• 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?

Heard back from Sam at Scalebirds who is a distributor for the Verners. TBO suspicion was correct, they just don't have enough engines out there with big hours on them yet. The 1000 is very conservative and should be getting raised to 1500 as soon as they have an engine in for analysis. Rebuild cost will be 1/3 cost of the new engine. Main issues they have seen is in cowling, in most cases the baffling install causes the engine to get hot. Shouldn't matter in this case as I'd prolly leave it open like Shane did. Inquired about the 11S for fun :) will report back with info.
 
I will say this on Rotec...avoid them at all costs. The Verner appears well built, solid metallurgy and nice workmanship. The other one...I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole and in fact, did the world a favor throwing away as junk the piece of crap they call a carburetor.

s
 
Ya, that seems to be the common opinion on the Rotec from most people, even on the kitfox and rv forums. Getting a lot of good vibes from the Verner and it seems to be proving itself well. Cost per hr, weight, power, and torque point to a cool engine option that not only has some nostalgia, cool factor, and performance to match. If the biggest downside is pulling it through on first starts I think it’s worth the money saved, cool factor, amazing sound, better useable torque, and maybe no cowl work lol. Still waiting to hear about the 11S and what Shane’s FF or engine mount will cost.
 
Rascal,
One thing to remember is that the power impulses on the 9 cylinder radial happen every 80 degrees of crankshaft rotation. The 4 cylinder 0-320/0-360s power impulse happen every 180 degrees. This is why there is more torque and smoother running with the radials.
 
43F3A912-79E5-48FC-8620-6C4575B3B096.webpThis is my PA12 which I have been flying on floats for over 20 l years. It was put together in 1954 and is still flying. It has some visibility issues, leaks oil, must be pulled through daily, swings a big prop, runs smooth. Great Fun factor. It resided in Alaska for 20 years before me.
 

Attachments

  • 43F3A912-79E5-48FC-8620-6C4575B3B096.webp
    43F3A912-79E5-48FC-8620-6C4575B3B096.webp
    34.8 KB · Views: 46
Looks like the brace is a for Fairchild 24 type main gear legs for the land gear. Pretty interesting putting a 165 Warner on a PA-12. Someone did a nice job with fairing the engine cowling into the boot cowl and making the installation aesthetically pleasing. In fact a Fairchild 24W may have been the donor for the engine, cowl, and gear leg brace.
 
Waldo M said:
Looks like the brace is a for Fairchild 24 type main gear legs for the land gear. Pretty interesting putting a 165 Warner on a PA-12. Someone did a nice job with fairing the engine cowling into the boot cowl and making the installation aesthetically pleasing. In fact a Fairchild 24W may have been the donor for the engine, cowl, and gear leg brace.
Click to expand...
There was a military version of the -12 which had the outrigger landing gear. I forget the model # (L-??). This looks to be one of those. There was also something called a Faust which looked like this.
 
Yes this is the Faust PA12. The wheel gear is from a Fairchild 22 i believe. It was put together in 1954 from parts left over from misadventures. It originally had a 145 and now the 165. I have had the engine overhauled twice. A previous 165 was actually a helicopter version.
 
This is what I was thinking of, the L-14. It has an outrigger gear....but different. This is a version of the J-5.

iu
 
Beat me to the post, skywagon8a. Yes, the Piper YL-14 / L14. The airplane was powered by a Lycoming O-290. At the Army's request, Piper obtained civil certification for the airplane. Good thing: the Army accepted five YL-14s and then canceled the the rest of the order for 850 total. Piper sold the eight L-14s they had already completed on the civil market in 1946.

Only one is currently registered in the U.S. to a gentleman in MN.

As you can see, the landing gear incorporates a long oleo strut attached at one end to the axle and the other to the upper longeron. It is not the "outrigger" type as seen on the Fairchild 24.

With enlarged tail surfaces, slotted flaps with sixty degree deflection, the tall main gear, and 130 HP it would be an interesting airplane to fly.
 
Mystery solved, jimboflying. That is a very cool airplane. In the world of vintage small radial engines, the Warner seemed the better engine.

The Fairchild 22 my Father flew in the thirties had a Menasco engine. I remember seeing a Warner powered Fairchild 22 at the Rockford EAA convention in the sixties.
 
Waldo M said:
Beat me to the post, skywagon8a. Yes, the Piper YL-14 / L14. The airplane was powered by a Lycoming O-290. At the Army's request, Piper obtained civil certification for the airplane. Good thing: the Army accepted five YL-14s and then canceled the the rest of the order for 850 total. Piper sold the eight L-14s they had already completed on the civil market in 1946.

Only one is currently registered in the U.S. to a gentleman in MN.

As you can see, the landing gear incorporates a long oleo strut attached at one end to the axle and the other to the upper longeron. It is not the "outrigger" type as seen on the Fairchild 24.

With enlarged tail surfaces, slotted flaps with sixty degree deflection, the tall main gear, and 130 HP it would be an interesting airplane to fly.
Click to expand...

Didn't it have a slotted leading edge also? I think this is what Dakota Cub used for documentation to get the STC for their SC slotted wings?

Glenn
 
Waldo M said:
Mystery solved, jimboflying. That is a very cool airplane. In the world of vintage small radial engines, the Warner seemed the better engine.

The Fairchild 22 my Father flew in the thirties had a Menasco engine. I remember seeing a Warner powered Fairchild 22 at the Rockford EAA convention in the sixties.
Click to expand...
This Fairchild 22 which I've flown and helped keep airworthy has a 145 Warner. It was based here at my airport for years . It is now in Texas. https://midamericaflightmuseum.com/vintage/

fairchild-1_1_orig-300x214.png
 
Rascal said:
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.
View attachment 67640
Click to expand...
Here's a video of Shane's Cub. Look at the position of the stabilizer in flight starting at 1:49. Notice it is at nearly full nose up position with two persons on board. That indicates either it is very nose heavy or the drag of those big tires is pulling the nose down. Perhaps a combination of both? Something to consider if you decide to use this engine.

[video=youtube_share;SL_mlb44dc4]https://youtu.be/SL_mlb44dc4[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top