main@Q-List.groups.io | q-1 with rotax 503

Home Guidelines Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Date Date 1 - 20 of 21

q-1 with rotax 503

jan <jany77@...> #26990 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks
More All Messages By This Member
Jon Finley <jon@...> #26991 It depends on how hard you are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph. Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close. Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of jan Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks
More
Jan Safranek <jany77@...> #26992 thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the speed increased Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph. Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close. Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of jan Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks
More All Messages By This Member
Jon Finley <jon@...> #26995 Jan, A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is definitely worth talking to about this. Jon toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the speed increased Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph. Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close. Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of jan Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links
More
Jan Safranek <jany77@...> #26996 thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for parts details then spend on building Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan, A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is definitely worth talking to about this. Jon toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the speed increased Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph. Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close. Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of jan Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links
More All Messages By This Member
Jon Finley <jon@...> #26998 Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no more expense than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to eliminate the heavy stuff. Some more info on this at: http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx Tom Solan's airplane at: http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html Jon toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for parts details then spend on building Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan, A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is definitely worth talking to about this. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the speed increased Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph. Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close. Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of jan Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links
More
Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...> #27008 Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's. The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit manufactorer) to 22 HP. Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP. Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch wider), other than that it is a bolt on. Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it works the same). You however still will get a flat head. A couple of points on that. 1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a 2 stroke. 2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine. Take a pick on what you prefere. The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close as possible from the original plans. There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out now, that might be a very interesting option. Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at 3600 RPM. That one can be direct driven. As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan. There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again, you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power. I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1, that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it. Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works. A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft building. Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but engines are themselves a completely different animal. My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no more expense than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to eliminate the heavy stuff. Some more info on this at: http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx Tom Solan's airplane at: http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html Jon toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for parts details then spend on building Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan, A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is definitely worth talking to about this. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the speed increased Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph. Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close. Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of jan Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
More
Tri-Q1 <rryan@...> #27009 A full VW engine is a simple and perfect match for the Q1. 800+fpm climb, 130+mph cruise, 3.6gph fuel use. Super visibility. Ryan http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q1_Aircraft <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q1_Aircraft> --- In Q-LIST@..., Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...> wrote: Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's. The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit manufactorer) to 22 HP. Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP. Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch wider), other than that it is a bolt on. Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it works the same). You however still will get a flat head. A couple of points on that. 1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a 2 stroke. 2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine. Take a pick on what you prefere. The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close as possible from the original plans. There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out now, that might be a very interesting option. Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at 3600 RPM. That one can be direct driven. As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan. There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again, you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power. I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1, that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it. Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works. A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft building. Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but engines are themselves a completely different animal. My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly. Jon Finley jon@... wrote: Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no more expense than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to eliminate the heavy stuff. Some more info on this at: http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx Tom Solan's airplane at: http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for parts details then spend on building Jon Finley jon@... wrote: Jan, A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is definitely worth talking to about this. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the speed increased Jon Finley jon@... wrote: It depends on how hard you are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph. Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close. Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of jan Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
More All Messages By This Member
Jon Finley <jon@...> #27010 Whoa there Roger, where in the world did the following bit of "fact" come from??? I would certainly agree that a 4 cyl VW is not ideal. However; having flowing behind one in a Q1 for some 300 hours, I would have to say that you need to recheck your information as it is far from accurate. "As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan." Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Isaksson Roger Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:37 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's. The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit manufactorer) to 22 HP. Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP. Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch wider), other than that it is a bolt on. Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it works the same). You however still will get a flat head. A couple of points on that. 1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a 2 stroke. 2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine. Take a pick on what you prefere. The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close as possible from the original plans. There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out now, that might be a very interesting option. Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at 3600 RPM. That one can be direct driven. As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan. There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again, you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power. I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1, that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it. Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works. A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft building. Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but engines are themselves a completely different animal. My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no more expense than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to eliminate the heavy stuff. Some more info on this at: http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx Tom Solan's airplane at: http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for parts details then spend on building Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan, A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is definitely worth talking to about this. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the speed increased Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph. Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close. Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of jan Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links
More
Jan Safranek <jany77@...> #27011 looks like i sterted war here ,ok then ill ask different way what is the best choise of engine for quickie q-1 thanks Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Whoa there Roger, where in the world did the following bit of "fact" come from??? I would certainly agree that a 4 cyl VW is not ideal. However; having flowing behind one in a Q1 for some 300 hours, I would have to say that you need to recheck your information as it is far from accurate. "As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan." Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Isaksson Roger Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:37 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's. The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit manufactorer) to 22 HP. Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP. Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch wider), other than that it is a bolt on. Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it works the same). You however still will get a flat head. A couple of points on that. 1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a 2 stroke. 2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine. Take a pick on what you prefere. The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close as possible from the original plans. There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out now, that might be a very interesting option. Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at 3600 RPM. That one can be direct driven. As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan. There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again, you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power. I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1, that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it. Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works. A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft building. Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but engines are themselves a completely different animal. My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no more expense than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to eliminate the heavy stuff. Some more info on this at: http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx Tom Solan's airplane at: http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for parts details then spend on building Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan, A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is definitely worth talking to about this. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the speed increased Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph. Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close. Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of jan Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links
More All Messages By This Member
Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...> #27016 Sorry, one like one engine and another one proffesses another one. True, the VW have been flown, and you have had as I can see a positive experience with it, in the Q1. I didnt say it can't be done, you got 130 MPH , Onan should be around 110-115, of course that is a difference, but not too much. Climb, you got some really good figures, way better then the Onan, but I assume you sacrified in stall, and landing speed, with that heavier package instead. I'm not arguing or starting a war here, as some suggested, a whole or a half VW have been flown as I said, for better or for worse. The VW in itself is probably one of the most used engines flown in many kitplanes, and the engine have been developed and refined over the years to an excellent kitplane choice. The Q1, with it's size weight and configuration can't take too many engines that will fit in the aircraft body siluette. 2 strokes have been used , but even though the 2 stroke have a very compact size, the "around" things, usually takes more space and weight than it's worth. Tuned exhausts and intakes that many times are barrel like, reduction gears, and an awful "ringa ding...ding...ding..." exhaust sound. 2 cyl 4 strokes (like the Onan) needs to be balanced, externally, (Onan that came from the kit plane manufacturer when the Q1 kit was sold, had a little extra weight on one end of the prop flange). 4 cyl 4 strokes like the full VW run with all it's power pulses close enough that smooth running can happen. There just isn't any ideal engine for the Q1. Ideal would be a 4 cylinder box type 4 cycle aircooled that is small enough. VW either a half (2 cyl)or a whole (4cyl), is wider then the aircraft design, and I presume that if you are willing to go beyond the design limists, (many have, as I can see you have done successfully) , this is an option. You WILL however enter into the equation much more then many are prepared to deal with. Myself I have spend a lot of time looking for engine options other than the Onan, and the pickings are pretty slim, if you want to stay with reasonable weight and dimensions, and still get at least reasonable power. The current VW engine is the last in line of the developed VW engines, and they grew larger as they went. The smallest VW the 1100 was an engine (no parts are interchangeable with the 1600 engine, the basis of the current VW "kitplane engine") I looked into first, but even there the weight and size was too much. There are some military surplus engines that are very interesting, one the 4A032 is a neat and small four cyl aircooled fourstroke. I did a lot of bench testing and devlopment on that engine, until I realized, that it was just too small, you can't get a lot of power out of 32 cu inch, even if it looked like an airplane engine. Best was a fraction over 17 HP. By design it was very hard to do a bore and stroke, so it remained a good looking engine, that's all. Bigger size military surplus engines , like the 4AO84 is about the same size as the VW 1100. That comes in a half engine size, the 2AO42, but we're back to an engine that sticks out, as the dimensions in width is the same, using the same cylinders and cylinderheads on the 2 and 4 cyl version. According to some old reports I read long ago, one of the first Q1's had an 4AO84, and broke some kind of record with it. The problem seems to be, that if you are looking for an engine of thie size and weight close to what the original Onan had, but are looking for a bit more power, you will not get into a 4 cyl arrangement, but have to look for something that is 2 cyl, with that you get the width problem. One possible solution, however, way over my financial possibility, could be to take a bored and stroked VW, engine, and arrange a flat head instead of over head valves. That would : 1. Decrease the weight 2. Decrease very much the width. 3. Exhaust can be routed straight down, 4. Intake can be made into an updraft. 5. Maintain 4 cyl even spread power pulses There is one engine that is next on my investigation, it's a somewhat rare engine, 4 cyl 4 stroke opposed. Thre is an engine called 4AO53. A 53 cu inch over head valve, originally sitting in the Military Mule under production by Willis, the engine turned out to be a problem, but with todays fuel delivery and ignition sytems, this can be tamed. I should be able to get in the vicinity of 27 HP, have the weight and size close to the original airplane design, (and I get the looks of a "real" airplane engine). I get back about this as soon as I know better on this thing. I need to get hold of a run out core, take it to my work bench and dissect it. It might be another dead end, if there are no thrust bearings, or too much machinery on the engine for it to take gyroscopic effect. One of the biggest traps in airplanes as well as the neighbours BMW, it is an urge to get heavier and more powerful engine all the time. Needed or not. A Piper Cub flies just about as well on an 80 as a 100 Hp engine, but we jut goooota have the 100 HP. Sure we can bolt on a full VW up front , it will fly, (for better or for worse) , nothing wrong with that per see, but I will ask you to consider in the context that I answered the question. There was a person that had an inquire about a suitable engine, for his Q1. I just wouldnt recommend that he hang one of those things up front. The experience of anyone on this board is very hard to know just from reading a letter, and in general I would say that the closer to the design you are the better chance of success. A 60 Cu inch Onan is close to a bolt on operation, some of the new V engines offered by engine manfacturers, will get more power, and might stay ( get measurements and weight before you buy) within acceptable weight and size limits. When you have to cut a hole in the side of aircraft, just to fit a cylinder, Move a firewall just to get the balance straight, you know you got a monster in there and it's beyond the design. Again nothing wrong with that, but for general purposes, stick with the plans. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Whoa there Roger, where in the world did the following bit of "fact" come from??? I would certainly agree that a 4 cyl VW is not ideal. However; having flowing behind one in a Q1 for some 300 hours, I would have to say that you need to recheck your information as it is far from accurate. "As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan." Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Isaksson Roger Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:37 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's. The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit manufactorer) to 22 HP. Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP. Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch wider), other than that it is a bolt on. Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it works the same). You however still will get a flat head. A couple of points on that. 1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a 2 stroke. 2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine. Take a pick on what you prefere. The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close as possible from the original plans. There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out now, that might be a very interesting option. Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at 3600 RPM. That one can be direct driven. As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan. There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again, you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power. I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1, that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it. Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works. A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft building. Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but engines are themselves a completely different animal. My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no more expense than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to eliminate the heavy stuff. Some more info on this at: http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx Tom Solan's airplane at: http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for parts details then spend on building Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan, A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is definitely worth talking to about this. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the speed increased Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph. Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close. Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of jan Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
More
Jon Finley <jon@...> #27017 130 MPH with the 1835cc VW, where did you get that number??? Jon toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Isaksson Roger Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:58 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Sorry, one like one engine and another one proffesses another one. True, the VW have been flown, and you have had as I can see a positive experience with it, in the Q1. I didnt say it can't be done, you got 130 MPH , Onan should be around 110-115, of course that is a difference, but not too much. Climb, you got some really good figures, way better then the Onan, but I assume you sacrified in stall, and landing speed, with that heavier package instead. I'm not arguing or starting a war here, as some suggested, a whole or a half VW have been flown as I said, for better or for worse. The VW in itself is probably one of the most used engines flown in many kitplanes, and the engine have been developed and refined over the years to an excellent kitplane choice. The Q1, with it's size weight and configuration can't take too many engines that will fit in the aircraft body siluette. 2 strokes have been used , but even though the 2 stroke have a very compact size, the "around" things, usually takes more space and weight than it's worth. Tuned exhausts and intakes that many times are barrel like, reduction gears, and an awful "ringa ding...ding...ding..." exhaust sound. 2 cyl 4 strokes (like the Onan) needs to be balanced, externally, (Onan that came from the kit plane manufacturer when the Q1 kit was sold, had a little extra weight on one end of the prop flange). 4 cyl 4 strokes like the full VW run with all it's power pulses close enough that smooth running can happen. There just isn't any ideal engine for the Q1. Ideal would be a 4 cylinder box type 4 cycle aircooled that is small enough. VW either a half (2 cyl)or a whole (4cyl), is wider then the aircraft design, and I presume that if you are willing to go beyond the design limists, (many have, as I can see you have done successfully) , this is an option. You WILL however enter into the equation much more then many are prepared to deal with. Myself I have spend a lot of time looking for engine options other than the Onan, and the pickings are pretty slim, if you want to stay with reasonable weight and dimensions, and still get at least reasonable power. The current VW engine is the last in line of the developed VW engines, and they grew larger as they went. The smallest VW the 1100 was an engine (no parts are interchangeable with the 1600 engine, the basis of the current VW "kitplane engine") I looked into first, but even there the weight and size was too much. There are some military surplus engines that are very interesting, one the 4A032 is a neat and small four cyl aircooled fourstroke. I did a lot of bench testing and devlopment on that engine, until I realized, that it was just too small, you can't get a lot of power out of 32 cu inch, even if it looked like an airplane engine. Best was a fraction over 17 HP. By design it was very hard to do a bore and stroke, so it remained a good looking engine, that's all. Bigger size military surplus engines , like the 4AO84 is about the same size as the VW 1100. That comes in a half engine size, the 2AO42, but we're back to an engine that sticks out, as the dimensions in width is the same, using the same cylinders and cylinderheads on the 2 and 4 cyl version. According to some old reports I read long ago, one of the first Q1's had an 4AO84, and broke some kind of record with it. The problem seems to be, that if you are looking for an engine of thie size and weight close to what the original Onan had, but are looking for a bit more power, you will not get into a 4 cyl arrangement, but have to look for something that is 2 cyl, with that you get the width problem. One possible solution, however, way over my financial possibility, could be to take a bored and stroked VW, engine, and arrange a flat head instead of over head valves. That would : 1. Decrease the weight 2. Decrease very much the width. 3. Exhaust can be routed straight down, 4. Intake can be made into an updraft. 5. Maintain 4 cyl even spread power pulses There is one engine that is next on my investigation, it's a somewhat rare engine, 4 cyl 4 stroke opposed. Thre is an engine called 4AO53. A 53 cu inch over head valve, originally sitting in the Military Mule under production by Willis, the engine turned out to be a problem, but with todays fuel delivery and ignition sytems, this can be tamed. I should be able to get in the vicinity of 27 HP, have the weight and size close to the original airplane design, (and I get the looks of a "real" airplane engine). I get back about this as soon as I know better on this thing. I need to get hold of a run out core, take it to my work bench and dissect it. It might be another dead end, if there are no thrust bearings, or too much machinery on the engine for it to take gyroscopic effect. One of the biggest traps in airplanes as well as the neighbours BMW, it is an urge to get heavier and more powerful engine all the time. Needed or not. A Piper Cub flies just about as well on an 80 as a 100 Hp engine, but we jut goooota have the 100 HP. Sure we can bolt on a full VW up front , it will fly, (for better or for worse) , nothing wrong with that per see, but I will ask you to consider in the context that I answered the question. There was a person that had an inquire about a suitable engine, for his Q1. I just wouldnt recommend that he hang one of those things up front. The experience of anyone on this board is very hard to know just from reading a letter, and in general I would say that the closer to the design you are the better chance of success. A 60 Cu inch Onan is close to a bolt on operation, some of the new V engines offered by engine manfacturers, will get more power, and might stay ( get measurements and weight before you buy) within acceptable weight and size limits. When you have to cut a hole in the side of aircraft, just to fit a cylinder, Move a firewall just to get the balance straight, you know you got a monster in there and it's beyond the design. Again nothing wrong with that, but for general purposes, stick with the plans. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Whoa there Roger, where in the world did the following bit of "fact" come from??? I would certainly agree that a 4 cyl VW is not ideal. However; having flowing behind one in a Q1 for some 300 hours, I would have to say that you need to recheck your information as it is far from accurate. "As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan." Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Isaksson Roger Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:37 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's. The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit manufactorer) to 22 HP. Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP. Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch wider), other than that it is a bolt on. Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it works the same). You however still will get a flat head. A couple of points on that. 1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a 2 stroke. 2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine. Take a pick on what you prefere. The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close as possible from the original plans. There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out now, that might be a very interesting option. Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at 3600 RPM. That one can be direct driven. As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan. There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again, you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power. I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1, that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it. Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works. A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft building. Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but engines are themselves a completely different animal. My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no more expense than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to eliminate the heavy stuff. Some more info on this at: http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx Tom Solan's airplane at: http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for parts details then spend on building Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan, A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is definitely worth talking to about this. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the speed increased Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph. Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close. Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of jan Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links
More
denpau@... #27021 Isaksson Roger said, "Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's." "The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close as possible from the original plans." "My opinion, (take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly." _____________________________________________________________________________ I have the 48 Cu inch Onan in my Quickie, with some mods (mikuni carb, reground cam, dual ignition, firewall mounted remote oil filter, cooling air ducted under and around the cylinders, to cool the exhaust side first, as Onan does from the factory. Part of the air is directed around the oil sump for low oil temps. I had thoughts of getting the 60 cube Onan later for the extra power. BUT ! ! ! ! ! All of the internet sites that I have visited that sell this type (industrial) of engine report that Onan has stopped making the flat head engine and there are none available. Maybe there are a few to be found some where, but it might take some searching. The Jabiru looks great, but I'm not rich. Dennis
More
DENNIS GONZALEZ <edge540gas@...> #27022 do you have a picture of the 60 c.i. engine, I have a couple of onan engines that I don't know what they are, it might help ya......... Dennis in S. Fla. "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Leonardo da Vinci. the ingenious-eer toggle quoted message Show quoted text ----- Original Message ---- From: "denpau@..." <denpau@...> To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:10:37 AM Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Isaksson Roger said, "Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's." "The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close as possible from the original plans." "My opinion, (take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly." ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _ I have the 48 Cu inch Onan in my Quickie, with some mods (mikuni carb, reground cam, dual ignition, firewall mounted remote oil filter, cooling air ducted under and around the cylinders, to cool the exhaust side first, as Onan does from the factory. Part of the air is directed around the oil sump for low oil temps. I had thoughts of getting the 60 cube Onan later for the extra power. BUT ! ! ! ! ! All of the internet sites that I have visited that sell this type (industrial) of engine report that Onan has stopped making the flat head engine and there are none available. Maybe there are a few to be found some where, but it might take some searching. The Jabiru looks great, but I'm not rich. Dennis ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
More
denpau@... #27025 I don't have a picture but I assume it is slightly larger than the 48 cube Onan. There should be identifying numbers on the engines. If I remember correctly "B48M" identifies the smaller engine. Dennis of Georgia once upon a time: Dennis of Homestead Florida
More
Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...> #27026 Just go back a couple of posts and read "Ryan" and read his data, "130mph cruise.." .........."1835cc", what makes you introduce that number?, we have only said ""VW," ....no... just pestering you now . :) We can probably agree to that when mankind have master the secret of gravity and can control it, we dont need VW's, Onans or wings. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: 130 MPH with the 1835cc VW, where did you get that number??? Jon toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Isaksson Roger Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:58 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Sorry, one like one engine and another one proffesses another one. True, the VW have been flown, and you have had as I can see a positive experience with it, in the Q1. I didnt say it can't be done, you got 130 MPH , Onan should be around 110-115, of course that is a difference, but not too much. Climb, you got some really good figures, way better then the Onan, but I assume you sacrified in stall, and landing speed, with that heavier package instead. I'm not arguing or starting a war here, as some suggested, a whole or a half VW have been flown as I said, for better or for worse. The VW in itself is probably one of the most used engines flown in many kitplanes, and the engine have been developed and refined over the years to an excellent kitplane choice. The Q1, with it's size weight and configuration can't take too many engines that will fit in the aircraft body siluette. 2 strokes have been used , but even though the 2 stroke have a very compact size, the "around" things, usually takes more space and weight than it's worth. Tuned exhausts and intakes that many times are barrel like, reduction gears, and an awful "ringa ding...ding...ding..." exhaust sound. 2 cyl 4 strokes (like the Onan) needs to be balanced, externally, (Onan that came from the kit plane manufacturer when the Q1 kit was sold, had a little extra weight on one end of the prop flange). 4 cyl 4 strokes like the full VW run with all it's power pulses close enough that smooth running can happen. There just isn't any ideal engine for the Q1. Ideal would be a 4 cylinder box type 4 cycle aircooled that is small enough. VW either a half (2 cyl)or a whole (4cyl), is wider then the aircraft design, and I presume that if you are willing to go beyond the design limists, (many have, as I can see you have done successfully) , this is an option. You WILL however enter into the equation much more then many are prepared to deal with. Myself I have spend a lot of time looking for engine options other than the Onan, and the pickings are pretty slim, if you want to stay with reasonable weight and dimensions, and still get at least reasonable power. The current VW engine is the last in line of the developed VW engines, and they grew larger as they went. The smallest VW the 1100 was an engine (no parts are interchangeable with the 1600 engine, the basis of the current VW "kitplane engine") I looked into first, but even there the weight and size was too much. There are some military surplus engines that are very interesting, one the 4A032 is a neat and small four cyl aircooled fourstroke. I did a lot of bench testing and devlopment on that engine, until I realized, that it was just too small, you can't get a lot of power out of 32 cu inch, even if it looked like an airplane engine. Best was a fraction over 17 HP. By design it was very hard to do a bore and stroke, so it remained a good looking engine, that's all. Bigger size military surplus engines , like the 4AO84 is about the same size as the VW 1100. That comes in a half engine size, the 2AO42, but we're back to an engine that sticks out, as the dimensions in width is the same, using the same cylinders and cylinderheads on the 2 and 4 cyl version. According to some old reports I read long ago, one of the first Q1's had an 4AO84, and broke some kind of record with it. The problem seems to be, that if you are looking for an engine of thie size and weight close to what the original Onan had, but are looking for a bit more power, you will not get into a 4 cyl arrangement, but have to look for something that is 2 cyl, with that you get the width problem. One possible solution, however, way over my financial possibility, could be to take a bored and stroked VW, engine, and arrange a flat head instead of over head valves. That would : 1. Decrease the weight 2. Decrease very much the width. 3. Exhaust can be routed straight down, 4. Intake can be made into an updraft. 5. Maintain 4 cyl even spread power pulses There is one engine that is next on my investigation, it's a somewhat rare engine, 4 cyl 4 stroke opposed. Thre is an engine called 4AO53. A 53 cu inch over head valve, originally sitting in the Military Mule under production by Willis, the engine turned out to be a problem, but with todays fuel delivery and ignition sytems, this can be tamed. I should be able to get in the vicinity of 27 HP, have the weight and size close to the original airplane design, (and I get the looks of a "real" airplane engine). I get back about this as soon as I know better on this thing. I need to get hold of a run out core, take it to my work bench and dissect it. It might be another dead end, if there are no thrust bearings, or too much machinery on the engine for it to take gyroscopic effect. One of the biggest traps in airplanes as well as the neighbours BMW, it is an urge to get heavier and more powerful engine all the time. Needed or not. A Piper Cub flies just about as well on an 80 as a 100 Hp engine, but we jut goooota have the 100 HP. Sure we can bolt on a full VW up front , it will fly, (for better or for worse) , nothing wrong with that per see, but I will ask you to consider in the context that I answered the question. There was a person that had an inquire about a suitable engine, for his Q1. I just wouldnt recommend that he hang one of those things up front. The experience of anyone on this board is very hard to know just from reading a letter, and in general I would say that the closer to the design you are the better chance of success. A 60 Cu inch Onan is close to a bolt on operation, some of the new V engines offered by engine manfacturers, will get more power, and might stay ( get measurements and weight before you buy) within acceptable weight and size limits. When you have to cut a hole in the side of aircraft, just to fit a cylinder, Move a firewall just to get the balance straight, you know you got a monster in there and it's beyond the design. Again nothing wrong with that, but for general purposes, stick with the plans. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Whoa there Roger, where in the world did the following bit of "fact" come from??? I would certainly agree that a 4 cyl VW is not ideal. However; having flowing behind one in a Q1 for some 300 hours, I would have to say that you need to recheck your information as it is far from accurate. "As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan." Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Isaksson Roger Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:37 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's. The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit manufactorer) to 22 HP. Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP. Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch wider), other than that it is a bolt on. Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it works the same). You however still will get a flat head. A couple of points on that. 1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a 2 stroke. 2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine. Take a pick on what you prefere. The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close as possible from the original plans. There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out now, that might be a very interesting option. Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at 3600 RPM. That one can be direct driven. As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan. There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again, you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power. I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1, that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it. Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works. A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft building. Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but engines are themselves a completely different animal. My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no more expense than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to eliminate the heavy stuff. Some more info on this at: http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx Tom Solan's airplane at: http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for parts details then spend on building Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan, A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is definitely worth talking to about this. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the speed increased Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph. Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close. Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of jan Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
More
Jon Finley <jon@...> #27028 Oh brother, this discussion is going no where. THAT (1835cc) is the VW that I had in my Quickie!! In your message you said "you got 130 MPH". I believed that you (Roger) were saying that I (Jon) got 130MPH with my 1835cc powered VW Quickie. That is VERY far from accurate. Perhaps that is what Ryan's Tri-Quickie got but that is far short of what my conventional gear Quickie would do. Jon toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Isaksson Roger Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Just go back a couple of posts and read "Ryan" and read his data, "130mph cruise.." .........."1835cc", what makes you introduce that number?, we have only said ""VW," ....no... just pestering you now . :) We can probably agree to that when mankind have master the secret of gravity and can control it, we dont need VW's, Onans or wings. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: 130 MPH with the 1835cc VW, where did you get that number??? Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Isaksson Roger Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:58 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Sorry, one like one engine and another one proffesses another one. True, the VW have been flown, and you have had as I can see a positive experience with it, in the Q1. I didnt say it can't be done, you got 130 MPH , Onan should be around 110-115, of course that is a difference, but not too much. Climb, you got some really good figures, way better then the Onan, but I assume you sacrified in stall, and landing speed, with that heavier package instead. I'm not arguing or starting a war here, as some suggested, a whole or a half VW have been flown as I said, for better or for worse. The VW in itself is probably one of the most used engines flown in many kitplanes, and the engine have been developed and refined over the years to an excellent kitplane choice. The Q1, with it's size weight and configuration can't take too many engines that will fit in the aircraft body siluette. 2 strokes have been used , but even though the 2 stroke have a very compact size, the "around" things, usually takes more space and weight than it's worth. Tuned exhausts and intakes that many times are barrel like, reduction gears, and an awful "ringa ding...ding...ding..." exhaust sound. 2 cyl 4 strokes (like the Onan) needs to be balanced, externally, (Onan that came from the kit plane manufacturer when the Q1 kit was sold, had a little extra weight on one end of the prop flange). 4 cyl 4 strokes like the full VW run with all it's power pulses close enough that smooth running can happen. There just isn't any ideal engine for the Q1. Ideal would be a 4 cylinder box type 4 cycle aircooled that is small enough. VW either a half (2 cyl)or a whole (4cyl), is wider then the aircraft design, and I presume that if you are willing to go beyond the design limists, (many have, as I can see you have done successfully) , this is an option. You WILL however enter into the equation much more then many are prepared to deal with. Myself I have spend a lot of time looking for engine options other than the Onan, and the pickings are pretty slim, if you want to stay with reasonable weight and dimensions, and still get at least reasonable power. The current VW engine is the last in line of the developed VW engines, and they grew larger as they went. The smallest VW the 1100 was an engine (no parts are interchangeable with the 1600 engine, the basis of the current VW "kitplane engine") I looked into first, but even there the weight and size was too much. There are some military surplus engines that are very interesting, one the 4A032 is a neat and small four cyl aircooled fourstroke. I did a lot of bench testing and devlopment on that engine, until I realized, that it was just too small, you can't get a lot of power out of 32 cu inch, even if it looked like an airplane engine. Best was a fraction over 17 HP. By design it was very hard to do a bore and stroke, so it remained a good looking engine, that's all. Bigger size military surplus engines , like the 4AO84 is about the same size as the VW 1100. That comes in a half engine size, the 2AO42, but we're back to an engine that sticks out, as the dimensions in width is the same, using the same cylinders and cylinderheads on the 2 and 4 cyl version. According to some old reports I read long ago, one of the first Q1's had an 4AO84, and broke some kind of record with it. The problem seems to be, that if you are looking for an engine of thie size and weight close to what the original Onan had, but are looking for a bit more power, you will not get into a 4 cyl arrangement, but have to look for something that is 2 cyl, with that you get the width problem. One possible solution, however, way over my financial possibility, could be to take a bored and stroked VW, engine, and arrange a flat head instead of over head valves. That would : 1. Decrease the weight 2. Decrease very much the width. 3. Exhaust can be routed straight down, 4. Intake can be made into an updraft. 5. Maintain 4 cyl even spread power pulses There is one engine that is next on my investigation, it's a somewhat rare engine, 4 cyl 4 stroke opposed. Thre is an engine called 4AO53. A 53 cu inch over head valve, originally sitting in the Military Mule under production by Willis, the engine turned out to be a problem, but with todays fuel delivery and ignition sytems, this can be tamed. I should be able to get in the vicinity of 27 HP, have the weight and size close to the original airplane design, (and I get the looks of a "real" airplane engine). I get back about this as soon as I know better on this thing. I need to get hold of a run out core, take it to my work bench and dissect it. It might be another dead end, if there are no thrust bearings, or too much machinery on the engine for it to take gyroscopic effect. One of the biggest traps in airplanes as well as the neighbours BMW, it is an urge to get heavier and more powerful engine all the time. Needed or not. A Piper Cub flies just about as well on an 80 as a 100 Hp engine, but we jut goooota have the 100 HP. Sure we can bolt on a full VW up front , it will fly, (for better or for worse) , nothing wrong with that per see, but I will ask you to consider in the context that I answered the question. There was a person that had an inquire about a suitable engine, for his Q1. I just wouldnt recommend that he hang one of those things up front. The experience of anyone on this board is very hard to know just from reading a letter, and in general I would say that the closer to the design you are the better chance of success. A 60 Cu inch Onan is close to a bolt on operation, some of the new V engines offered by engine manfacturers, will get more power, and might stay ( get measurements and weight before you buy) within acceptable weight and size limits. When you have to cut a hole in the side of aircraft, just to fit a cylinder, Move a firewall just to get the balance straight, you know you got a monster in there and it's beyond the design. Again nothing wrong with that, but for general purposes, stick with the plans. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Whoa there Roger, where in the world did the following bit of "fact" come from??? I would certainly agree that a 4 cyl VW is not ideal. However; having flowing behind one in a Q1 for some 300 hours, I would have to say that you need to recheck your information as it is far from accurate. "As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan." Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Isaksson Roger Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:37 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's. The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit manufactorer) to 22 HP. Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP. Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch wider), other than that it is a bolt on. Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it works the same). You however still will get a flat head. A couple of points on that. 1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a 2 stroke. 2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine. Take a pick on what you prefere. The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close as possible from the original plans. There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out now, that might be a very interesting option. Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at 3600 RPM. That one can be direct driven. As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan. There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again, you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power. I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1, that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it. Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works. A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft building. Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but engines are themselves a completely different animal. My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no more expense than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to eliminate the heavy stuff. Some more info on this at: http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx Tom Solan's airplane at: http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for parts details then spend on building Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan, A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is definitely worth talking to about this. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the speed increased Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph. Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close. Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of jan Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups - Join or create groups, clubs, forums & communities. Links
More
Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...> #27029 Correct, its about 1 3/4 inch wider, they come in different shaft diameters. If you are unsure of what to use, sort them out first, by horisontal or vertical, shaft, go with the horisontal shaft ( well that was easy) Take a magnet and touch the engine casing, it shoud not be magnetic, if it is, you're looking at a cast iron anchor. Get the aluminun casing only. To be absolutely sure what you have, pop a head and measure the bore and stroke. Measure the Diameter, and divide it in 2. ( This is the same thing as the Radius) Measure the stroke from the cyliners top position to it's bottom position. Ok toss in the numbers in this formula . R X R X 3.14 x stroke x 2. With other words. Radius times Radius, times 3.14 (Pi), times stroke, times 2 ( number of cylinders). If you get 48 cu inch or close to it, you have the smaller Onan. Same, if you get 60 or thereabout, you have the bigger Onan you want. Shave the flywheel off in the same manners as the original was done. Here is where a lot of weight is shaved. A counter weight is needed on the propflange, check old litterture on how it looked and where it was located. Probably some trial and error here until you get it right. For power, there are a few fairly easy things to do here. Compression, shave the heads, but be very conservative, dont go overboard, but do just a touch, as this is a flat head, and a lot of pockets crannies and cavities are present, that can produce "knock". I would probably dont go more than 8 to 1 in compression ratio, but would rather stay happy with 7,75 to 1 in comp ratio. Porting, the ports are in the engie block ( as this is a flat head), they were designed by a drunk plumber, and is almost a 90 degree knee turn. They can be ported very nicely for much better flow. Do some hours with a Dremel tool. Top of piston and inside the head, you can apply a thermal coating, that will trap as much of the heat as possible, increasing the efficiancy a few ( but important) percent. Regrind the cam, however, the camlobes backside are almost flush with the camshaft, you must put the camshaft in the lathe and get a slightly slimmer shaft before you go to the camgrinder. Ask for a modern profile where you get the power around 2500 and 3500 RPM, give him the data that this is a flat head as cams do different things to an over head and a flat head engine. You should conservatively get 26-27 HP with this set up, maybe more if you're lucky. Prop , you can go through a lot of props especially to determine a stall speed for a specific engine that is an unknown. I would get a slightly longer prop, that you can cut, if needed, and adjustable. These are the composite props. IVO prop can be cut in a band saw. The original prop, on the Onan that came with the kit, and engine assembly was carved to stall at around 3000 RPM static, on the ground. I would get as large diameter prop as your nerves will allowe you to install, and adjust it with the center adjuster, so your Onan will stall at 3000 RPM. That is much cheaper than for an unknown engine go trough a number of fixed wooden prop. Also if you happen to be in a high altitude, and dont have all the power avaliable, and cant get the prop up on the power band, and have a potential dangerous take off, you can just adjust the prop to get up on the 'rpm and get going. If you want to develop on this, you can also have the pilot cockpit adjustable electric gizmo installed, but it's not necessary for now. The bolt on pattern in the back of the 60 Cu Inch Onan is the same as the 48 Cu Inch Onan and should be installed per plans. Some sag have been known to happen on that engie installation, I would still do it per the Onan original installation plan, except do some extra layer of fiberglass where the drill hole into the firewall is to be. There was a plate sold from the kit manufacturer, that was to be bolted onto the engine, the plate itself was to be bolted onto the firewall fasteners that goes through the firewall. That plate was a kevlar plate, very strong, and light weight, Dont know today how to get hold of one of those, but they were manufactured once, so I guess they can still be made, if you know how to do them. Possibly you can go on the aftermarket and try to get one of those. Weight difference between a 60 and a 48 Onan is not much, size difference is about 1.3/4 wider.shoud not be too hard to overcome, very close to the original plans. One weight saving that can be done, if you have a friend that have a machine shop, ask him to do the Onan front plate, in aluminun rather than the cast iron front plate. You find those cast iron front plates on both aluminun and cast iron engines. Get an electronic ignition kit, if you get an engine with points. They are sold as after market at Onan dealers. Onan have a very weird way of firing the ignition, it has through the back of the engine, a little rod pushing up and down, actuating either the points, or the electronic sensor. I dont like it myself, but they have a very long track record as an industriaol engine. Good luck denpau@... wrote: I don't have a picture but I assume it is slightly larger than the 48 cube Onan. There should be identifying numbers on the engines. If I remember correctly "B48M" identifies the smaller engine. Dennis of Georgia once upon a time: Dennis of Homestead Florida --------------------------------- 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
More
Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...> #27032 No scroll back, I have never ever quoted what YOUR quickie will do or not do. I told you in my last message that 130 MPH was from a poster named "Ryan". Please duplicate what I'm saying this time. That I have quoted that YOUR VW 1835 to do 130 MPH is your own creation , deduction and conclution. I hope we're not getting into a communication where one have to nod the head, talk slowly and loud..... while showing a very simple thing that have to be understood. We're talking engine options for the Q1, you created your own side track to nowhere my friend. If you care to go back in that direction you're welcome. You seem to have a very good experience from the VW field, some do some dont. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Oh brother, this discussion is going no where. THAT (1835cc) is the VW that I had in my Quickie!! In your message you said "you got 130 MPH". I believed that you (Roger) were saying that I (Jon) got 130MPH with my 1835cc powered VW Quickie. That is VERY far from accurate. Perhaps that is what Ryan's Tri-Quickie got but that is far short of what my conventional gear Quickie would do. Jon toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Isaksson Roger Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Just go back a couple of posts and read "Ryan" and read his data, "130mph cruise.." .........."1835cc", what makes you introduce that number?, we have only said ""VW," ....no... just pestering you now . :) We can probably agree to that when mankind have master the secret of gravity and can control it, we dont need VW's, Onans or wings. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: 130 MPH with the 1835cc VW, where did you get that number??? Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Isaksson Roger Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:58 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Sorry, one like one engine and another one proffesses another one. True, the VW have been flown, and you have had as I can see a positive experience with it, in the Q1. I didnt say it can't be done, you got 130 MPH , Onan should be around 110-115, of course that is a difference, but not too much. Climb, you got some really good figures, way better then the Onan, but I assume you sacrified in stall, and landing speed, with that heavier package instead. I'm not arguing or starting a war here, as some suggested, a whole or a half VW have been flown as I said, for better or for worse. The VW in itself is probably one of the most used engines flown in many kitplanes, and the engine have been developed and refined over the years to an excellent kitplane choice. The Q1, with it's size weight and configuration can't take too many engines that will fit in the aircraft body siluette. 2 strokes have been used , but even though the 2 stroke have a very compact size, the "around" things, usually takes more space and weight than it's worth. Tuned exhausts and intakes that many times are barrel like, reduction gears, and an awful "ringa ding...ding...ding..." exhaust sound. 2 cyl 4 strokes (like the Onan) needs to be balanced, externally, (Onan that came from the kit plane manufacturer when the Q1 kit was sold, had a little extra weight on one end of the prop flange). 4 cyl 4 strokes like the full VW run with all it's power pulses close enough that smooth running can happen. There just isn't any ideal engine for the Q1. Ideal would be a 4 cylinder box type 4 cycle aircooled that is small enough. VW either a half (2 cyl)or a whole (4cyl), is wider then the aircraft design, and I presume that if you are willing to go beyond the design limists, (many have, as I can see you have done successfully) , this is an option. You WILL however enter into the equation much more then many are prepared to deal with. Myself I have spend a lot of time looking for engine options other than the Onan, and the pickings are pretty slim, if you want to stay with reasonable weight and dimensions, and still get at least reasonable power. The current VW engine is the last in line of the developed VW engines, and they grew larger as they went. The smallest VW the 1100 was an engine (no parts are interchangeable with the 1600 engine, the basis of the current VW "kitplane engine") I looked into first, but even there the weight and size was too much. There are some military surplus engines that are very interesting, one the 4A032 is a neat and small four cyl aircooled fourstroke. I did a lot of bench testing and devlopment on that engine, until I realized, that it was just too small, you can't get a lot of power out of 32 cu inch, even if it looked like an airplane engine. Best was a fraction over 17 HP. By design it was very hard to do a bore and stroke, so it remained a good looking engine, that's all. Bigger size military surplus engines , like the 4AO84 is about the same size as the VW 1100. That comes in a half engine size, the 2AO42, but we're back to an engine that sticks out, as the dimensions in width is the same, using the same cylinders and cylinderheads on the 2 and 4 cyl version. According to some old reports I read long ago, one of the first Q1's had an 4AO84, and broke some kind of record with it. The problem seems to be, that if you are looking for an engine of thie size and weight close to what the original Onan had, but are looking for a bit more power, you will not get into a 4 cyl arrangement, but have to look for something that is 2 cyl, with that you get the width problem. One possible solution, however, way over my financial possibility, could be to take a bored and stroked VW, engine, and arrange a flat head instead of over head valves. That would : 1. Decrease the weight 2. Decrease very much the width. 3. Exhaust can be routed straight down, 4. Intake can be made into an updraft. 5. Maintain 4 cyl even spread power pulses There is one engine that is next on my investigation, it's a somewhat rare engine, 4 cyl 4 stroke opposed. Thre is an engine called 4AO53. A 53 cu inch over head valve, originally sitting in the Military Mule under production by Willis, the engine turned out to be a problem, but with todays fuel delivery and ignition sytems, this can be tamed. I should be able to get in the vicinity of 27 HP, have the weight and size close to the original airplane design, (and I get the looks of a "real" airplane engine). I get back about this as soon as I know better on this thing. I need to get hold of a run out core, take it to my work bench and dissect it. It might be another dead end, if there are no thrust bearings, or too much machinery on the engine for it to take gyroscopic effect. One of the biggest traps in airplanes as well as the neighbours BMW, it is an urge to get heavier and more powerful engine all the time. Needed or not. A Piper Cub flies just about as well on an 80 as a 100 Hp engine, but we jut goooota have the 100 HP. Sure we can bolt on a full VW up front , it will fly, (for better or for worse) , nothing wrong with that per see, but I will ask you to consider in the context that I answered the question. There was a person that had an inquire about a suitable engine, for his Q1. I just wouldnt recommend that he hang one of those things up front. The experience of anyone on this board is very hard to know just from reading a letter, and in general I would say that the closer to the design you are the better chance of success. A 60 Cu inch Onan is close to a bolt on operation, some of the new V engines offered by engine manfacturers, will get more power, and might stay ( get measurements and weight before you buy) within acceptable weight and size limits. When you have to cut a hole in the side of aircraft, just to fit a cylinder, Move a firewall just to get the balance straight, you know you got a monster in there and it's beyond the design. Again nothing wrong with that, but for general purposes, stick with the plans. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Whoa there Roger, where in the world did the following bit of "fact" come from??? I would certainly agree that a 4 cyl VW is not ideal. However; having flowing behind one in a Q1 for some 300 hours, I would have to say that you need to recheck your information as it is far from accurate. "As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan." Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Isaksson Roger Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:37 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's. The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit manufactorer) to 22 HP. Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP. Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch wider), other than that it is a bolt on. Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it works the same). You however still will get a flat head. A couple of points on that. 1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a 2 stroke. 2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine. Take a pick on what you prefere. The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close as possible from the original plans. There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out now, that might be a very interesting option. Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at 3600 RPM. That one can be direct driven. As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling. It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan. There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again, you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power. I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1, that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it. Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works. A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft building. Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but engines are themselves a completely different animal. My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly. Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no more expense than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to eliminate the heavy stuff. Some more info on this at: http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx Tom Solan's airplane at: http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for parts details then spend on building Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan, A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is definitely worth talking to about this. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Jan Safranek Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the speed increased Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph. Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close. Jon Finley N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy http://www.finleyweb.net Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM -----Original Message----- From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of jan Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so for how much thanks Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups - Join or create groups, clubs, forums & communities. Links --------------------------------- Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.
More
Keith Welsh <kfly@...> #27064 It's easy to tell, ours have 9 head bolts and the P224 engine (60cid) has 10. Also the shaft is or can be the same size, I had one of em. It's about 1.5" wider & the same taller with a larger sump. Good news is that the gear case is the same and will bolt right on. Keith Welsh toggle quoted message Show quoted text ----- Original Message ----- From: DENNIS GONZALEZ To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 do you have a picture of the 60 c.i. engine, I have a couple of onan engines that I don't know what they are, it might help ya......... Dennis in S. Fla. "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Leonardo da Vinci. the ingenious-eer ----- Original Message ---- From: "denpau@..." <denpau@...> To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:10:37 AM Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503 Isaksson Roger said, "Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's." "The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close as possible from the original plans." "My opinion, (take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly." ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _ I have the 48 Cu inch Onan in my Quickie, with some mods (mikuni carb, reground cam, dual ignition, firewall mounted remote oil filter, cooling air ducted under and around the cylinders, to cool the exhaust side first, as Onan does from the factory. Part of the air is directed around the oil sump for low oil temps. I had thoughts of getting the 60 cube Onan later for the extra power. BUT ! ! ! ! ! All of the internet sites that I have visited that sell this type (industrial) of engine report that Onan has stopped making the flat head engine and there are none available. Maybe there are a few to be found some where, but it might take some searching. The Jabiru looks great, but I'm not rich. Dennis __________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
More

1 - 20 of 21

Previous Topic Next Topic

Home Guidelines Hashtags Subgroups About Features Pricing Updates Terms Help Twitter