Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:37 AM - Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. (JetPilot)
2. 10:17 AM - Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. (Lowell Fitt)
3. 11:04 AM - Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. (akflyer)
4. 11:16 AM - Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. (fox5flyer)
5. 12:52 PM - Kitfox for sale (Herbert Doud)
6. 02:14 PM - Re: Kitfox for sale (darinh)
7. 02:33 PM - Re: Kitfox for sale (JetPilot)
8. 03:10 PM - Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. (Paul A. Franz, P.E.)
9. 04:37 PM - Re: Re: Performance mods for 582. (Noel Loveys)
10. 08:03 PM - Re: Performance mods for 582. (Noel Loveys)
11. 11:29 PM - Re: Kitfox for sale (Michel Verheughe)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. |
A 2 stroke engine is much more likely to suddenly fail than a 4 stroke, this is
FACT, not opinion. There are always cases where guys have been able to make
a 2 stroke engine work for many hours... There are even guys that have done
extraordinary trips with 2 strokes, but this does not change the FACTS or the
REALITY that 2 strokes are much more likely to suddenly fail in flight than a
4 stroke. In theory the 2 stroke engine is very simple, but it has a fatal flaw,
the 2 stroke engine requires PERFECT delivery of the fuel air mixture to
not overheat in seize. In an airplane, as in most applications, life happens,
and sooner or later the mixture will not be laboratory perfect for a few moments
and the engine suddenly seizes up. Then there are the additional issues
of Cold Seizure, rings sticking, exhaust failures, and others... So if you think
you can make a 2 stroke engine work under laboratory perfect conditions for
1000 hours, then maybe you will be successful with a 2 stroke engine. But
most people are not......
Why do you think that NO certified airplane has been made with a 2 stroke engine
for the last 50 years ? In the past fuel was cheap, and 2 stroke engines were
lighter, but NO manufacture would sell a plane with an unreliable 2 stroke
engine. Even small dirt bikes are now being sold with 4 stroke engines now.
For manufacturers, and those that know how to separate FACTS from opinion,
4 stroke engines are the the clear choice, by about 100 %... It is pretty rare
to get 100 percent consensus on anything, but manufacturers have unanimously
chosen 4 stroke engines for planes, cars, and now for even the smallest and
lightest applications. This FACT should be enough evidence to clue most people
in that 2 stroke engines are problematic.
I fly both a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke engine, but I believe in being honest and
giving the best advice to others possible. The 2 stroke Rotax was the only choice
available for a 103 legal ultralight, so that choice is already made for
me... For my larger plane, I worked overtime and did without a couple other of
things ( new car ) to buy a Rotax 912-S. There is no way I was going to fly
with my friends and family behind a 2 stroke engine in my Kitfox. Who out
there would buy a new car with a 2 stroke engine ??? But then the same people
ask if they should put a two stroke engine on their Kitfox, it is enough to
boggle the mind... For a person to give bad advice to others just because he
has been able to make a 2 stroke work without a failure is nothing short of
a disservice. In the end, I would and do fly behind both a 2 stroke and a 4
stroke, but I never forget the fact that the 2 stroke engine is much more likely
to suddenly fail at the worst possible time and get me hurt...
To top it off, if you do the numbers, with fuel usage and overhauls, the more reliable
4 stroke is actually CHEAPER in the long run than the 2 stroke. That
makes this choice a no brainier....
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=214361#214361
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. |
(Snip) Even small dirt bikes are now being sold with 4 stroke engines now.
For manufacturers, and those that know how to separate FACTS from opinion, 4
stroke engines are the the clear choice, by about 100 %...
(Snip)
Come on Mike, It is largely the EPA that is mandating the replacement of 2
stroke engines with the 4 strokes. It is burning oil that they don't like.
Lake Tahoe and other lakes have banned 2 sroke engines, not because they are
tired of rescuing folks stranded by engine failures, but they don't like the
oil slicks on the water. String trimmers, chain saws etc. It is not the
reliability, it is the smoke.
I don't mind discussion, but when the evidence is clearly edited, I steam a
bit.
Lowell
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. |
JetPilot wrote:
> The 2 stroke Rotax was the only choice available for a 103 legal ultralight,
so that choice is already made for me...
> Mike
Me thinks this is a wee bit of an untrue statement. Rotax is NOT the only 2 stroke
aircraft engine manufacture. I wont even touch the rest of it.
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Leonard Perry
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1260
As done as any plane will ever be.... cause now the tinkeritis takes over.
hander outer of humorless darwin awards
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=214374#214374
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. |
This well written oratory below is a classic case of drawing a wide blurry
line midway between fact and opinion with absolutely no objective data
included to back any of it up.
In my opinion, and the FACT that before I sold it I put nearly 400 mostly
trouble free hours on a Kitfox II/582 with the only problem being a cracked
flywheel which had nothing to do with it being a 2 stroke, the only
meaningful difference between the 582 and 912x is how much money do you want
to spend! Very big difference.
Sure, the 582 in the same airplane doesn't go as fast nor carry the same
load as a 912x, but it also has the disadvantage of much less horse power
and torque. Sure, it takes a little bit of tinkering, but not much. Not
everyone has the deep pockets to drop in the 912, which I'm sure, anyone
would prefer over the 582 if the money were not an issue. Without the 582
I'm sure there would be far fewer people out there flying experimentals and
ultralights.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 11:37 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.
>
> A 2 stroke engine is much more likely to suddenly fail than a 4 stroke,
> this is FACT, not opinion. There are always cases where guys have been
> able to make a 2 stroke engine work for many hours... There are even guys
> that have done extraordinary trips with 2 strokes, but this does not
> change the FACTS or the REALITY that 2 strokes are much more likely to
> suddenly fail in flight than a 4 stroke. In theory the 2 stroke engine is
> very simple, but it has a fatal flaw, the 2 stroke engine requires PERFECT
> delivery of the fuel air mixture to not overheat in seize. In an
> airplane, as in most applications, life happens, and sooner or later the
> mixture will not be laboratory perfect for a few moments and the engine
> suddenly seizes up. Then there are the additional issues of Cold Seizure,
> rings sticking, exhaust failures, and others... So if you think you can
> make a 2 stroke engine work under laboratory perfect conditions for 1000
> hours, then maybe you will be successful wit!
> h a 2 stroke engine. But most people are not......
>
> Why do you think that NO certified airplane has been made with a 2 stroke
> engine for the last 50 years ? In the past fuel was cheap, and 2 stroke
> engines were lighter, but NO manufacture would sell a plane with an
> unreliable 2 stroke engine. Even small dirt bikes are now being sold
> with 4 stroke engines now. For manufacturers, and those that know how to
> separate FACTS from opinion, 4 stroke engines are the the clear choice, by
> about 100 %... It is pretty rare to get 100 percent consensus on
> anything, but manufacturers have unanimously chosen 4 stroke engines for
> planes, cars, and now for even the smallest and lightest applications.
> This FACT should be enough evidence to clue most people in that 2 stroke
> engines are problematic.
>
> I fly both a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke engine, but I believe in being honest
> and giving the best advice to others possible. The 2 stroke Rotax was the
> only choice available for a 103 legal ultralight, so that choice is
> already made for me... For my larger plane, I worked overtime and did
> without a couple other of things ( new car ) to buy a Rotax 912-S. There
> is no way I was going to fly with my friends and family behind a 2 stroke
> engine in my Kitfox. Who out there would buy a new car with a 2 stroke
> engine ??? But then the same people ask if they should put a two stroke
> engine on their Kitfox, it is enough to boggle the mind... For a person
> to give bad advice to others just because he has been able to make a 2
> stroke work without a failure is nothing short of a disservice. In the
> end, I would and do fly behind both a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke, but I never
> forget the fact that the 2 stroke engine is much more likely to suddenly
> fail at the worst possible time and g!
> et me hurt...
>
> To top it off, if you do the numbers, with fuel usage and overhauls, the
> more reliable 4 stroke is actually CHEAPER in the long run than the 2
> stroke. That makes this choice a no brainier....
>
> Mike
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
All good things eventually come to the end. My promise to my family to quit
flying at age 80 years, has arrived and so my Kitfox, a really nice
airplane, is for sale.
Model IV Kitfox for sale.. $18,500
1992 Kitfox approx 375 hrs TT
Blue head 582 Rotax engine, 93 hrs total time
Decarb recently completed
1050 Gross
VG's (vortex generators) on wings and horiz. stabilizer
Wing locker not installed
Plane Trailer
Condition Inspection due April 2009
Custom cowl with large air scoop and large radiator
18 gal fuel (a 13 gal tank and a 6 gal tank currently on plane)
Extra 13 gal right wing tank, not installed
Low oil tank and fuel header tank red warning lights
760 channel com radio
Transponder
Voice activated intercom
New mini digital tachometer
New vertical card compass
Extra standard compass
Altimeter
Vertical speed indicator
Turn and Ball indicator
Garmin 90 GPS (wired to plane for power)
Elevator trim
Fan driven cockpit heater
Tall rudder extension for better stability
New Lexan windscreen, not installed
New soft tail wheel not installed
New wing fuel sight level gages
Electric fuel boost pump
New interior seat and door upholstery
Gas transfer pump on wheels with 12V battery for refueling
2 extra Bing Carbs
1 extra ignition module
Rotax silencer/muffler (new)
Extra Rotax muffler (CPS lists this muffler at over $900)
2 Extra new Rotax carb gaskets (the polyurethane long lasting type are now
on the plane)
Condition of the plane is a 9 out of 10
This Kitfox with all equipment and parts listed are offered for sale,
$18,500
Photographs by mail, upon request. Further details by phone.
Herbert Doud
2651 Lone Oak Rd
New Braunfels, Tx
830 899-4305
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox for sale |
Congratulations on being able to fly (from an FAA medical standpoint that is) until
age 80! I am just hoping I can keep my medical until I am 60...every year
beyond that will be like icing on the cake.
Sounds like a great IV, good luck on the sale.
--------
Darin Hawkes
Series 7 (Phase 1 - Flight Testing)
914 Turbo
Kaysville, Utah
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=214387#214387
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox for sale |
That sounds like a nice setup Herb, good price to :) The only thing I would
do different is not make the promise to anyone to stop flying at any age !!!
And if I did in a moment of insanity I would most definitely break that promise
[Wink]
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=214388#214388
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. |
On Sat, November 15, 2008 8:37 am, JetPilot wrote:
>
> A 2 stroke engine is much more likely to suddenly fail than a 4 stroke, this
is FACT,
> not opinion.
I don't think you can say that without some qualifications. For example, if you
compare two engines of roughly equal quality of construction such as a current
582 and
912 and specify that both are to be operated within operational directives: rpm
limits, mixture limits, service, inspection and overhaul directives, there should
be
no particular known cause for sudden failure of either.
What it is true is that the two stroke cycle engine will have a higher BSFC (brake
specific fuel consumption, and engineering term), a lower TBO than the four stroke
cycle engine. But the two stroke cycle engine has a significantly better power
to
weight ratio and will generally be smaller. This leaves two noticeable differences
to
compare. One is aesthetics, both visual and audio and the other is economics. As
to
aesthetics, I don't find the sound of a two stroke particularly pleasing compared
to
the sound of tuned exhaust on a four stroke. I'll bet there are more than just
a few
that relish the sound of a tuned two stroke under load though. I like the sound
of a
Harley, whereas my wife thinks it's even worse than my Husqvarna chainsaw. But
the
economics are really different. The two stroke has a significantly lower initial
cost
(capitalization) but higher cost in both parts and labor for maintenance and overhaul
and since it's BSFC is roughly 50% higher, and it consumes more lubricating oil,
it's
overall operational cost will be higher.
If initial cost is going to determine whether or not you can build and fly an airplane
then you're likely going to chose a smaller and lighter aircraft and that choice
will
demand the lightest possible engine in order to provide some useful load and going
with the budget restriction, you're going to probably choose the two stroke engine.
I would concede that the two stroke engine has less tolerance for lean mixture
but
given a good calibrated EGT gauge, you should not be guessing whether the mixture
is
too lean. One of the Alaska 582 flyers cautioned that extended low partial power
descents is also cause for caution, but that may only apply to fixed mixture settings.
I believe there are in-flight mixture controls for the two stroke which should
eliminate the high rpm, low fuel flow, lubrication problem by simply enrichening
the
mixture. But as has been pointed out, Rotax has an operations manual that is freely
downloadable and that will instruct the owner on proper operation. I have not read
that manual.
> There are always cases where guys have been able to make a 2 stroke
> engine work for many hours... There are even guys that have done extraordinary
trips
> with 2 strokes,
This isn't at all uncommon as you imply.
> but this does not change the FACTS or the REALITY that 2 strokes are
> much more likely to suddenly fail in flight than a 4 stroke. In theory the 2
stroke
> engine is very simple, but it has a fatal flaw, the 2 stroke engine requires
PERFECT
> delivery of the fuel air mixture to not overheat in seize.
I disagree here. Perfection is not required. Adherence to the operating limits
is
required. Too lean, temperatures are too high and lubrication suffers; too rich
for
too long will cause soot deposits.
> In an airplane, as in most
> applications, life happens, and sooner or later the mixture will not be laboratory
> perfect for a few moments and the engine suddenly seizes up. Then there are
the
> additional issues of Cold Seizure, rings sticking, exhaust failures, and others...
> So if you think you can make a 2 stroke engine work under laboratory perfect
> conditions for 1000 hours, then maybe you will be successful wit!
> h a 2 stroke engine. But most people are not......
These two strokes are used at many flight schools and when operated and serviced
as
directed, it is not at all uncommon to outlast the TBO.
They don't have to be operated as a laboratory experiment, and you have a very
reasonable expectation of safe operation to TBO and beyond. The TBO is lower, perhaps
half of that of the 912 but those hours are all good hours. One must understand
that
engine lubrication is delivered with the fuel and that is the primary difference.
EGT,
water temperature, and RPM are the suitable operational indicators. You must know
how
to run both 2 stroke and 4 stroke engines within the proper limits. You cannot
turn
the fuel flow off and windmill the two stroke engine, it won't be getting lubrication.
You can't windmill a 4 stroke until the cylinders get very cold such as could be
done
in the winter or in the arctic then suddenly go WOT either, you'd risk getting
cracked
cylinder heads. Point is, you have to operate the aircraft engine within recommended
operational limits or you risk severe damage. I would say every owner, wants to
avoid
engine damage and possible injury enough so that they will endeavor to learn the
envelope of operation. The designs of these engines are mature and the documentation
is readily available.
>
> Why do you think that NO certified airplane has been made with a 2 stroke engine
for
> the last 50 years ? In the past fuel was cheap, and 2 stroke engines were lighter,
> but NO manufacture would sell a plane with an unreliable 2 stroke engine.
Even
> small dirt bikes are now being sold with 4 stroke engines now.
Environmental concerns are driving this decision, not power to weight ratio. The
two
stroke engine will not meet standards for CO, particulate or NOx emissions. In
some
locales, even two stroke engines are banned on trimmers and mowers.
> For manufacturers,
> and those that know how to separate FACTS from opinion, 4 stroke engines are
the the
> clear choice, by about 100 %... It is pretty rare to get 100 percent consensus
on
> anything, but manufacturers have unanimously chosen 4 stroke engines for planes,
cars,
> and now for even the smallest and lightest applications. This FACT should be
enough
> evidence to clue most people in that 2 stroke engines are problematic.
Long term economics, emission standards, and aesthetics are driving this issue.
> I fly both a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke engine, but I believe in being honest and
giving
> the best advice to others possible. The 2 stroke Rotax was the only choice available
> for a 103 legal ultralight, so that choice is already made for me... For my
larger
> plane, I worked overtime and did without a couple other of things ( new car )
to buy a
> Rotax 912-S. There is no way I was going to fly with my friends and family behind
a 2
> stroke engine in my Kitfox.
You're better off economically with the 912 over a longer period of time and you're
getting more horsepower, climb and cruise speed and range. But your useful load
is
less. You may be really averse to the aesthetics (sound and appearance) of the
two
stroke, but you're certainly capable of operating the 582 as safely as you can
operate
the 912.
> Who out there would buy a new car with a 2 stroke
> engine ???
It could be coming again with tiny little cars. With an ECU controlling fuel injection
and EGR, tiny little air cooled two stroke engines will be powering 600 to 900
lb cars
that can cruise 60 mph and get 100 mpg while meeting mandated emission standards
for
2010 and having a reasonable life expectancy. The economics and power to weight
ratio
of the two stroke engine powered car are far better than current battery powered
offerings.
> But then the same people ask if they should put a two stroke engine on
> their Kitfox, it is enough to boggle the mind... For a person to give bad advice
to
> others just because he has been able to make a 2 stroke work without a failure
is
> nothing short of a disservice.
Power to weight ratio and initial cost are the driving factors. I agree, that the
buyer needs to be well informed as to the operating limits and maintenance required
but the buyer of the two stroke should not be advised that he is buying certain
catastrophic failure. He is not.
> In the end, I would and do fly behind both a 2 stroke
> and a 4 stroke, but I never forget the fact that the 2 stroke engine is much
more
> likely to suddenly fail at the worst possible time and g!
> et me hurt...
Catastrophic failure is no more likely in a two stroke operated within manufacturer's
limits than is a four stroke. High temperatures caused by lean mixture and
insufficient lubrication must be avoided to prevent seizure, but that won't happen
if
the engine water temperature (cyl head temp), EGT, and RPM are not exceeded. If
you
overheat a four stroke it will be damaged too, if you run the 4 stroke too lean
it
will burn the exhaust valves. You cannot windmill the two stroke engine if you
run out
of fuel or shut the fuel off in flight either. A propeller clutch might automatically
prevent that problem though.
>
> To top it off, if you do the numbers, with fuel usage and overhauls, the more
reliable
> 4 stroke is actually CHEAPER in the long run than the 2 stroke. That makes this
> choice a no brainier....
True, over a lifetime where you have the option of one engine over the other. Some
don't have the option though because of engine weight or initial capital. Let's
say a
65 year old retires, buys an early Kitfox kit such as a Model 1 or 2, builds it
in a
year, then flies it at 100 hours a year for three, possibly 4 years. He may never
have
had to do an overhaul and his cost of operation is probably higher, but he may
never
have had the flying opportunity at all if he had to save for the more expensive
engine
and the with the lighter weight of the two stroke, he has more capacity for fuel,
and
baggage. Might make the difference of whether he can take his wife along on a trip
or
not. The operational cost would be dominated by the fuel consumption difference.
Let's
say it is 2 gallons per hour higher for the two stroke factoring in the lower cruise
speed and that the fuel is $5/gal including oil. Then for his 400 hours in 4 years,
he's spent an additional $10/hour or $4000. That's less than the price difference
between the two engines. Granted the two stroke is at or beyond TBO, but he might
be
done with the plane at age 70 anyway so in this example, the 582 makes good sense.
Even if the person bought a higher gross weight kit such as a model 4, where it
the
extra weight of the 912 is fine, the fact that the initial capital required to
complete the kit with a 582 may be the difference between being able to experience
flight or not. The extra $100/mo cost of operation is less important than the initial
investment.
--
Paul A. Franz, P.E.
PAF Consulting Engineers
Office 425.440.9505
Cell 425.241.1618
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Performance mods for 582. |
Now we get to the fun part!
I've flown my model III-A , a supposed converted model II with the 582 and
Areocet 1100 straight floats.
My gorss is only 950 lb. but with the Ivo set to give a 6800 T.O. rpm. It
is off the water pretty fast... Faster than I can get a light Super cub
with 160 hp off! Once airborne however the Super Cub easily out climbed the
Kitfox... And there are the gas bills to prove it. The Cub also took a bit
more water for me to get it down.
What I've been told is the 912 engine will give a better cruise and climb
but the 582 is better for getting airborne initially.
Noel Loveys
AME Intern, RPP
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 floats
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of tjmxer
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:07 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Performance mods for 582.
Come on. Is the 582 really that bad? Is the 912 that much better?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=214021#214021
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Performance mods for 582. |
If there is a "con" to operating a two stroke engine it is in the
efficiency. Two stroke engines tend to run a bit on the rich side because
they use fuel to cool the combustion chambers so you can expect to use a bit
more gas to produce the same power on a two stroke.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Performance mods for 582.
Gary and Leonard
Thank you for the info on the 582's. I thought both you guys did a great
job on the pro's and cons. I have a great interest in engines and had a two
stroke in my 1962 SAAB a while back(a long while !) I loved that car and
stupid me I traded it for a Renault Dauphine (which I soon got rid of ) I
added a quart of oil at each gas fill to the SAAB.Super car and I sure would
like to have another one
I have a 912UL in my Fox 4 and it runs great and I think I have the minor
bugs worked out but I still do not like flying over any water with it ! (ie:
Mobile Bay last weekend) Would I fly it to my cabin in NC about 450 miles
away -no. I guess it is just a gut feeling (after three engine failures in
other aircraft-one going straight up at 200ft agl) Any way ,I digress.
I have toyed with another project but have always disregarded the two
strokes as unreliable. Now I am not so sure. Lockwood has a good two stroke
school . Maybe I will go just to learn more about them. Thanks guys!
Dick Maddux
Fox 4-1200
Pensacola,Fl
_____
Get movies delivered to your mailbox. One
ps://www.blockbuster.com/signup/y/reg/p.26978/r.email_footer> month free
from blockbuster.com
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox for sale |
> From: darinh [gerns25@netscape.net]
> I am just hoping I can keep my medical until I am 60...every year beyond that
> will be like icing on the cake.
Amen to that! (from the man who lost his medical at 60! ;-(
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200 ... grounded
Do not archive
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|