 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / General / Homebuilt / September 2008Veeduber and Others, what about the VP-1
Bob and other Group members, I’ve purchased plans to the VP-1 and downloaded study plans for the VP-2, all research and background indicates the VP-1 is the best build of the two. Some have lengthened the wingspan or created a bit more fuselage space for storage and it appears the 1835cc is engine of choice for many. However, I communicated with some fine people who prefer the 2180cc either with or without a redrive installed. It’s a fascinating airplane, not as charismatic as a Bower’s Fly Baby, but still has a timeless aura about it. What experience have you had with this aircraft with respect to building, flying or inspecting a flying sample? Do you consider it to be a feasible initial build for a novice builder? Insofar as engine size what would you consider as most feasible? My concern with redrives or VW engines larger than the 2180 are engine head temperature as I’m not entirely certain this problem can be totally controlled without a greatly reduced rpm level. Best regards to all Joe >Bob and other Group members, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Joe I have had experience with flying a VP-2 and would have to characterize it as a total toad. The ailerons were heavy enough to require a gorilla to move them. It is slow and unresponsive. I believe a VP-1 is better, but given the difference in performance I would opt for a Fly Baby or a Pietenpol every time. I built my Jungster II twenty two years ago and am still enjoying it. Ed Sullivan > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:46:48 -0700 (PDT), Copperhead > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Ed Sullivan The VP-1 has to be one of the uglier homebuilts and one with poor resale value. Given that you have to build wings, a fuselage, a tail, and control surfaces anyhow, if you want to use wood and a VW why not build a wooden airplane that will go faster, handle better and look much nicer? Lemme see...there's the Taylor Monoplane: http://www.taylormonoplane.4t.com/ Or its younger brother, the Titch: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3040/2705546859_bb9e582bb2.jpg?v=0 Or the Jodel D9: http://www.jodel.com/index.asp?p=d9&themodels Or any number of other nice airplanes. The Rand-Robinson KR-1/ KR-2s outrun most other VW-powered airplanes and are based on the Taylor Monoplane, with construction simplified through the use of Foam and dacron and resin as well as the basic wood structure. http://www.airventure.org/2006/events/hallmarks_rand5.html Lots of options. Biggest problem now is finding decent wood. Dan Dear Joe, Go to.... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/volksplane/?yguid=200730979 ...join the Group. All of your questions have been asked and answered numerous times over the years. -R.S.Hoover On Sep 23, 6:35 pm, "veedu...@isp.com" <veedu...@isp.com> wrote: > Dear Joe, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -R.S.Hoover I'm a member in that group Bob, was hoping to glean a little bit more with this rather diverse group of folks. I've already picked up something I didn't know about with what Ed said, I'd never heard of a Jungster II and wasn't quite sure enough about the Fly Baby or Pietenpol being that much of a step up from the VP-1. I consider any time I learn something new time well spent. Joe >On Sep 23, 6:35 pm, "veedu...@isp.com" <veedu...@isp.com> wrote: >> Dear Joe, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Joe Well Joe, I think the Fly Baby and the Pietenpol would both be better performers, the Jungster although it was my first project is a little more difficult build and uses a bigger engine up to 180 hp. Another easy all wood good performer is the Boredom Fighter. > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Copperhead > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Thank's for all of the feedback everyone! A set of plans for the Fly Baby and LMA Taylorcraft (still trying to find empty and gross weight on this one) are on my short list of plans I still want. I understand one of the reasons for unused plans being sold now! I always though it was because the person gave up on the build, never though it was because they were doing their homework.;-) Joe > Bob and other Group members, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Joe Mr. Hoover knows the designer, and built a VP-1 on a Navy enlisted man's salary while raising a family. 40 years ago, or thereabouts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not a design I'm wild about, me. Heavy, draggy, and uses a LOT of plywood. And a lot of people build them that have NO IDEA what they're doing. There was a VP-1 on the cover of "Dune Buggies and Hot VWs" a while back, and the story of it's building and development (many, many changes) made it really clear the proud owner was clueless, in spite of his fancy paint job. I second R.S. Hoover's shout-out to the Yahoo Group. It's a pretty active group, with a lot of posts by RAH's favorite Senior Chief. > Mr. Hoover knows the designer, --------------------------------------------------------------------- Hahahaha... That's funny. I've MET Bud (several times, in fact) but I doubt he'd recognize me if I walked up and pee'd on his shoes :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------ > and built a VP-1 on a Navy enlisted > man's salary while raising a family. 40 years ago, or thereabouts. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, it was a VP-2 (N6886) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > It's not a design I'm wild about, me. Heavy, draggy, and uses a LOT of > plywood. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That should probably be modified to read: '...uses a lot of 1/4" A-A Douglas Fir marine-grade plywood...', which is what the ribs are made from. But over the years there have been a number of modifications that have reduced its weight without compromising its strength. I have seen examples that used ribs similar to the Fly Baby's (ie, 1/8" shear-web with upper & lower cap strips) and even stick ribs (although I don't know if the latter ever flew). There are several examples in which the original fiberglas fuel tank has been replaced with one made of aluminum that ended up weighing less. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > And a lot of people build them that have NO IDEA what > they're doing. There was a VP-1 on the cover of "Dune Buggies and Hot > VWs" a while back, and the story of it's building and development > (many, many changes) made it really clear the proud owner was > clueless, in spite of his fancy paint job. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Worse-case I can think of would be the fellow in Virginia who spent 11 YEARS building a VP-2... which has yet to fly, in so far as I know. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I second R.S. Hoover's shout-out to the Yahoo Group. It's a pretty > active group, with a lot of posts by RAH's favorite Senior Chief. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lots of good stuff in the archives of the Volksplane Group. One interesting point is that of the VP-2's that are actually flying, most are using something OTHER than a Volkswagen engine. (Also some good pointers toward video clips. The thing DOES fly.) The VP-1's do pretty well with the VW, assuming the PILOT isn't 'over gross' :-) Bottom Line on the VP-1 is that it CAN be built by a complete novice. And it WILL fly behind a properly converted VW engine. And it will do all that without breaking the bank. -R.S.Hoover PS -- Being an 'engine guy' puts me in a position to see (and to fly!) a lot of VW-powered homebuilts. Since my interest is largely in the powerplant, usually in an airframe that is already covered & signed off, I can't say much about the structure. But I've seen numerous examples of VW-powered airplanes that I would NOT fly, usually because I thought they were too heavy. By the same token, I have seen examples of VW-powered airplanes that weighed as much as 100 pounds LESS than the same plane built by someone else. The lesson here is that it's pretty easy to build 'heavy' ...but damned difficult to build 'light.' If you should opt for the VP-1 your FIRST consideration, in my opinion, should be in keeping the weight down. For those who do, their honest opinion of the VP is that it comes close to being the ultimate Fun Machine. In article <8b820ff0-95dc-4ef5-bb0f-272ab4b9d756@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > Mr. Hoover knows the designer, > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hahahaha... That's funny. I've MET Bud (several times, in fact) but > I doubt he'd recognize me if I walked up and pee'd on his shoes :-) After that, though, he'd have no problem remembering for a very long time. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.