custom, Continental O-200. Water cooling adds too much weight to
                                                  > > the
                                                  > > Dragonfly in my opinion plus the additional system complexity. Jabbies
                                                  > > are lots of money and on the other end of the world. Rotary engines
                                                  > > seem to
                                                  > > end up being complex installations. I am sure this is not the whole
                                                  > > list of
                                                  > > practical and available engines you can get that will drag a Dragonfly
                                                  > > through the air.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Where do you live again?
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Regards,
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Charlie Johnson a.k.a. One Sky Dog
                                                  > > Ogden, Utah
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >


                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.