• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Verner Radial?

Rascal

Registered User
St Louis, MO
Continuing my dive down the rabbit hole on engine options for an experimental Super Cub, thank you all for the Yamaha comments ;) While talking to Shane at Mad Custom Cubs about the Yamahas he had some great insight but the real gem of that conversation was his praise of the Verner Scarlett 9S... I thought I'd ask you guys about it. Torque keeps getting brought up and while I love to defend the little Yamaha I do agree with everyone the importance of torque. Shane made a interesting point that the Verner produces a lot of torque at a much lower RPM than the equivalent Lycoming. Does the Verner have a place on the Super Cub? Is it just a novelty? Does anyone have one flying? The 1000TBO sucks but word is it's a cheap rebuild?

Specs off the website for reference
www.vernermotor.com/

[TABLE="width: 538"]
[TR]
[TD]Displacement[/TD]
[TD]6094 cc / 372 cubic inch[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Pistons[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cooled by[/TD]
[TD]Air[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bore[/TD]
[TD]92 mm[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Stroke[/TD]
[TD]102 mm[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Compression ratio[/TD]
[TD]1:7,8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Maximum power[/TD]
[TD]158 BHP (116 KW) @ 2400 RPM[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Max. continuous power[/TD]
[TD]136 BMP (100 kW) @ 2300 RPM[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Torque[/TD]
[TD]485 Nm @ 2000 RPM[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Propeller rotation[/TD]
[TD]CCW, viewed from the front (tractor propeller)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Complete dry weight[/TD]
[TD]114kg[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spark plugs[/TD]
[TD]Champion RN12YC, Denso Q20PR-U[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]




[TABLE="width: 538"]
[TR]
[TD]Electric starter[/TD]
[TD]12V / 1000W[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Generator (Alternator)[/TD]
[TD]12V / 336W[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lubrication[/TD]
[TD]Philips X/C Aviation SAE 25W60; Total 20W60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Fuel[/TD]
[TD]Motor petrol, octane number 95[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Carburetor[/TD]
[TD]Marvel; S&S[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Reduction drive[/TD]
[TD]None[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Propeller hub[/TD]
[TD]∅111,12 x 6 x 16 holes - M8 (3/8 24 UNF) SAE 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Max propeller[/TD]
[TD]220[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Installation[/TD]
[TD]Back[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Recommended TBO[/TD]
[TD]1000 hours[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Batteries[/TD]
[TD]12V 24Ah
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


 
Continuing my dive down the rabbit hole on engine options for an experimental Super Cub, thank you all for the Yamaha comments ;) While talking to Shane at Mad Custom Cubs about the Yamahas he had some great insight but the real gem of that conversation was his praise of the Verner Scarlett 9S... I thought I'd ask you guys about it. Torque keeps getting brought up and while I love to defend the little Yamaha I do agree with everyone the importance of torque. Shane made a interesting point that the Verner produces a lot of torque at a much lower RPM than the equivalent Lycoming. Does the Verner have a place on the Super Cub? Is it just a novelty? Does anyone have one flying? The 1000TBO sucks but word is it's a cheap rebuild?


I was thinking that the radial would create a lot of drag, but we operated "open cowl" banner planes and to be honest, they were barely slower than cowled versions. Plus, you get full frontal cooling. to my surprise I just saw a video of a Cessna 150 towing a banner with open cowl.
N3042M open cowl.webp

[/QUOTE]
 

Attachments

  • N3042M open cowl.webp
    N3042M open cowl.webp
    37.1 KB · Views: 79
How heavy?

What will visibility be looking out over the engine?

One thing to consider, the coolness factor will be off the charts!
 
J-3P

iu
iu


You can't beat the sound and smoothness of a 9 cylinder radial engine.
 
While I was looking at it just for the heck of it, the fuel consumption seemed about a gallon or more higher than an O-320. Maybe this was full throttle/full rich. Might have been on a post by Shane on his FB page. Just an FYI.
 
Ya, I think the fuel burn is more in line with an 0360. HP of a 0320, but the torque, weight and fuel burn of the 0360. What’s interesting is where in the rpm band it makes its torque.
 
Yammer or Verner, 2000 or 9000 RPM, ha ha, make up your mind! Or split the difference and get one of the Rotax 916's, that make their power in the mid 5000's. Cost and complexity aside, there's nothing better I'd think in the weight to power department.
 
Open to anything lol. I'm still onboard with a good old 0360 but other options are not off the table. The Verner is a super cool option and it's a lot cheaper than the lycoming. Brand new around 26K. Can anyone weight in on the practical application of a radial in a backcountry setting? Would that extra torque be better to haul you out of a hole? Another thing is my goal with this cub is to put it on floats from time to time...Besides looking amazing, how would it do with the Verner? Beaver rocks a radial pretty good.
 
The best thing to haul yourself out of a hole in any airplane is time in the seat and hours at the controls.
 
372 cubic inches vs 360 cubic inches. There's nothing like displacement.
Full power at 2400 rpm. This means you can turn a larger diameter propeller. Larger diameters push back a larger volume of air. Props are more efficient at lower rpms.
158 hp is 88% power of an 0-360.
Continuous power of 136 hp @ 2300 rpm is the same as 75% power of the 0-360. How many of us use 75% power most of the time in our Cubs?

Those numbers seem to indicate you could get comparable performance to an 0-360.

It's unlikely anyone here has used this engine in their Cub, at least I haven't heard anyone mention it. This sounds like it would be a fun experiment. The only question is what aktango58 mentions....will you be satisfied with some over the nose visual restrictions? With your use perhaps it is not important?

A long diameter prop will produce some good low speed thrust getting on the step on floats. This is good with a heavy load.
 
I can respect that for sure, especially from an Alaska pilot. I'm not a bush pilot in any sense yet but can't wait to get out there with some of you guys to learn a thing or two. I'm a pretty conservative pilot that honestly wouldn't put myself in a hole to begin with lol. But I've been in some high DA situations where some extra pull would've added an extra safety margin.
 
Well, I think it's safe to say I'm moving in a more positive direction with the community than with the Yamaha lol. Over the nose would be interesting, it doesn't look too bad and you'd kind of be able to see through the cylinders. Below is a side view of Shanes Patina cub. A little restriction isn't a deal breaker for me, I think in the end you would get used to it and still be able to hit your landing spots.
53120204036_7797e3ebef_c.webp
 

Attachments

  • 53120204036_7797e3ebef_c.webp
    53120204036_7797e3ebef_c.webp
    115.1 KB · Views: 86
This is an airplane which is flown solo from the back seat. The ground view over the nose visibility on landing is zero. You look at the landing area before you flair, then look out both sides to stay in the middle.

iu
iu


On floats it's easier because the tail stays up.
Personally I don't see an issue, since I've "been there done that". You learn your machine until you wear it like an old shoe.
 
"You learn your machine until you wear it like an old shoe" Yup. I don't think the little bit like what Shanes is isn't a deal breaker.
 
Does the Verner have a place on the Super Cub? Is it just a novelty? Does anyone have one flying? The 1000TBO sucks but word is it's a cheap rebuild?
Did you say a new one costs about $26k? In that case, the cost per hour is about the same as an 0-360. Two of these for the price of one of those.
 
It's also 20 pounds lighter than the Lycoming 0-360-A1A. That will help the CG issue. I would get the fuel injection version and that Sterna ground adjustable prop.
 
Ya, I like the idea of Fuel injection...The Sterna would be a good choice. Having to turn the prop to circulate the oil before starting might be a pita. Again, not sure how much that really affects things, or in your preflight routine.
 
Do they mention that you have to pull it through before start? I was hoping with the newer design, maybe tighter tolerance but sounds like will leak down no matter. The radials of old, the oil leaks down to the bottom three after it sits (especially if you don't shut it down properly) - can't just 'pull it through' automatically every time or you can bend a rod from the hydraulic lock. On the M14P most of us had a modification so we could drain the bottom three cylinders without removing the spark plugs (the fix if you feel any pressure when pulling it through = pita). I loved the radial sound but yes, for me anyway, the starting and farting around to start got to be a PITA real fast.
 
Yes, you do have to pull it through. All the oil gravity drains into a holding tank below the cylinders. I think the Verner has a valve on the lowest cylinder to drain any oil that got into the cylinder. I honestly don't know a ton about them, you might be able to decipher if it's a good design from the start video below, might have to copy it into the search bar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-BOd4QxDCQ
 
Yes, you do have to pull it through. All the oil gravity drains into a holding tank below the cylinders. I think the Verner has a valve on the lowest cylinder to drain any oil that got into the cylinder. I honestly don't know a ton about them, you might be able to decipher if it's a good design from the start video below, might have to copy it into the search bar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-BOd4QxDCQ

Yes, that is the same system idea as far as he has both the exhaust manifold and intake manifold drains. It should work fairly well.

As he mentioned even though the oil normally drains down to the tank after shutdown some residual can drain down and stay inside those bottom three - if by chance the intake and exhaust valves are closed on one of those bottom cylinder that increases the chance of hydraulic lock (just the uncompressible oil taking up space on the compression stroke) or due to the angle it is sitting there if oil sitting in the intake manifold a glob 'could' gets sucked back in (but hopefully in all drained out - we would just leave all those drain valves open until the next start attempt). I know they will start and run just fine with those valve left open too :) We had the Russian air start system also - works great but can be another PITA if your bottle runs out.

But you sure can't beat that sound.

Still waiting on my engine for experimental cub so looking at any option too.
 
Ya, there's something really special about that sound, show stopper on the ramp or gravel bar. That's one of my biggest hangups on this route, starting. Starting while on floats might be more of a pain too. IDK, I might be making a bigger deal out of it than it seems. Money wise too, 26k is a lot easier to swallow than the price of a new Aerosport 0375...
 
I'm not knocking the Verner, but don't forget to add the weight of the remote oil tank, associated plumbing, and likely double or more the required amount of oil over a flat engine when estimating the weight of the installation.

Lack of forward visibility in an airplane is like marriage; you can get used to anything after a while.
 
I have maintained radials and love the cool factor, have seen what Steve Henry and others have done with some of this new stuff but at the end of the day I want to fly and the 4 cylinder Lycomings are pretty bullet proof, parts are usually readily available and the knowledge base is plentiful.
 
Shane’s cub is cool and right up my alley for being unique and different.
But I wouldn’t build one for my mission. I see it as an excellent show car, designed for appeal and cruising the street. And it’s awesome. [emoji41]

But the daily driver, do what needs to be done? Probably not the same.

https://youtube.com/shorts/yb1S_W9HcEw?si=TdMBdEFBo5sQcPY0




Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
I'm not knocking the Verner, but don't forget to add the weight of the remote oil tank, associated plumbing, and likely double or more the required amount of oil over a flat engine when estimating the weight of the installation.

Lack of forward visibility in an airplane is like marriage; you can get used to anything after a while.

Shane goes over the weight in the video, Whole package is around 300lbs installed. Do you guys have some installed numbers on comparable Lycomings? I think I’m confident on 0360 platform if I go that route.
 
Shane’s cub is cool and right up my alley for being unique and different.
But I wouldn’t build one for my mission. I see it as an excellent show car, designed for appeal and cruising the street. And it’s awesome. [emoji41]

But the daily driver, do what needs to be done? Probably not the same.

https://youtube.com/shorts/yb1S_W9HcEw?si=TdMBdEFBo5sQcPY0




Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

There definitely a “practicality” aspect to this that can’t be ignored. Yes, would it be cool AF, sound incredible, and be a ramp magnet, absolutely. But in real life, how practical is dealing with the radial starting/maintaining nuances? Flip side is that torque? Is that worth it? Would it be comparable out in the backcountry? Cost wise??? 20k or more savings could pay for a nice set of used floats…. As I’ve said before, I love the good old Lycoming, just exploring all options.
 
Back
Top