Hello fellow gyroplane enthousiasts, The past few months I did make a flight manual for my KB-2 with a HAPI 1835 engine. If some of the members need a copy of it I could sent it by email. It's a very complete Flight manual. Could anyone tell me what the normal (safe) operating EGT temperatures. Complete Aviation Engines. Turbine, redial, and turbine jet engines are available for different equipment options. The process of using any of these products during a repair or maintenance project is easy because proper accessories for specific engine designs are available. HAPI Replacement Parts: Unfortunately these replacements - A HAPI flywheel, mag drive and alternator Are no longer available. Since HAPI went out of business in the late 1980's, we have replaced a total of 112 flywheels, alternators and mag drives. Apr 08, 2020  I have had two HAPI engines over the years. 550 hrs, 250 hours were the failure times. In 2006 I determined that engines designed for 28 hp did not last long at 50-60 hp. The R2300 was not available at the time.
HAPI engines are Volkswagen auto engines converted to full or 1/2 VW aircraft engines by Homebuilt Aircraft Products, Inc. (H.A.P.I.), initially of Calexico, California and later of Eloy, Arizona. Although the firm preferred the H.A.P.I. abbreviation, the Compiler has chosen to use HAPI, as many others have done. HAPI was founded in 1977 by Rex Taylor and his son Patrick while they were designing a light aircraft kit, the Hapicraft. The aircraft never materialized, but they became deeply involved in VW conversions in both kit and completely assembled form. Rex Taylor wrote an extensive series of articles in the EAA Sport Aviation magazine about VW conversions in general, and HAPI conversions in particular. The articles can be found in SA2/79 and in a ten-part series from SA12/79 through SA9/80. HAPI continued in business until 1989, when the engine assets were sold to Mosler Motors and Rex Taylor retired.

O-66 - - {3.701 / 3.071 / 66.1} / {94 / 78 / 1083}

Same bore and stroke as O-132.
Same bore as O-117. How to smoke crack with tin foil.

Hapi Engine Manual Online

2cyl; HAPI Hornet; 25-35hp@3250rpm; 1983-1989; Wt = 74#.
Carbureted engine with single ignition.
BGP.
Applications: None found.

O-97 - - {3.366 / 2.717 / 96.7} / {85.5 / 69 / 1585}

Same stroke as O-102, O-112, O-117.
4cyl; HAPI Model 50; 50hp@3200rpm; 1979-1989; Wt = 152#.
Carbureted engine with optional single or dual ignition; starter and alternator were standard equipment except on Model 50-E.
SA2/79.
Applications: None found.

Hapi Engine Manual Downloads

Manual

O-102 - - {3.465 / 2.717 / 102.4} / {88 / 69 / 1679}

Hp elitebook 6930p cam driver for mac. Same stroke as O-97, O-112, O-117.
No more room in hell fema bags. 4cyl; HAPI Model 55; 55hp@3200rpm; 1983-1989; Wt = N/A.
Carbureted engine with optional single or dual ignition; starter and alternator were standard equipment except on Model 55-E.
BGP.
Applications: None found.
Manual

O-112 - - {3.622 / 2.717 / 112.0} / {92 / 69 / 1835}

Same stroke as O-97, O-102, O-117.
4cyl; HAPI Model 60; 60hp@3200rpm; 1979-1989; Wt = 152#.
Carbureted engine with optional single or dual ignition; starter and alternator were standard equipment except on Model 60-E. A turbocharged version also was available.
SA2/79.
Applications: (US) Bounsall Super Prospector.

O-117 - - {3.701 / 2.717 / 116.9} / {94 / 69 / 1915}

Same bore as O-66, O-132.
Same stroke as O-97, O-102, O-112. Crack key for radmin 3.2 license.
4cyl; HAPI Model 75 Magnum; 75hp@3200rpm; 1983-1989; Wt = N/A.
Carbureted engine with optional single or dual ignition; starter and alternator were standard equipment except on Model 75-E.
BGP.
Applications: None found. Inboard 1 1 5 x 4.

O-132 - - {3.701 / 3.071 / 132.1} / {94 / 78 / 2165}

Same bore and stroke as O-66.
Same bore as O-117.
https://truenload407.weebly.com/dota-1-hero-models.html. 4cyl; HAPI Model 82 Magnum Plus; 82hp@3400rpm; 1983-1989; Wt = N/A.
Carbureted engine with optional single or dual ignition; starter and alternator were standard equipment except on Model 82-E.
BGP.
Applications: None found.

VW

CONTENTS

Updated 8/9/05


Dragonfly Corvair engine conversion in progress

Hapi Engine Manual Free

#25955

Here is the deal. I am a retired aerospace manufacturing engineer specialized in advanced composite manufacturing and repair.
I am not a firewall forward mechanical engineer with system integration experience.
I was perfectly happy with my Dragonfly except the engines did not last very long and I could never get to published cruise speed. The climb rate of the 1835 cc VW was also unimpressive. With my soaring experience and the 4 gal average (50 hp) I was able to cover two thirds of the USA between 1999 and 2006 and amass 550 hours of stick time. Four flights over 1000 miles in one day.
So thankful that the HAPI prop hub failed during run up before take off into a red tile roof neighborhood.
A flight of two Dragonflies lined up at the hold short line out of TOA towards the ocean. Imagine the hub holding one more load for 3 minutes!
Needless to say my faith in VW conversions was shaken. I had seen Great Plains 2200s belching oil from case failures at fly-in’s and was not too keen on that. My friend and lead pilot took me out to Revmaster where I met Joe H. He detailed the differences between Great Plains engines and RevMaster. Short answer RevMaster produces fully engineered and documented engines professionally assembled and tested to ensure they put out specified hp. With Other converters you get engine parts in a box. Sadly he did not have a bolt on solution to my blown up HAPI or I would have maybe tried that.
In 2003 I think I became aware or the Corvair engine. I went to a fly-in and met William Wynne “The Corvair Authority” and Bob Sutcliff a noted sand drag racer and Corvair engine builder of 300hp engines. WW is an A&P who has been researching and developing the 100 hp Corvair for decades as an alternative to the O-200 Continental for home builders.
I came back from the fly-in and during a hangar flying session my Boeing Engineering manager friend related that he used to run a Baha Bug with a Corvair engine up to 8000 rpm with a big Quadrajet on top and header exhaust. He said he had a bunch of Corvair stuff and I bought a case and crank for $100.00 I had Bob Sutcliff do the machine work for a 2900 cc engine. A long time builder in Idaho had to quit building. I bought his airframe with the intention of developing a Dragonfly/Corvair and was proceeding with the plan.
I was still flying the VW everywhere and had replaced the tired first engine with a low time HAPI factory built engine. I was on a business trip, OGD to Carson City Nv; Jean Nv for. Fly in; Torrance CA for a conference May 2006.
Per the advice of a DAR I scrapped my Dragonfly N157JG and it was no longer an airplane. Between 2005 and 2011 I created my first attempted firewall forward design Dragonfly/Corvair 2700 cc airplane. I tried to keep the lines fair and smooth for aerodynamics. I used the VW layout as a start and followed a noted KR/Corvair builder as guidance and had Williams conversion manual. I also accessed NACA documents and EAA publications for reference. What could possibly go wrong?
Per the original Dragonfly firewall forward which had an underslung horizontal Ellison 2 which had performed flawlessly for 650 hours I used that configuration as a template.
I believe the radiant heat from the oil pan heat soaked the Ellison during the first 5000 ft then second 3000 ft climb to the boiling point of Avgas at 8000 ft. There are a couple of papers on vapor locking out there I have become aware of.
Second try Firewall forward: I prop struck the 2700 cc engine vary hard. In order to be used a complete tear down would have to be done. I still had the 2900 cc sitting on the bench so it became my new 3000 cc waiting to be set on the plane next spring. Carburetor is up draft float MS SPA located behind and below the engine. Lower cowl offset from fuselage increased for more volume and inlets increased in diameter.

This is where it is at now. Better climb and faster than original VW. Engine is not being asked to produce more than factory rated turbo 180 hp should last longer. Engine is capable of sustained smooth 3500 rpm making 54” dia. low pitch props match airframe design speed. I can oversee the health of my engine and know how to overhaul it for less than $20,000 The main problem is the weight that far forward of the CG requires counterbalancing to even get in the airframe CG envelope. My Dragonfly weighs 950 lbs. according to the plans that cuts useful load a lot. It is like I have an invisible fat guy next to me.
The RevMaster R2300 starts with an Aluminum case which eliminates case failures. There crank /hub design is proven by decades of flying R2200 engines. The heads are their design and designed to dissipate 100 hp of heat verified on a dynamometer. Built in redundant ignition and electrical systems means no extra accessory weight.
My brother is replacing his HAPI with a R2300. RevMaster fabricated the engine mount. It could have been a little shorter. Original cowling was sectioned and stretched for new mount and engine.
When these two planes are done and flying a real world comparison can be done.


toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Jan 6, 2020, at 7:24 PM, John W <jwietlis@.> wrote:
Thank you One Sky Dog for your response.
From your reply, it appears the Corvair engine is good, just that there is going to be a pile of work to make it fit and keep it cool. My interpretation of your comment is, the engine is good, but due to cooling you experienced a vapor lock. I also have read the Corvair engine is narrower than VW but is taller, so I can also see having issues fitting exhaust and maybe with carburation. I will look into the advice you gave your brother and see what the R2300 looks like. Thanks again to you and to the other responders. You guys have been there and have lots of knowledge.

On 1/5/2020 6:56 PM, One Sky Dog via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi,
I have had two HAPI engines over the years. 550 hrs, 250 hours were the failure times. In 2006 I determined that engines designed for 28 hp did not last long at 50-60 hp.
The R2300 was not available at the time. My last VW engine failure was at TOA hold short line. I did spend a couple of hours talking to Revmaster and asking him about his engine philosophy. I was done with HAPI and Joe did not have a bolt up solution. So I had to cut my elevators off to get the canard off and drag it home on a makeshift trailer.
#26021

Why did the DAR suggest you scrap your Dragonfly N157JG?
--
Anthony Parker
#26022

It just is not registered anymore and has not been In years ive never had anybody anything about sctaping it I would tail # was N24DF I think I would use the parts from both build one new one to get the repair certificate. That way you can do all your own maintance and anuals
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Apr 8, 2020 7:41 PM, Anthony P <solarant@.> wrote:
Why did the DAR suggest you scrap your Dragonfly N157JG?
--
Anthony Parker

#26026

To all,
An airplane is a pile of parts and a pile of paper forms married together by the FAA.
I did not build 157JG in order to make changes I would have to work with the San Diego FSDO and I still could not do my condition inspections because the repairmans certificate had been issued to the builder. Because I was making a major change it was easier to start over. I wrote scrapped on the registration and sent it in to the FAA the pile of parts in my hangar was no longer an “airplane”.
I became the “ primary builder” of a Dragonfly project. The Dragonfly is a plans built airplane and is exempt from the task list form for kit planes. I did not have to submit the form that asks what percentage of tasks was performed by the builder or the kit manufacturer.
All of the parts in my hangar were amateur built which is the criteria to obtain a “an amateur built airworthiness certificate”. There is no regulation that states I have to personally build every part. Just like at Oshkosh when they build a plane in a week no one built most of it. To register it someone has to be declared the “primary builder”.
Because there were no rich people commissioning Dragonflies to be built like Lancair’s and it is plans built convincing a DAR it is amateur built is not a problem.
“Government officials” do not work for you the amateur builder. The FSDO’s offer free airworthiness inspection services by regulation. Because I worked for the government the last person I wanted to be involved in my project was another government employee. I hired a DAR (who worked for me) to guide me through all the forms required, to do my airworthiness inspection and submit the package to the FAA. He also provided the form for me to apply for the repairmans certificate.
My pile of parts got married to the pile of paperwork and a new airplane was born in 2011. I am the manufacturer and have the repairmans certificate for 187CD.
Do not read anything into the regulations that is not stated in black and white. If the FAA does not say you can not do something in writing you can do it legally.
Regards,
One Sky Dog


toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Apr 8, 2020, at 4:41 PM, Anthony P <solarant@.> wrote:
Why did the DAR suggest you scrap your Dragonfly N157JG?
--
Anthony Parker
#26027

Scrapping it does not mean destroying it. It is a legal term to mean it no longer has an airworthiness certificate or registration and is not an “airplane”.

toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Apr 8, 2020, at 5:07 PM, kodamacarpentry37 via groups.io <kodamacarpentry37@.> wrote:
It just is not registered anymore and has not been In years ive never had anybody anything about sctaping it I would tail # was N24DF I think I would use the parts from both build one new one to get the repair certificate. That way you can do all your own maintance and anuals

On Apr 8, 2020 7:41 PM, Anthony P <solarant@.> wrote:
Why did the DAR suggest you scrap your Dragonfly N157JG?
--
Anthony Parker

#26028

toggle quoted messageShow quoted text

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 3:48 AM One Sky Dog via groups.io <[email protected]> wrote:
To all,
An airplane is a pile of parts and a pile of paper forms married together by the FAA.
I did not build 157JG in order to make changes I would have to work with the San Diego FSDO and I still could not do my condition inspections because the repairmans certificate had been issued to the builder. Because I was making a major change it was easier to start over. I wrote scrapped on the registration and sent it in to the FAA the pile of parts in my hangar was no longer an “airplane”.
I became the “ primary builder” of a Dragonfly project. The Dragonfly is a plans built airplane and is exempt from the task list form for kit planes. I did not have to submit the form that asks what percentage of tasks was performed by the builder or the kit manufacturer.
All of the parts in my hangar were amateur built which is the criteria to obtain a “an amateur built airworthiness certificate”. There is no regulation that states I have to personally build every part. Just like at Oshkosh when they build a plane in a week no one built most of it. To register it someone has to be declared the “primary builder”.
Because there were no rich people commissioning Dragonflies to be built like Lancair’s and it is plans built convincing a DAR it is amateur built is not a problem.
“Government officials” do not work for you the amateur builder. The FSDO’s offer free airworthiness inspection services by regulation. Because I worked for the government the last person I wanted to be involved in my project was another government employee. I hired a DAR (who worked for me) to guide me through all the forms required, to do my airworthiness inspection and submit the package to the FAA. He also provided the form for me to apply for the repairmans certificate.
My pile of parts got married to the pile of paperwork and a new airplane was born in 2011. I am the manufacturer and have the repairmans certificate for 187CD.
Do not read anything into the regulations that is not stated in black and white. If the FAA does not say you can not do something in writing you can do it legally.
Regards,
One Sky Dog


On Apr 8, 2020, at 4:41 PM, Anthony P <solarant@.> wrote:
Why did the DAR suggest you scrap your Dragonfly N157JG?
--
Anthony Parker
#26030

Thank you very much for the explanation!
Makes sense to me. :)
--
Anthony Parker
#26032

One sky dog, Thank you for your clear concise explanation of your certification process. Im getting closer to completing my project. The remaking of my cowling has turned into a colossal labor intense project. Then I can start my engine for the first time.
MKIIH
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Thursday, April 9, 2020, 03:48:21 AM PDT, One Sky Dog via groups.io <oneskydog@.> wrote:

To all,
An airplane is a pile of parts and a pile of paper forms married together by the FAA.
I did not build 157JG in order to make changes I would have to work with the San Diego FSDO and I still could not do my condition inspections because the repairmans certificate had been issued to the builder. Because I was making a major change it was easier to start over. I wrote scrapped on the registration and sent it in to the FAA the pile of parts in my hangar was no longer an “airplane”.
I became the “ primary builder” of a Dragonfly project. The Dragonfly is a plans built airplane and is exempt from the task list form for kit planes. I did not have to submit the form that asks what percentage of tasks was performed by the builder or the kit manufacturer.
All of the parts in my hangar were amateur built which is the criteria to obtain a “an amateur built airworthiness certificate”. There is no regulation that states I have to personally build every part. Just like at Oshkosh when they build a plane in a week no one built most of it. To register it someone has to be declared the “primary builder”.
Because there were no rich people commissioning Dragonflies to be built like Lancair’s and it is plans built convincing a DAR it is amateur built is not a problem.
“Government officials” do not work for you the amateur builder. The FSDO’s offer free airworthiness inspection services by regulation. Because I worked for the government the last person I wanted to be involved in my project was another government employee. I hired a DAR (who worked for me) to guide me through all the forms required, to do my airworthiness inspection and submit the package to the FAA. He also provided the form for me to apply for the repairmans certificate.
My pile of parts got married to the pile of paperwork and a new airplane was born in 2011. I am the manufacturer and have the repairmans certificate for 187CD.
Do not read anything into the regulations that is not stated in black and white. If the FAA does not say you can not do something in writing you can do it legally.
Regards,
One Sky Dog


On Apr 8, 2020, at 4:41 PM, Anthony P <solarant@.> wrote:
Why did the DAR suggest you scrap your Dragonfly N157JG?
--
Anthony Parker