Discussion:
STOL Plans
(too old to reply)
M.
2004-11-18 08:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries from
the designer. Any other suggestions or references?

TIA

Mike
Gig Giacona
2004-11-18 15:13:39 UTC
Permalink
The Zenith 701 or 801 might fill the bill. www.zenithair.com
Post by M.
Hi,
Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries from
the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
TIA
Mike
ET
2004-11-18 17:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gig Giacona
The Zenith 701 or 801 might fill the bill. www.zenithair.com
Post by M.
Hi,
Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries from
the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
TIA
Mike
Buttercup

www.luceair.com

Not affiliated blah blah blah

ET
Lou Parker
2004-11-19 21:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ET
Post by Gig Giacona
The Zenith 701 or 801 might fill the bill. www.zenithair.com
Post by M.
Hi,
Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries from
the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
TIA
Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
http://www.sky-rider.net/
Post by ET
Post by Gig Giacona
Post by M.
Mike
Buttercup
www.luceair.com
Not affiliated blah blah blah
ET
Gig Giacona
2004-11-19 22:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou Parker
Post by ET
Post by Gig Giacona
The Zenith 701 or 801 might fill the bill. www.zenithair.com
Post by M.
Hi,
Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries from
the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
TIA
Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
http://www.sky-rider.net/
Post by ET
Post by Gig Giacona
Post by M.
Mike
Buttercup
www.luceair.com
Not affiliated blah blah blah
ET
That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.
Jean-Paul Roy
2004-11-20 14:06:00 UTC
Permalink
FWIW, my understanding is that Chris Heinz sold the rights to a Brazilian
company that after experiencing some financial problems, sold those rights
to ICP in Italia.

Jean-Paul
news:10ppf4rpj79cj88
Post by Gig Giacona
Post by Lou Parker
Post by ET
Post by Gig Giacona
The Zenith 701 or 801 might fill the bill. www.zenithair.com
Post by M.
Hi,
Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my
enquiries
Post by Gig Giacona
Post by Lou Parker
Post by ET
Post by Gig Giacona
Post by M.
from
the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
TIA
Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
http://www.sky-rider.net/
Post by ET
Post by Gig Giacona
Post by M.
Mike
Buttercup
www.luceair.com
Not affiliated blah blah blah
ET
That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.
Lou Parker
2004-11-21 19:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean-Paul Roy
FWIW, my understanding is that Chris Heinz sold the rights to a Brazilian
company that after experiencing some financial problems, sold those rights
to ICP in Italia.
I would really like to find out if there is truth to this. Where did
you come across this info?
Lou
Post by Jean-Paul Roy
Post by Gig Giacona
That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.
Lou Parker
2004-11-20 22:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gig Giacona
Post by Lou Parker
Post by ET
Post by Gig Giacona
The Zenith 701 or 801 might fill the bill. www.zenithair.com
Post by M.
Hi,
Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries from
the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
TIA
Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
http://www.sky-rider.net/
Post by ET
Post by Gig Giacona
Post by M.
Mike
Buttercup
www.luceair.com
Not affiliated blah blah blah
ET
That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.
I don't know either. Probebly the same reason Coke doesn't sue Pepsi,
Everedy doesn't sue Duracell, or Harley doesn't sue Yamaha. Quite
posibly because there is more to it than either you or I can see.
n***@sny.der.on.ca
2004-11-20 23:51:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:53:06 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
Post by Gig Giacona
Post by Lou Parker
Post by ET
Post by Gig Giacona
The Zenith 701 or 801 might fill the bill. www.zenithair.com
Post by M.
Hi,
Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries from
the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
TIA
Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
http://www.sky-rider.net/
Post by ET
Post by Gig Giacona
Post by M.
Mike
Buttercup
www.luceair.com
Not affiliated blah blah blah
ET
That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.
How about the Pegazair 100?

Building from plans.
Christopher
2006-05-24 14:31:54 UTC
Permalink
I also bought the plans for the STOL King but haven't received them yet
Although the general specs on this aircraft are enough for me to want t
build one I have tried to get more detailed information about thi
aircrafts performance by emailing Preceptor aircraft twice and the
will not respond other than to say thank you for the email and tha
they will get back with me later. Phone calls to their number onl
takes me to an answering machine telling me to call back at 2 PM
Doesn't matter, I prefer finding someone independent of them who ha
built this aircraft themselves to answer the questions anyway.

Their specs say this aircraft will take off in 50 feet but no mentio
of whether the aircraft is lightly loaded or at gross weight or eve
which engine is needed for this performance. How about stall speed
Their specs say 15 MPH, I assume that is with power on and full flaps
anyone know?

Also, I found these numbers for the aircraft which differ by a larg
amount with what is currently on their web site
http://tinyurl.com/n4m6v
STOL King — (Preceptor Aircraft Corp.); monoplane, high; conventiona
gear; 75-120; empty wt: 675 lbs; gross wt: 1500 lbs; fabric, tubing
seats: 2; plans: none; kit price: $17,000
Obviously, this is an old spec because their kit is now 25 thousan
dollars but why would the specs change, just to meet LSA or is th
airframe much lighter now? Is there anyone here who knows anythin
about the real world performance of this plane?

Preceptors web page for the STOL King
http://www.preceptoraircraft.com/STOL%20King.htm

If anyone else is researching this I am putting links to all of th
sites I can find about the STOL King and or Storch homebuilts plus
few others on a new yahoo group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Extreme_STOL - there is no activity ther
but the links section of the group is full of lots of differen
homebuilt aircraft which will take off and land in 300 feet or les
which is growing and may be helpful to others like myself who ar
deciding on which extreme STOL aircraft to build.

I have tried to get the opinion of CPotter (post above) and althoug
very friendly and helpful in every other way he is reluctant to gues
on the performance figures I am looking for because his project isn'
finished yet. Anyone know someone who has one flying right now and ho
to contact them

--
Christopher
JKimmel
2006-05-24 17:32:17 UTC
Permalink
I also bought the plans for the STOL King but haven't received them yet.
Although the general specs on this aircraft are enough for me to want to
build one I have tried to get more detailed information about this
aircrafts performance by emailing Preceptor aircraft twice and they
will not respond other than to say thank you for the email and that
they will get back with me later. Phone calls to their number only
takes me to an answering machine telling me to call back at 2 PM.
Doesn't matter, I prefer finding someone independent of them who has
built this aircraft themselves to answer the questions anyway.
You need to join Preceptorgroup on Yahoo.
--
J Kimmel
***@whereIwork.com
www.metalinnovations.com

"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - When you have
their full attention in your grip, their hearts and minds will follow.
Christopher
2006-05-25 00:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Did, no answer there either! But, lots of people were willinig to shar
photographs with me. I just need to have someone who knows the answe
to come by and see my post, I guess.
Post by Christopher
I also bought the plans for the STOL King but haven't received the
yet.
Although the general specs on this aircraft are enough for me to wan
to
build one I have tried to get more detailed information about this
aircrafts performance by emailing Preceptor aircraft twice and they
will not respond other than to say thank you for the email and that
they will get back with me later. Phone calls to their number only
takes me to an answering machine telling me to call back at 2 PM.
Doesn't matter, I prefer finding someone independent of them who has
built this aircraft themselves to answer the questions anyway.
You need to join Preceptorgroup on Yahoo.
--
J Kimmel
www.metalinnovations.com
"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - When you have
their full attention in your grip, their hearts and minds will follow
--
Christopher
Morgans
2006-05-25 01:55:26 UTC
Permalink
I also bought the plans for the STOL King but haven't received them yet.
Although the general specs on this aircraft are enough for me to want to
build one I have tried to get more detailed information about this
aircrafts performance by emailing Preceptor aircraft twice and they
will not respond other than to say thank you for the email and that
they will get back with me later.
Also, I found these numbers for the aircraft which differ by a large
http://tinyurl.com/n4m6v
I have tried to get the opinion of CPotter (post above) and although
very friendly and helpful in every other way he is reluctant to guess
on the performance figures I am looking for because his project isn't
finished yet. Anyone know someone who has one flying right now and how
to contact them ?
There are BS flags all over the place, when looking at that web site. Turn
around, and walk, no, turn and run away!

Why does it have such long landing gear? To look like a storch. The
difference is, the storch has it to get prop clearance, for greaat big
props. BS alert!

Now for what told me to tell you to run away.

Did you see the HP rating for the VW engine they will sell you? THAT is a
good one! (joke, that is) A VW engine that is rated for 103 HP????????
Give me a break!! If you somehow were able to get that much power out of a
VW, the valves and head would be a big melted pile of aluminum and steel,
within 2 minutes, or less. Also you would have to run it at super high
RPM's, and that means you would need a small prop. Small props are only
good for poor take-off performance, and high cruise speed. Sound like a
STOL??? Nope. Run away!
--
Jim in NC
Christopher
2006-05-25 05:26:36 UTC
Permalink
The STOL King was based on the 3/4 Storch kit being offered by a fello
in Australia which I believe had its origins in Europe somewhere (asid
from the original Fi 156 Storch). Essentially, I think it is the sam
aircraft but streamlined quite a bit. I had heard (web searches) tha
he had partnered with them but for some reason they went their own way
and thus this aircraft came out of it. I had thought the gear he use
was to cut down on drag because the 'original' Storch gear is ver
draggy. My assumption from reading about wings with slats is that
high angle is desired to maximize short take offs, being that the tai
can't go down any further like a Zenith Air CH 701 tricycle gear STOL
if you want a high angle of attack for maximum climb right away th
wing needs to have that high of an angle, and thus the long gear? Tha
might not come off as making a lot of sense since the tail comes u
right away anyhow, but there would sure be alot of room under the tai
for it to dip down into for an immediate high angle of attack as soo
as you wanted to yank it off the ground. Does that sound reasonable?

The statement that a "VW engine can produce 100 HP" is misleadin
because this engine is different yet it is still being referred to as
VW engine. Here is a link to their web page http://tinyurl.com/pbwb7
They manufacture new jugs with more coolant flow and use a special hig
volume pump to keep them cool.

If this aircraft can get close to its claimed performance, even if no
right on it, I would be happy and wouldn't have too much heartburn ove
the specs being fluffed a bit to keep up with all of the other fluffer
but if they are far from unrealistic I would sure like to know before
invest more time and money into this. The lack of performance detail
does have me wondering why. Maybe he won't publish hard specs becaus
he doesn't want someone to sue him if they crash the airplane and sa
the specs didn't make it? Or maybe because he is giving the bes
possible specs with the lightest built airframe and highest HP engin
possible with a skinny pilot and little fuel but won't publish i
because he can sell more plans if people think they can get tha
performance with a 100 HP engine? Maybe it really can?

If I could just find one person who is flying one who would be willin
to share their experiences and opinions about its performance (and ther
are completed STOL Kings out there) I could clear this up in a hurry.
have a couple of leads through web seaches but not easy to find contac
information.

Here is another kit version of the 3/4 scale Storch called the Crique
with performance figures similar to the STOL King but much heavie
(Modified, modified 'Storch'): http://tinyurl.com/qupra

Chris in Palmer, Alaska
Post by Morgans
There are BS flags all over the place, when looking at that web site.
Turn
around, and walk, no, turn and run away!
Why does it have such long landing gear? To look like a storch. The
difference is, the storch has it to get prop clearance, for greaat big
props. BS alert!
Now for what told me to tell you to run away.
Did you see the HP rating for the VW engine they will sell you? THA
is a
good one! (joke, that is) A VW engine that is rated for 10
HP????????
Give me a break!! If you somehow were able to get that much power ou
of a
VW, the valves and head would be a big melted pile of aluminum an
steel,
within 2 minutes, or less. Also you would have to run it at super high
RPM's, and that means you would need a small prop. Small props ar
only
good for poor take-off performance, and high cruise speed. Sound lik
a
STOL??? Nope. Run away!
--
Jim in N
--
Christopher
JP
2006-05-25 13:05:17 UTC
Permalink
The Australian manufacturer is propably Nestor Slepcev:

http://www.slepcevstorch.com/index.htm

JP
The STOL King was based on the 3/4 Storch kit being offered by a fellow
in Australia which I believe had its origins in Europe somewhere (aside
from the original Fi 156 Storch). Essentially, I think it is the same
aircraft but streamlined quite a bit. I had heard (web searches) that
he had partnered with them but for some reason they went their own ways
and thus this aircraft came out of it.
Christopher
2006-05-27 22:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for your inquiry, sorry for delay in answer, we had som
technical problems here.
Interesting kits for you are Slepcev Storch and Slepcev Microligh
Storch. They use ROTAX 912 ULS, 100hp engine. I find that ROTAX 912 i
best engine for Slepcev Storch.
The SLEPCEV Storch Kits are fully welded, painted fuselage an
empennage (chrome molly 4130) and come complete with upholstered seats
landing gear, wheels, and hydraulic disk brakes. The Kit has doors o
both sides. Spars are Ribs are predrilled and lightening holes flanged
Slepcev Storch MK4 - basic version of Storch is available in kit an
ready to fly version. Slepcev Storch has metal covered wings. It
J.A.R.-V.L.A certified.
Kit version is available; Slepcev Storch kit is ROTAX 912 ULS, 100h
engine suitable. Price is 28.850USD. Approximate time for assembling i
800 - 1000 hours.
Slepcev Storch Microlight is slightly smaller than Slepcev Storch. I
has fabric covered wings. Microlight is also available in kit or read
to fly version.
Storch Microlight kit is available, its Rotax 912 ULS, 100hp engin
suitable, colored in standard colors, or in color of your choice. Pric
is 28.850 USD. Approximate time for assembling is 700 - 900 hours.
Please let me know.
Best regards
Nestor Slepčev
--
Christopher
f***@spamcop.net
2006-05-28 19:43:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morgans
...
Did you see the HP rating for the VW engine they will sell you? THAT is a
good one! (joke, that is) A VW engine that is rated for 103 HP????????
..
Look again, Great Planes is claiming 120 HP:

http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html

As noted elsewhere in this thread, the conversion to liquid cooled
heads makes refering to it as a VW enigne questionable--sort of
like referring to a Lexus as a NIssan.

I don't see an estimate of total weight on that page, but it
seems that the power to weight ration may be a tad unrealistic.
--
FF
cavelamb
2006-05-28 21:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@spamcop.net
Post by Morgans
...
Did you see the HP rating for the VW engine they will sell you? THAT is a
good one! (joke, that is) A VW engine that is rated for 103 HP????????
..
http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html
As noted elsewhere in this thread, the conversion to liquid cooled
heads makes refering to it as a VW enigne questionable--sort of
like referring to a Lexus as a NIssan.
I don't see an estimate of total weight on that page, but it
seems that the power to weight ration may be a tad unrealistic.
or - that MTOH may be a bit short...
Morgans
2006-05-28 22:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@spamcop.net
http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html
As noted elsewhere in this thread, the conversion to liquid cooled
heads makes refering to it as a VW enigne questionable--sort of
like referring to a Lexus as a NIssan.
I don't see an estimate of total weight on that page, but it
seems that the power to weight ration may be a tad unrealistic.
Yep, and that has been scoffed upon by those better in the know than me. <g>

I can also get over 750 HP out of a Chevy 350. Only one catch. It will
blow up after about 6 hours. Is that what you want out of an airplane
engine?

Those kind of figures for a VW are about as realistic. Granted, the liquid
cooled head may help get sustainable HP up from a realistic 45 to a bit
more, but not that far, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC
Christopher
2006-05-28 23:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Having no experience with these modified VW engines myself I canno
defend their claims, nor can I deny them. Just thought I'd show wha
they have on their web site.

BTW: That 120 HP isn't sustained full power, just for takeoff

--
Christopher
cavelamb
2006-05-29 15:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Having no experience with these modified VW engines myself I cannot
defend their claims, nor can I deny them. Just thought I'd show what
they have on their web site.
BTW: That 120 HP isn't sustained full power, just for takeoff.
Having a great deal of VW experience, I can say with full confidence -
BullS%!t...
Christopher
2006-06-10 19:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Look at this list of VW engines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_discontinued_Volkswagen_engine

--
Christopher
Lou
2006-06-12 14:55:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by cavelamb
Having no experience with these modified VW engines myself I cannot
defend their claims, nor can I deny them. Just thought I'd show what
they have on their web site.
BTW: That 120 HP isn't sustained full power, just for takeoff.
Having a great deal of VW experience, I can say with full confidence -
BullS%!t...
I'm no expert, but I have been looking into different engines for my
plane over the years. If you take a stock VW and build it upto aircraft
ability, add whats needed for extra HP and through in a reduction drive
and radiator (filled), doesn't the weight come close to a corvair six
cylinder without all the extras? Wouldn't it also be a simpler design
with less to go wrong?
Lou
Christopher
2006-06-13 13:04:38 UTC
Permalink
I like that Corvair engine too, but I wonder if it can swing a 96 inc
prop. Many of the individuals who are excited about the 103 HP V
engine are happy with it because of the amount of thrust it can produc
swinging a big prop. Of course, most people don't want and don't need
prop that big, it causes the top end performance to suffer but fo
certain applications, wow.. some of those aircraft really hop off th
ground:

http://www.culverprops.com/back-yard-flyer.htm

The firewall forward package for this backyard flyer is a 2276cc V
engine, 2.47:1 PSRU. I am still looking for the weight figures for thi
engine.

[image: Loading Image...]
http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html

I wouldn't be as keen towards what I am seeing about this engine if i
wasn't for the huge prop it can handle and my specific need for extrem
STOL without high speed performance. I have been collecting links to a
many extreme STOL aircraft as I can find and have listed them in th
links section of the following yahoo group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Extreme_STOL - I am still undecided ove
which aircraft to build but I want something which has a takeoff rol
of 100 feet or less which will handle a large adult with room for on
average sized passenger. The CH 701 is too small, the STOL King look
good but so far I have not been able to find a second party (aside fro
the guy selling plans) who has built it to confirm the claime
performance

--
Christopher
Gig 601XL Builder
2006-06-13 16:15:21 UTC
Permalink
I think the prop weight might be too high with a 96" prop on a Corvair.
I like that Corvair engine too, but I wonder if it can swing a 96 inch
prop. Many of the individuals who are excited about the 103 HP VW
engine are happy with it because of the amount of thrust it can produce
swinging a big prop. Of course, most people don't want and don't need a
prop that big, it causes the top end performance to suffer but for
certain applications, wow.. some of those aircraft really hop off the
http://www.culverprops.com/back-yard-flyer.htm
The firewall forward package for this backyard flyer is a 2276cc VW
engine, 2.47:1 PSRU. I am still looking for the weight figures for this
engine.
[image: http://www.greatplainsas.com/lcred.jpeg]
http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html
I wouldn't be as keen towards what I am seeing about this engine if it
wasn't for the huge prop it can handle and my specific need for extreme
STOL without high speed performance. I have been collecting links to as
many extreme STOL aircraft as I can find and have listed them in the
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Extreme_STOL - I am still undecided over
which aircraft to build but I want something which has a takeoff roll
of 100 feet or less which will handle a large adult with room for one
average sized passenger. The CH 701 is too small, the STOL King looks
good but so far I have not been able to find a second party (aside from
the guy selling plans) who has built it to confirm the claimed
performance.
--
Christopher
Morgans
2006-06-13 18:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Many of the individuals who are excited about the 103 HP VW
engine are happy with it because of the amount of thrust it can produce
swinging a big prop.
Anyone trying to sell you a 100 HP VW is pulling your leg. (or your wallet)

Google "the Christmas Engine", with reference to this newsgroup.
--
Jim in NC
Christopher
2006-06-14 09:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Jim,

Have you worked with *this* specific liquid cooled engine (not ai
cooled like the original) to be qualified to continue your stamp o
disapproval and denial of both their and others test results for th
engine? No, then why insist otherwise?

I'm not selling the engine but I have had more than one real worl
source separate from the people who are selling this engine confir
that this specific configuration with new jugs that have vastl
increased cooling and other changes will produce over 100 HP. As I sai
before and you keep denying, this a different engine than the origina
and in truth is no longer a "VW" engine, see
http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html

[image: Loading Image...]
THE LCCH (LIQUID COOLED CYLINDER HEADS) HAVE BEEN UNDER DEVELOPMENT FO
THE LAST FIVE YEARS BY LIQUID COOLED ONE LLC. THEY HAVE BEEN DYN
TESTED AND CONTINUE TO BE DYNO TESTED ON A 2180CC GREAT PLAINS AIRCRAF
SPORT AIRCRAFT ENGINE. THE ACCOMPANYING HP/RPM CHART IS DIRECT FROM TH
STUSKA DYNAMOMETER.
I would give you more credit on this issue as a mechanic who has worke
on the original air cooled engine with different jugs but I have gone t
two other individuals who have actually tested *this* highly refined an
modified engine themselves who have also done thrust measurements whic
could never have been produced without the available HP

--
Christopher
Lou
2006-06-14 12:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Chris,
Have you come across the total weight? I can't seem to find it.
Lou
JP
2006-06-14 16:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Go to the main page http://www.greatplainsas.com and just above the picture
of a KR1 there's "Download 2006 Catalog Here".

Look page 7 (Reduction Drive & Rear Drive Engine Specifications) and you
will find following information:

Type 1 - Liquid Reduction 2180

Take off HP, RPM MAX 120 @ 4400
Continuous HP, RPM 84 @ 3200
Weight in Pounds 200

(The maximum allowed continuous power setting is 70%)

JP
Post by Lou
Chris,
Have you come across the total weight? I can't seem to find it.
Lou
cavelamb
2006-06-14 19:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by JP
Go to the main page http://www.greatplainsas.com and just above the picture
of a KR1 there's "Download 2006 Catalog Here".
Look page 7 (Reduction Drive & Rear Drive Engine Specifications) and you
Type 1 - Liquid Reduction 2180
Weight in Pounds 200
Oh, Horse Feathers...

If it's a VW core with liquid cooled heads - it AIN'T no type 1 VW.
It is quite something else...
More like a drag motor - fitted out with a prop reducer.

At 120 HP, I'll lay odds it will not last long either.
The VW head studs won't take that for long without pulling out of the case.

And - just for the record - my electric start 2180 Air Cooled type 1
engine weighed 208 pounds.

So, before was all get real excited....
Lou
2006-06-14 21:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Ok, Caveman, slow down before you lose another hair. I was very
interested in the total weight. If your 2180 is 208 and a corvair is
around the same I can't see myself going the VW route. A corvair can
get me 110 hp on 6 cyl. This has got to be a smoother engine for the
same weight.
Lou
cavelamb
2006-06-14 22:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lou
Ok, Caveman, slow down before you lose another hair. I was very
interested in the total weight. If your 2180 is 208 and a corvair is
around the same I can't see myself going the VW route. A corvair can
get me 110 hp on 6 cyl. This has got to be a smoother engine for the
same weight.
Lou
Yeah, Lou.

For 110 I'd rather try a Corvair too.
But I think it would last longer at 80-90.

I can't see the Corvair weighing any 208 pounds installed, either...
220 - 250, depending on what's involved. (Not a Pietenpol!)

Just my opinion.
as usual, YMMV...



Richard

(this message composed of 100% recycled electrons)
Christopher
2006-06-15 03:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Enough of that, lets move on, I made my point. Does anyone know if ther
are any other 100 HP engines which will turn a 96 inch wooden prop

--
Christopher
cavelamb
2006-06-15 20:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Enough of that, lets move on, I made my point. Does anyone know if there
are any other 100 HP engines which will turn a 96 inch wooden prop?
Rotax 912

Pricy, but a real contender.

http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/zac-rtx912.html
Morgans
2006-06-14 12:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Jim,
Have you worked with *this* specific liquid cooled engine (not air
cooled like the original) to be qualified to continue your stamp of
disapproval and denial of both their and others test results for the
engine? No, then why insist otherwise?
Hey, it's your butt. Go for it! Knock yourself out!

I wish you luck and long life.
--
Jim in NC
Morgans
2006-06-14 12:21:02 UTC
Permalink
THE LCCH (LIQUID COOLED CYLINDER HEADS) HAVE BEEN UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR
THE LAST FIVE YEARS BY LIQUID COOLED ONE LLC. THEY HAVE BEEN DYNO
TESTED AND CONTINUE TO BE DYNO TESTED ON A 2180CC GREAT PLAINS AIRCRAFT
SPORT AIRCRAFT ENGINE. THE ACCOMPANYING HP/RPM CHART IS DIRECT FROM THE
STUSKA DYNAMOMETER.
I would give you more credit on this issue as a mechanic who has worked
on the original air cooled engine with different jugs but I have gone to
two other individuals who have actually tested *this* highly refined and
modified engine themselves who have also done thrust measurements which
could never have been produced without the available HP.
Three questions.

1. How long is it capable of putting out the100 HP? That is important.

2. What HP level is it rated at, continuous.

3. What is it's TBO, given a cycle of 100 HP, cycled with the continuous
output?

I can make a weedeater engine put out 100 HP. How long it will do that is
another question. <g>
--
Jim in NC
Christopher
2006-06-15 02:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Jim,

Why do you persist, is your opinion attached to your ego? GO find th
information yourself, you don't want to listen to me

--
Christopher
Morgans
2006-06-15 11:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Jim,
Why do you persist, is your opinion attached to your ego? GO find the
information yourself, you don't want to listen to me.
I have. I believe it is you who is not listening.

The output of the engine is over-stated, and the durability will not prove
to be what you would hope for. It is simply too much power to pull out of
an engine of that displacement, to get aircraft durability. Other engine
manufacturers are doing the same type of thing, most notably some of the
soob engine converters.

Other people have stated that they do not believe in the stated claims of
HP.

There is no ego involved. If you want to use this engine, go ahead.
Honestly, good luck. I will not join you. Where is there any ego involved
in that?

This is the last I will post on this thread. Good luck. I hope that you
get wise, and listen and believe what I and others are saying.
--
Jim in NC
cavelamb
2006-06-15 20:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Jim,
Why do you persist, is your opinion attached to your ego? GO find the
information yourself, you don't want to listen to me.
I beleive Jim soemtimes reverts to retorical form as irony?

I listen to him - sometimes...

Who are you?

Richard

This message composed of 100% recycled electrons.
Christopher
2006-08-04 05:47:25 UTC
Permalink
I think Jim enjoys yanking peoples chains sometimes, especially when h
just might be right about that VW engine.....

I've done alot more research since this thread started and a regular V
engine won't last at that HP rating but I still can't find anythin
about this particular remake of the VW engine with new heads, liqui
cooling etc. etc. etc......

Anymore I am considering the Corvair or Jabiru.

Who AM I? An engineer in an unrelated field (I attach my ego to that
but not for piston engines, that's for sure!

BTW: I removed that post you quoted right after making it, seeing it a
too harsh and, well... stupid. However, emails of the posts still g
out.

Cheers!
Jim,
Why do you persist, is your opinion attached to your ego? GO find the
information yourself, you don't want to listen to me.
I beleive Jim soemtimes reverts to retorical form as irony?
I listen to him - sometimes...
Who are you?
Richard
This message composed of 100% recycled electrons
--
Christopher

f***@spamcop.net
2006-06-15 17:03:32 UTC
Permalink
...
I would give you more credit on this issue as a mechanic who has worked
on the original air cooled engine with different jugs but I have gone to
two other individuals who have actually tested *this* highly refined and
modified engine themselves who have also done thrust measurements which
could never have been produced without the available HP.
Can you ask them for hard numbers on the thrust they measured, the
horsepower they inferred from it, and the engine weight?

If the HP/weight ratio is similar to aircraft engines designed from
scratch then we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. A much
higher weight efficiency would seem improbable though.
--
FF
Jim Carriere
2006-06-15 18:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@spamcop.net
If the HP/weight ratio is similar to aircraft engines designed from
scratch then we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. A much
higher weight efficiency would seem improbable though.
Well... using the 120hp takeoff rating and 200lbs, 0.6 hp/lb sounds
right as a takeoff rating. 84hp continuous seems like good,
conservative engineering.

Comparable popular engines of similar output like the O-235 (approx
0.55hp/lb), 912 (between 0.55-0.65 hp/lb depending mostly on which
version, 80hp or 100hp), Jabiru 3300 (approx 0.65 hp/lb).

Now, the devil is in the details. I suspect "200lbs" does not include
the radiators and plumbing. In the catalog (6MB download), cited
earlier in this thread by JP, down at the bottom of page 7, there is a
note about the engine weight figures (note, they do include reduction
drive). Anyway, leaving off the radiator weights makes the power:weight
figures less optimistic and more believable.

I think the major reasons for the improved output are
1) the liquid cooling allows a higher compression ratio
2) improved heat dissipation over the well known cooling fin limitation
on VW heads

Just my thoughts. My VW experience is that I rode in a Bug once or twice :)
JP
2006-06-15 19:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Such liquid cooled cylinder heads offer some noteworthy benefits. I am not
still saying that they are perfect or that this is an optimum VW engine
solutions.

These liquid cooled heads are equipped with dual sparkplugs. That means, the
combustion process is initiated more rapidly and evenly. The engine in
question does have two separate electronic ignition systems. They are
superior to any conventional magneto ignition systems and much better than a
point ignition system. That is why the ignition spark is more powerful and
the matter comes back to the more rapid ignition process activation. I would
imagine the combustion pressure build-up to be smoother and the combustion
pressure to be higher. If so, then the smoother combustion may produce less
than average shock loads to the cylinder studs and to the cylinder block and
rotating parts in general. The combustion inside the cylinder is more
complete and that is why the exhaust gas temperatures most probably are
lower than usually seen, because less burning is taking place while the
exhaust gas is moving to the exhaust system. That is why the heat load to
the cylinder head exhaust ports is reduced (less head distortion load).

The liquid cooled cylinder head runs cooler compared to an air cooled
version. That is why the head is capable to absorb more efficiently heat
flow from the exhaust valves and the valve temperatures are reduced. This is
the major reason, why higher compression ratios can be used. That is also
the reason, why more power can be taken out of the engine compared to the
air (oil) cooled standard version. The liquid cooled head also absorbs more
efficiently heat from the spark plugs, thus reducing (together with those
reduced exhaust valve temperatures) a risk of pre-ignition under high power
settings. The risk of detonation is reduced thanks to the dual spark plugs.
This gives a possibility to increase ignition timing in order to get more
power reliably. A cooler cylinder head may even act as a heat sink taking
heat energy out of a cylinder barrel top part.

Possibly there's even more explanations but these are the ideas surfacing
right now.

JP
Post by Jim Carriere
I think the major reasons for the improved output are
1) the liquid cooling allows a higher compression ratio
2) improved heat dissipation over the well known cooling fin limitation on
VW heads
JP
2006-06-15 19:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Correction to my earlier message:

Of course the more efficient combustion makes it possible to REDUCE the
ignition timing setting if preferred and this gives more safety margin.

Sorry about this lapse

JP
Post by JP
Such liquid cooled cylinder heads offer some noteworthy benefits. I am not
still saying that they are perfect or that this is an optimum VW engine
solutions.
These liquid cooled heads are equipped with dual sparkplugs. That means,
the combustion process is initiated more rapidly and evenly. The engine in
question does have two separate electronic ignition systems. They are
superior to any conventional magneto ignition systems and much better than
a point ignition system. That is why the ignition spark is more powerful
and the matter comes back to the more rapid ignition process activation. I
would imagine the combustion pressure build-up to be smoother and the
combustion pressure to be higher. If so, then the smoother combustion may
produce less than average shock loads to the cylinder studs and to the
cylinder block and rotating parts in general. The combustion inside the
cylinder is more complete and that is why the exhaust gas temperatures
most probably are lower than usually seen, because less burning is taking
place while the exhaust gas is moving to the exhaust system. That is why
the heat load to the cylinder head exhaust ports is reduced (less head
distortion load).
The liquid cooled cylinder head runs cooler compared to an air cooled
version. That is why the head is capable to absorb more efficiently heat
flow from the exhaust valves and the valve temperatures are reduced. This
is the major reason, why higher compression ratios can be used. That is
also the reason, why more power can be taken out of the engine compared to
the air (oil) cooled standard version. The liquid cooled head also absorbs
more efficiently heat from the spark plugs, thus reducing (together with
those reduced exhaust valve temperatures) a risk of pre-ignition under
high power settings. The risk of detonation is reduced thanks to the dual
spark plugs. This gives a possibility to increase ignition timing in order
to get more power reliably. A cooler cylinder head may even act as a heat
sink taking heat energy out of a cylinder barrel top part.
Possibly there's even more explanations but these are the ideas surfacing
right now.
JP
Post by Jim Carriere
I think the major reasons for the improved output are
1) the liquid cooling allows a higher compression ratio
2) improved heat dissipation over the well known cooling fin limitation
on VW heads
cavelamb
2006-06-15 20:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Carriere
Post by f***@spamcop.net
If the HP/weight ratio is similar to aircraft engines designed from
scratch then we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. A much
higher weight efficiency would seem improbable though.
Well... using the 120hp takeoff rating and 200lbs, 0.6 hp/lb sounds
right as a takeoff rating. 84hp continuous seems like good,
conservative engineering.
Comparable popular engines of similar output like the O-235 (approx
0.55hp/lb), 912 (between 0.55-0.65 hp/lb depending mostly on which
version, 80hp or 100hp), Jabiru 3300 (approx 0.65 hp/lb).
Now, the devil is in the details. I suspect "200lbs" does not include
the radiators and plumbing. In the catalog (6MB download), cited
earlier in this thread by JP, down at the bottom of page 7, there is a
note about the engine weight figures (note, they do include reduction
drive). Anyway, leaving off the radiator weights makes the power:weight
figures less optimistic and more believable.
I think the major reasons for the improved output are
1) the liquid cooling allows a higher compression ratio
2) improved heat dissipation over the well known cooling fin limitation
on VW heads
Just my thoughts. My VW experience is that I rode in a Bug once or twice :)
A couple of points..

An engineer or designer would want to know the weight of the item by itself.
The rest is installation weight, and we'll weight them all up separately too.
Which will give not only the total weight, but the combined CG as well.

As for the improved output, don't forget that these ARE geared engines,
(weight of box included or not).


Richard

This message composed of 100% recycled electrons.
Christopher
2006-05-28 23:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Having no experience with these modified VW engines myself I canno
defend their claims, nor can I deny them. Just thought I'd show wha
they have on their web site.

BTW: That 120 HP isn't sustained full power, just for takeoff.

IMO I wouldn't call it a VW engine anymore, not with all of th
modifications they have done to it. The size of the jugs and all of th
changes to the original engine determines the power rating of th
engine, not the crank shaft. That is, assuming both it and the othe
original components can take the increased stresses

--
Christopher
Rob S.
2006-05-27 06:40:07 UTC
Permalink
I realize you may have your heart set on a certain type of construction or a
certain look (many people do), but if it's the performance you're looking for
why not take a look at something like this: www.sport-flight.com

This is admittedly a shameless plug, but there are others out there as well
(have to find those on your own). Kit price is about $9000 less, and they have
a track record.

Rob
I also bought the plans for the STOL King but haven't received them yet.
Although the general specs on this aircraft are enough for me to want to
build one I have tried to get more detailed information about this
aircrafts performance by emailing Preceptor aircraft twice and they
will not respond other than to say thank you for the email and that
they will get back with me later. Phone calls to their number only
takes me to an answering machine telling me to call back at 2 PM.
Doesn't matter, I prefer finding someone independent of them who has
built this aircraft themselves to answer the questions anyway.
Their specs say this aircraft will take off in 50 feet but no mention
of whether the aircraft is lightly loaded or at gross weight or even
which engine is needed for this performance. How about stall speed?
Their specs say 15 MPH, I assume that is with power on and full flaps,
anyone know?
Also, I found these numbers for the aircraft which differ by a large
http://tinyurl.com/n4m6v
STOL King — (Preceptor Aircraft Corp.); monoplane, high; conventional
gear; 75-120; empty wt: 675 lbs; gross wt: 1500 lbs; fabric, tubing;
seats: 2; plans: none; kit price: $17,000
Obviously, this is an old spec because their kit is now 25 thousand
dollars but why would the specs change, just to meet LSA or is the
airframe much lighter now? Is there anyone here who knows anything
about the real world performance of this plane?
http://www.preceptoraircraft.com/STOL%20King.htm
If anyone else is researching this I am putting links to all of the
sites I can find about the STOL King and or Storch homebuilts plus a
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Extreme_STOL - there is no activity there
but the links section of the group is full of lots of different
homebuilt aircraft which will take off and land in 300 feet or less
which is growing and may be helpful to others like myself who are
deciding on which extreme STOL aircraft to build.
I have tried to get the opinion of CPotter (post above) and although
very friendly and helpful in every other way he is reluctant to guess
on the performance figures I am looking for because his project isn't
finished yet. Anyone know someone who has one flying right now and how
to contact them ?
JP
2006-05-28 10:07:09 UTC
Permalink
There is also this nice looking Australian kit aircraft Hornet STOL
developed by the Australian Aircraft Kits. Required building time seems to
be quite reasonable.
I don't know is it included in any link sections somewhere.

http://www.aircraftkits.com.au/index.htm

JP
If anyone else is researching this I am putting links to all of the
sites I can find about the STOL King and or Storch homebuilts plus a
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Extreme_STOL - there is no activity there
but the links section of the group is full of lots of different
homebuilt aircraft which will take off and land in 300 feet or less
which is growing and may be helpful to others like myself who are
deciding on which extreme STOL aircraft to build.
Christopher
2006-05-28 23:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Having no experience with these modified VW engines myself I canno
defend their claims, nor can I deny them. Just thought I'd show wha
they have on their web site.

BTW: That 120 HP isn't sustained full power, just for takeoff.

IMO I wouldn't call it a VW engine anymore, not with all of th
modifications they have done to it. The size of the jugs and all of th
changes to the original engine (including vastly increased cooling
determines the power rating of the engine, not the crank shaft. Tha
is, assuming both it and the other original components, what ever i
left of them, can take the increased stresses

--
Christopher
Del Rawlins
2004-11-21 01:16:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:53:06 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
Post by Gig Giacona
Post by Lou Parker
Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
http://www.sky-rider.net/
That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.
Why, so their respective lawyers can get rich?

====================================================
Del Rawlins-- ***@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply
jls
2004-11-21 00:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@sny.der.on.ca
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:53:06 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
Post by Gig Giacona
Post by Lou Parker
Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
http://www.sky-rider.net/
That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.
Why, so their respective lawyers can get rich?
The reason why no one has filed a lawsuit in such a case, aside from Deldo's
argument that lawyers shouldn't be allowed to make a living, is that an
aircraft's unique looks are not proprietary. Its name might be but not its
appearance.

Remember how H-D tried like hell, but in vain, to get an exclusive on the
sound of its engines? They needn't have worried. Every once in a while I
see a bike looking to be a Harley but the cheap shape of the breather cover
and the tenor farting of its engine always give it away as a piece of crap
from the orient.
Shelly
2004-11-19 19:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.
Hi,
Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries from
the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
TIA
Mike
Pegazair - we're scratchbuilding from plans.
(http://www.tapanee.com/)

Shelly
Charlie
2004-11-19 23:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.
Hi,
Looking for a STOL project to construct from plans. Was considering the
Preceptor STOL King, but have not received any answers to my enquiries from
the designer. Any other suggestions or references?
TIA
Mike
Is the Bearhawk too big? It's an impressive plane, both in its specs &
in person. 4 seats or the new 2 seat version.

http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com/

Charlie
M.
2004-11-21 19:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Thanks everybody for the input. I'm seriously looking at the Pegazair 100,
I't appears to have all the features that I'm looking for. I'll keep the
group posted on my descision, and I guess details of when I commence my
build.

Again, thank you all for your input

Mike Karsten
Invercargill
New Zealand
n***@sny.der.on.ca
2004-11-21 21:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.
Thanks everybody for the input. I'm seriously looking at the Pegazair 100,
I't appears to have all the features that I'm looking for. I'll keep the
group posted on my descision, and I guess details of when I commence my
build.
Again, thank you all for your input
Mike Karsten
Invercargill
New Zealand
The beauty of the peg (over the Zen 701) is the chrome moly fuselage,
which means no "oil canning" and better surviveability and
repairability in case of a "hard landing". With the automatic slats it
is a bit faster on the same horsepower, and it is designed for a
greater FWF weight (300 lb limit) so a "real" aircraft engine can be
installed without making it into a single seater.

I was seriously thinking 701 a few years back (with a Soob) but I
found the soob was too heavy for my thinking on that plane - and the
Peg was a "similar mission".
pete
2004-11-27 20:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Before you decide, check out this site:
http://bearhawkpatrol.tripod.com/
Takes off in under 250' and has a useful load of around 1000 lbs. Plans
build, tube and fabric with a aluminum wing. Uses 150 to 180 HP engine. Two
seat, tandem. It's a smaller version of this:
http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com/

Peter
Post by n***@sny.der.on.ca
Post by M.
Thanks everybody for the input. I'm seriously looking at the Pegazair 100,
I't appears to have all the features that I'm looking for. I'll keep the
group posted on my descision, and I guess details of when I commence my
build.
Again, thank you all for your input
Mike Karsten
Invercargill
New Zealand
The beauty of the peg (over the Zen 701) is the chrome moly fuselage,
which means no "oil canning" and better surviveability and
repairability in case of a "hard landing". With the automatic slats it
is a bit faster on the same horsepower, and it is designed for a
greater FWF weight (300 lb limit) so a "real" aircraft engine can be
installed without making it into a single seater.
I was seriously thinking 701 a few years back (with a Soob) but I
found the soob was too heavy for my thinking on that plane - and the
Peg was a "similar mission".
c***@rushmore.com
2005-01-03 04:37:58 UTC
Permalink
I am currently building a STOL King. I have a web site at
http://www.blackhillsairsports.com/STOL_King_Intro2.html
Morgans
2005-01-03 07:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@rushmore.com
I am currently building a STOL King. I have a web site at
http://www.blackhillsairsports.com/STOL_King_Intro2.html
Nice web content, but you really need to make your buttons labels bigger,
and with a total change of colors. The contrast is terrible. Sorry.
karel
2005-01-03 11:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morgans
Post by c***@rushmore.com
I am currently building a STOL King. I have a web site at
http://www.blackhillsairsports.com/STOL_King_Intro2.html
Nice web content, but you really need to make your buttons labels bigger,
and with a total change of colors. The contrast is terrible. Sorry.
While I agree that the buttons could be clearer,
worse to me is the dates formatted the US way.
I won't argue about this format being illogical
because it's largely a question of habit,
but would suggest you write dates like January 3rd, 2005
which is at least not open to misinterpretation.

Also, for myself I should be glad for some more info
on your workshop. It does look very neat!
I am at the point of starting my own
and wonder about dimensions, insulation, and much more.

Good luck!
KA
Loading...