TheSamba.com :: View topic

Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:34 am

The VW flat four is essentially an aircraft engine adapted for automotive use. Has anyone seen any stories of people putting other types of aircraft engines in VW beetles? I've seen pictures of drag-race beetles that have watercooled V-8's on the back, but an aircraft engine could be even more powerful. Some of the world war II radial 18 cylinder engines, such as the pratt and whitney R-2800, produced over 2,000 horsepower!

Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:45 am

dennisf486 wrote: Some of the world war II radial 18 cylinder engines, such as the pratt and whitney R-2800, produced over 2,000 horsepower!

No. But don't you think a radial engine would stick out too far down on a run of the mill VW? :-k

Maybe on a super lifted monster bug or bus, otherwise I cannot "see" it fit. :?

Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:54 am

dennisf486 wrote: The VW flat four is essentially an aircraft engine adapted for automotive use.

News to me... let's see some facts.

Here's a auto to aircraft conversion.

Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:21 pm

Glenn wrote: Here's a auto to aircraft conversion.

Glenn, you being a racer (not ricer :roll: ), how do they prevent valve burnout when using them short exhaust tubes? :? I mean, it is understandable when the application is for drag racing, the motor being run for a short time. But if this is for flight, that needs to run for quite a long time! :shock:

Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:42 pm

lets see you stick a radial 18 cylinder engine into a beetle.. i say build a custom beetle around the engine

Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:18 pm

Have you looked into the cost of aircraft parts? Rebuilds run $10,000 plus.

Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:31 pm

dennisf486 wrote: The VW flat four is essentially an aircraft engine adapted for automotive use. Has anyone seen any stories of people putting other types of aircraft engines in VW beetles? I've seen pictures of drag-race beetles that have watercooled V-8's on the back, but an aircraft engine could be even more powerful. Some of the world war II radial 18 cylinder engines, such as the pratt and whitney R-2800, produced over 2,000 horsepower!

One could throw a Cessna style engine into a beetle. They are quite spendy, however. And another drawback is the aircraft engine is designed to run for LOOOONG periods of time at a low RPM. This is why they make a good 270hp at 2500-2700 RPM's. In the air, you probably wouldn't see 2700 RPM unless it was an emergency.

-kf

Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:40 pm

On the episode of the TV show RIDES when Chris Titus was doing the "Hot Rod Power Tour" he interviewed a guy who put a tubine helicopter motor in his Chevy S-10.

He had two MASSIVE exhaust ports (each about a foot in diameter) coming from behind the truck's cab and pointed straight up at the sky. When he cranked the motor up, orange and blue flames were coming out of the exhaust and it seemed to be deafening.

Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:27 pm

pyrOman wrote: Glenn wrote: Here's a auto to aircraft conversion.

Glenn, you being a racer (not ricer :roll: ), how do they prevent valve burnout when using them short exhaust tubes? :? I mean, it is understandable when the application is for drag racing, the motor being run for a short time. But if this is for flight, that needs to run for quite a long time! :shock:

I'm going to admit right now in front of everyone, that I'm no expert :lol:. But, I was in the understanding that valve burn with short pipes was mostly due to cool air being sucked back into the cylinder when letting off the gas. When flying you rarely would back down fast enough to cause this to happen. Someone correct me becuase I'm wrong :shock: (I ment IF I'm wrong :lol: )

Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:48 pm

I know were a 63 bug is sitting in a field that is powered by a jet starter motor. It runs on 6 batterys, and goes about 35mph for somthing like 20 miles. The folks who own it used to use it for running to town from the farm. It would run out of charge by the front gate, so who ever was home would go down and bring it the rest of the way up with an old catterpiller. :lol:

Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:40 pm

Glenn wrote: dennisf486 wrote: The VW flat four is essentially an aircraft engine adapted for automotive use.

News to me... let's see some facts.

"At NSU, Porsche developed the "Type 32" with a rear-mounted, air-cooled flat four (similar to aircraft engines Porsche had designed at Daimler) and a steel body that at least suggested the Beetle yet to be."

http://www.drive.com.au/buy/new/car_features.asp?m...ales:Smart

"The roots of the Volkswagen date back to 1912 when Dr. Ferdinand Porsche designed a horizontally opposed four-cylinder aircraft engine that bore a remarkable similarity to the Beetle's powerplant."

http://www.drivingtoday.com/greatest_cars/beetle/

and:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Flat-engine

I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't been basing it on facts, Glenn.

Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 am

smart car..i wanted one of those until i found out the price

Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:46 am

dennisf486 wrote: Glenn wrote: dennisf486 wrote: The VW flat four is essentially an aircraft engine adapted for automotive use.

News to me... let's see some facts.

"At NSU, Porsche developed the "Type 32" with a rear-mounted, air-cooled flat four (similar to aircraft engines Porsche had designed at Daimler) and a steel body that at least suggested the Beetle yet to be."

"The roots of the Volkswagen date back to 1912 when Dr. Ferdinand Porsche designed a horizontally opposed four-cylinder aircraft engine that bore a remarkable similarity to the Beetle's powerplant."
and:

I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't been basing it on facts, Glenn.

Well.. SAAB, Subaru and BMW started as aircraft engine manufacturers. Roll Royce also made aircraft engines, so you can say that any V configuration engine dates back to an aircraft engine.

Porsche didn't invent the horizontally opposed engine, he just copied it and refined it. The original W30 engine didn't have an external oil cooler. Some early pre KDF engines were 2 cylinder also.

So did the Porsche Type 1 designed engine evolve from an aircraft engine... i say no. Was it inspired fom his earlier design... i say yes.

Just like the 356 engine was inspired fron the Type 1, the 911 from the 356. The 964 and 993 evolved from the 911, but the 996 and 997 were inspired from the 911.

A subtle difference, but still not the same.

Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:50 pm

Glenn: Point taken.

TheDon wrote: smart car..i wanted one of those until i found out the price

I'd still get a Fortwo smart car, even if it costs extra to get one in the US, if I had that kind of money. I mean, who wouldn't want to bomb around town in a rear-engined, 50 HP diesel, two seater steel egg? The price people pay for one in other countries that don't have our brain-dead emissions laws to comply with is actually not so expensive for a new car in general ($13,000 vs. $11,000 I paid for my Hyundai), but it just seems like "half" a car should only cost half as much. Those things look like they'd be seriously fun though.

Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:54 pm

Most aircraft engines run high compression, and use aviation grade fuel, or high octane(high priced) fuel. Also some of the engines have special carburation and fuel pumps allowing them to run at High altitude. Most VW based aircraft are under the experimental class anyway(I believe). There was an article in one of the VW magazines a few months ago about the conversion. I dont remember which one.

Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:47 pm

The Tucker used a helicopter motor. It worked great. :wink:

Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:50 am

The early pipers used an engine almost identical to the VW design. I think they put out 150 hp. Yes the rebuilds are very expensive but they can only be done so many times before the engine has to be retired. Then the engine can be used for other aplications without the high dollar regulated rebuild.
One of my Step-Dads planes is an old Piper Cub, when the engine has to be replaced I am going to try and adapt the engine to run in a VW. He really needs to start flying it more and racking up those hours!

As for the radial engine, they could be adapted with a chain or gear drive, but you would lose the rear vision. In school I designed a car using a radial engine for a science fair project. Just think of how smooth that engine would run, and the increase in power from the design would allow for a smaller version than the huge Rolls engines. Worst thing about the aircraft engines is they are mostly fuel injected. If they were not, can you imagine trying to synchronize 6-8 carbs?! You would go nuts!

Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:37 pm

Revmaster aircraft engines. They also build vw engines. Their aircraft engines are derived from VW flat four air cooleds.

Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:42 pm

not all aircraft are fuel injection.
check out a lycoming 4 cyl (maybe a 100hp?)or the continental 90hp.
these are not much bigger,cylinder wise, as a vw engine.
some of these had top carbs. the oil sumps could be blocked off and a side tank could be made.an internal pump would have to be thought out.
the big 6cyl engines (older styles)used in piper archers or the bigger cessnas, also had updraft carb engines. you could put the carbs on top, but there would be a mess of pipes wrapping the engines.
the 4cyls, tweeked with good cams and pistons, are very quick to the run. the rpm is quick and steady. I have seen some top out in the 4~6000 rpm, but with nitro. to get a better view, there are several sites. I'd send you a pic of on an airboat, but i've packed it away,,,,ex...
but some serious thought and planning, it can be done.I think the main thing would be the trans, ,,,, lots of torque....