Q1_Aircraft: RE: [Q1_Aircraft] VW powered Q1???

The Onan has 48 cubic inches, how much different is that from 1/2 VW engine?

Horsepower, torque, RPM ?

I have only good things to say about my Q1 with the full VW engine. I admit
that I tried to fly it without ballast once and never left the safety of our
8000' runway, did a new W&B, added 25# of ballast and had no more problems
with the CG.

Ryan

---

Original Message

---

From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. [mailto: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ] On
Behalf Of Leon - C
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:59 AM
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: Re: [Q1_Aircraft] VW powered Q1???

I don't think you are missing anything by not having had the opportunity to
fly the Qnan!
================
Leon McAtee
A bird in hand is worth two Onans in the bush.................

---

Original Message

---

From: 'Ryan' < rryan@... >
To: < This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:07 PM
Subject: RE: [Q1_Aircraft] VW powered Q1???


> Leon,
>
> The reason I am using a full vw is I already had the engine
> and I could not get the original Onan to run after 18 years
> stored outside in the airframe. I would like to have flown it
> so as to compare the performance improvement.
>
> Ryan
>
>
>

---

Original Message

---

> From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. [mailto: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ] On
> Behalf Of Leon - C
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 4:14 PM
> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> Subject: Re: [Q1_Aircraft] VW powered Q1???
>
>

---

Original Message

---

> From: 'r56c1' < r56c1@... >
> To: < This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 4:40 PM
> Subject: [Q1_Aircraft] VW powered Q1???
>
>
> > Hello Group...
> >
> > I am a new member and looking for info on a VW 4 cylinder engine
> > installation on the Q1. Im very serious
> > about about this project. Any info on this will be greatly
> > appriciated...
> >>
>
> There have been several Q-1's flown with full VW engines. The owners
> generally liked the results. (cruise at QAC Vne and 1200+fpm roc) The big
> problem is obviously weight. The other is prop clearance for a large
> diameter prop. If the airframe is already built you can't do much about
> prop clearance with out some cutting.
>
> Do some more research before you start. There was an article in Q-talk in
> the last 2 years or so detailing one owners modifications for the full VW.
> Basically it involves added structure at the firewall, adding weight to
the
> tail and/or moving the firewall aft. One guy stretched the fuselage
between
> the 2 wings. Jon Finley and the moderator of this group both have time in
> full VW Quickies.
>
> I don't mean to throw cold water on your project, but I've been building
> VW's for a loooong time and could build up a full VW for my own Quickie
very
> quickly and with out too much money expended but I just think there has to
> be a better solution. 140 to 150 pounds for 60 continuous Hp (and that is
> ALL anyone can get reliably despite various claims) at..45 lbs/hp/hr or
> worse isn't all that good. The only thing the VW has going for it as an
> aircraft motor is that it's available and cheap. The stuff advertised in
> Hot VW's...............It's about 90% junk, even for a car.
>
> Other Quickie engine options:
> Kohler and Kawasaki 700cc class industrial 'V' twins.
> www.aerotwinmotors.com/
> www.hks700e.com/Default.htm
> www.needleyengines.com/index.asp
> www.ultrikes.com/vernerengine/vernerengine.htm
> ======================
> Leon McAtee
> just my opinions....................
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Yahoo! Groups Links

A 1/2 VW is about the same weight as an Onan and slightly bigger
displacement. (49 cu in to 67 cu in depending on stroke and bore). It's
real advantage is in it's far superior head design, better crank and easier
to get parts. It's disadvantage is that you have to build it and if not
done right can be a real disaster. Real world Hp is ~30, despite others
claims for more, for continuous use.

They are great for ultralights with a mandated weight limit. For other
applications I think there should be something a bit better. If someone
manages to come up with a durable PSRU then this might change.
================
Leon McAtee
Just my opinions........................

---

Original Message

---

From: 'Ryan' < rryan@... >
To: < This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:37 PM
Subject: RE: [Q1_Aircraft] VW powered Q1???


> The Onan has 48 cubic inches, how much different is that from 1/2 VW
engine?
>
> Horsepower, torque, RPM ?
>
> I have only good things to say about my Q1 with the full VW engine. I
admit
> that I tried to fly it without ballast once and never left the safety of
our
> 8000' runway, did a new W&amp;B, added 25# of ballast and had no more problems
> with the CG.
>
> Ryan
>
>

---

Original Message

---

> From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. [mailto: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ] On
> Behalf Of Leon - C
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:59 AM
> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> Subject: Re: [Q1_Aircraft] VW powered Q1???
>
> I don't think you are missing anything by not having had the opportunity
to
> fly the Qnan!
> ================
> Leon McAtee
> A bird in hand is worth two Onans in the bush.................
>
>

---

Original Message

---

> From: 'Ryan' < rryan@... >
> To: < This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:07 PM
> Subject: RE: [Q1_Aircraft] VW powered Q1???
>
>
> > Leon,
> >
> > The reason I am using a full vw is I already had the engine
> > and I could not get the original Onan to run after 18 years
> > stored outside in the airframe. I would like to have flown it
> > so as to compare the performance improvement.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> >
> >

---

Original Message

---

> > From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. [mailto: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ]
On
> > Behalf Of Leon - C
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 4:14 PM
> > To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> > Subject: Re: [Q1_Aircraft] VW powered Q1???
> >
> >

---

Original Message

---

> > From: 'r56c1' < r56c1@... >
> > To: < This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 4:40 PM
> > Subject: [Q1_Aircraft] VW powered Q1???
> >
> >
> > > Hello Group...
> > >
> > > I am a new member and looking for info on a VW 4 cylinder engine
> > > installation on the Q1. Im very serious
> > > about about this project. Any info on this will be greatly
> > > appriciated...
> > >>
> >
> > There have been several Q-1's flown with full VW engines. The owners
> > generally liked the results. (cruise at QAC Vne and 1200+fpm roc) The
big
> > problem is obviously weight. The other is prop clearance for a large
> > diameter prop. If the airframe is already built you can't do much about
> > prop clearance with out some cutting.
> >
> > Do some more research before you start. There was an article in Q-talk
in
> > the last 2 years or so detailing one owners modifications for the full
VW.
> > Basically it involves added structure at the firewall, adding weight to
> the
> > tail and/or moving the firewall aft. One guy stretched the fuselage
> between
> > the 2 wings. Jon Finley and the moderator of this group both have time
in
> > full VW Quickies.
> >
> > I don't mean to throw cold water on your project, but I've been building
> > VW's for a loooong time and could build up a full VW for my own Quickie
> very
> > quickly and with out too much money expended but I just think there has
to
> > be a better solution. 140 to 150 pounds for 60 continuous Hp (and that
is
> > ALL anyone can get reliably despite various claims) at..45 lbs/hp/hr or
> > worse isn't all that good. The only thing the VW has going for it as an
> > aircraft motor is that it's available and cheap. The stuff advertised
in
> > Hot VW's...............It's about 90% junk, even for a car.
> >
> > Other Quickie engine options:
> > Kohler and Kawasaki 700cc class industrial 'V' twins.
> > www.aerotwinmotors.com/
> > www.hks700e.com/Default.htm
> > www.needleyengines.com/index.asp
> > www.ultrikes.com/vernerengine/vernerengine.htm
> > ======================
> > Leon McAtee
> > just my opinions....................
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Scott Casler from Hummel engines www.hummelengines.com/
will be at our Jean NV tandem wing fly-in.

www.mountainstatesfly-in.com/

We also MAY have the owner of Hexadyne there showing his P-60.
www.hexatronengineering.com/prod02.htm


A rule of thumb for estimating HP at any given RPM is:
Displacement in cubic inches x RPM ? 5250

Pat

> A 1/2 VW is about the same weight as an Onan and slightly bigger
> displacement. (49 cu in to 67 cu in depending on stroke and bore). It's
> real advantage is in it's far superior head design, better crank and
> easier
> to get parts. It's disadvantage is that you have to build it and if not
> done right can be a real disaster. Real world Hp is ~30, despite others
> claims for more, for continuous use.