Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:46 AM - New Rotax Powerplants For Sale (skyrider2)
2. 06:19 AM - 912UL on a Firestar II (John Jung)
3. 06:41 AM - Firestar II For Sale (Ken Harrison)
4. 06:43 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Larry Bourne)
5. 06:52 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (lucien stavenhagen)
6. 07:09 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck)
7. 07:18 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck)
8. 07:35 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Richard Pike)
9. 07:35 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Robert Laird)
10. 07:53 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (lucien stavenhagen)
11. 07:56 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Christopher Armstrong)
12. 08:14 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Jeremy Casey)
13. 08:20 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck)
14. 08:37 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck)
15. 08:38 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (lucien stavenhagen)
16. 08:57 AM - Aero twin (Herb Gayheart)
17. 11:04 AM - Re: more questionsmore questions (D Lucas)
18. 01:14 PM - Re: more questionsmore questions (bryan green)
19. 01:34 PM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Jung)
20. 02:09 PM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck)
21. 02:10 PM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (lucien stavenhagen)
22. 03:29 PM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Christopher Armstrong)
23. 05:11 PM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Jung)
24. 05:26 PM - oil thermo (robert bean)
25. 05:59 PM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck)
26. 06:41 PM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (lucien stavenhagen)
27. 07:07 PM - Re: more questionsmore questions (Jim Baker)
28. 07:32 PM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Richard Swiderski)
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: | New Rotax Powerplants For Sale |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "skyrider2" <skyrider2@earthlink.net>
Hi Gang,
Sorry if this offends anyone due to the "commercial" nature of the post, but this
was posted to another Matronics list that I subscribe to and I thought some
of you might be interested and/or get some benefit out of it. If not, delete.
I do not know either of these guys, so buyer beware. Hope it helps someone
acquire an affordable engine.
Merry Christmas to all and have a safe and Happy New Year !!!
Doug Lawton
NE Georgia & Whitwell TN
Do Not Archive
Rotax power plants for sale
--> Europa-List message posted by: "Bruce" <bruce@justbruce.com>
Holiday Greetings:
Pardon me for a blatant commercial message, but many of you may be
interested in a Rotax deal that has been offered no where else. A retired
engineer friend is selling some bits from his lab that were left over when
he retired. This pile of stuff includes five (5) new Rotax power plants
that were not needed during the course of a high-altitude aviation research
project he and his company performed a few years ago.
If you are interested, please CONTACT HIM DIRECTLY (DO NOT contact me as I
have no additional information other than that below. DON'T BE SILLY AND
RESPOND TO THIS LIST as he will never see it here).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DAVEDENT@COMCAST.NET <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
According to my notes (which may have some inaccuracies)
1. These are all 1997 vintage engines, but according to the U.S.
distributor, new ones are substantially the same engine.
2. They are in their original Rotax packing cases.
3. They are stock engines exactly as Rotax sold them. These are not custom
military versions.
4. These engines are new and have not been run.
5. These engines were just moved last week from Southern California to
Livermore Airport just east of San Francisco where they can be inspected.
He has 2 of the 912 (NOT 912S) models. Current cost new he believes is now
around $12,400. He is offering these at $10,000.
He has 2 of the 914 models. Current cost new he believes is around $23,000.
He is offering these at $18,000.
He has 1 additional 912 that had been modified with some additional parts
and he is in the process of removing those parts and replacing them with the
original items that had been removed from that engine. I don't remember any
other details on that engine but price will probably be about the same as
the other 912.
I have no idea how flexible he is on pricing so contact him directly with
any questions. Please note that Dave did some research on the cost of used
and new Rotax engines and believes his prices are fair and realistic. These
engines just came on the market and have been offered no where else so a
quick cash offer may get you a little bit better deal unless Rotax raises
their prices again. His personal preference is to finalize purchases after
the beginning of the New Year.
You Rotax fans may be interested to know that Dave's triple-stage turbo
charger and the other modifications that his lab created allowed the 914s to
output 80 horsepower at 80,000 feet and 65 horsepower at 90,000 feet.
Bruce
A142 Conventional Tail Dragger
Tracy, CA
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: | 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
Group,
I really like my fully enclosed Firestar II and it's 503 DCDI, electric
start. But one thing that I am disappointed in is the lack ability to
travel. With 10 gallons of gas, I have only 140 miles planned range at
70 mph. When I fly on cross-countries, I tend to worry about changing
winds and remaining fuel. I have tried to figure out how to carry more
fuel in my Firestar, but the best that I have come up with is an extra
6 gallon tank in the back seat. Not a real solution. I need all the
back seat for cargo. So, I searched for a light weight, economical four
stroke for the Firestar. There is not much. And I don't like what there
is. Because of that, I have considered a Kolbra. I paid attention when
John W. wrote or talked about his, with special interest in fuel
economy (which to me is range). What I got from that, is that if you
push a Kolbra fast enough, you still have range problems. Recently, I
have wondered what the fuel burn of a 912UL would be at 80 mph on a
Firestar. By my calculations, using the Rotax HP and fuel burn graphs,
it would be less than 2 gph. If correct, I would have a 320+ mile
planned range with 8 of my 10 gallons. If it was possible to use a 912,
and the calculations are correct, it would change the whole character
of the plane. So what are the problems, and are they solvable? Any
interest?
John Jung
Firstar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
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: | Firestar II For Sale |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Ken Harrison" <kenharrison@ubgcharlotte.com>
Hello gentlemen,
I am putting my Firestar II up for sale. It's in great shape and is ready
to fly home. Here are the particulars.
KOLB FIRESTAR II 2004, VFR, Mint 2004 Kolb Firestar II, 2004 Paint, 2 Seats,
For Sale - $12,000
Mint 2004 Kolb Firestar II with Rotax 503 DCDCDI, Ivoprop, BRS-5 ballistic
chute, and Stits PolyTone color
scheme. Airframe has only 66 hours. Engine 235 hours. Extended panel, basic
VFR instruments, lexan gap seal, 5 gallon tank
installed and another 5 gallon tank available. Folding wings and tail
feathers. Easy to trailer.
Lots of pictures available. Sale price $12,000 ready to fly away. Ken
704-490-5499
Parts/options that are on the plane or come with the plane:
Extended panel that is hinged so that you can work on the back of the
instrument wiring.
BRS-5 ballistic chute
Map pocket on rear of pilot seat
Radio box under seat for handheld radio
One 5 gallon tank installed-second tank is available for optional install
behind the first one.
Lexan gap seal--held on with 4 stainless screws into 4 tabs welded to root
ribs
Basic VFR instruments
aircraft grade 4-pt locking harness
Shielded spark plug wires and shielded kill switch wires-- to cut down radio
static
Dual kill switches mounted by left hand
Foot panels for jump seat mounted in plane
Lexan windshield can be removed for maintenance
Ground adjustable 66" IvoProp with custom extension as required by Kolb
Passenger seat back (second seat kit)
Not installed but included:
Dual carb manifold and second carburetor and all gaskets
Dual throttle and choke cables and splitters
Spare tail wheel assembly and tail wheel
Second 5 gallon tank and pickup tube
Optional primer kit
Plans and Builder's manual
Let me know if you have any questions or would like to see pictures.
I'm in Lancaster, South Carolina.
Ken Harrison 704-490-5499
kenharrison@ubgcharlotte.com
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: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
I think it would be an exciting ride, at the very least. Your plane really
goes with the 503. My only real concern would be the strength of the frame
to carry that much power, and, of course, W&B considerations. I gave
serious thought - and some effort - toward wing tanks in the form of long
tubes, but it would've been awkward, hard to vent, and difficult to work
with on a finished wing. You may be able to work with something like John
H's custom aluminum overhead tank in the center section of the wing.
Someone else did that, too, in fiberglass, I think. They built a web page
on it. Woody ?? Possum ?? Good Luck, John. Lar.
Do not Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jung" <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: 912UL on a Firestar II
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
>
> Group,
>
> I really like my fully enclosed Firestar II and it's 503 DCDI, electric
> start. But one thing that I am disappointed in is the lack ability to
> travel. With 10 gallons of gas, I have only 140 miles planned range at
> 70 mph. When I fly on cross-countries, I tend to worry about changing
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 |
|
| Subject: | 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
Hey John,
My experience is still very limited, but I don't think I'd even want to try
putting a 912 on a FS II... I don't think the mount and the associated parts
are strong enough to handle that kind of weight, shaking and power. The
plane would probably also weigh a ton afterwards. Just eyeballing mine, I
think the 503 is as strong of a motor as I"d want to put on it - even a 582
is probably too much.......
As far as a 4-stroke alternative to the 503, the closest motor I know of is
the HKS, but there you're in somewhat unknown territory as far as the
installation goes and also a little more weight. And probably a hell of a
lot more vibration too....
Try flying a bit slower, say 60mph instead of 70. This is what I do with my
plane. I run a little less pitch on the prop (6350 or so at full throttle on
climbout) and just keep it at 60 (about 5300 to 5400 rpm to maintain my
altitude). The gas consumption is definitely lower, under 3gph now. I
estimate about 2.5gph so far, but I havn't done any really accurate
measurements lately.
The 503 is the perfect match for this plane, I can't think of a better setup
than what (we) already got....
I do like you, I just carry a gas can in the back seat if I need the extra
gas.....
LS
N646F
>Group,
>
>I really like my fully enclosed Firestar II and it's 503 DCDI, electric
>start. But one thing that I am disappointed in is the lack ability to
>travel. With 10 gallons of gas, I have only 140 miles planned range at
>70 mph. When I fly on cross-countries, I tend to worry about changing
>winds and remaining fuel. I have tried to figure out how to carry more
>fuel in my Firestar, but the best that I have come up with is an extra
>6 gallon tank in the back seat. Not a real solution. I need all the
>back seat for cargo. So, I searched for a light weight, economical four
>stroke for the Firestar. There is not much. And I don't like what there
>is. Because of that, I have considered a Kolbra. I paid attention when
>John W. wrote or talked about his, with special interest in fuel
>economy (which to me is range). What I got from that, is that if you
>push a Kolbra fast enough, you still have range problems. Recently, I
>have wondered what the fuel burn of a 912UL would be at 80 mph on a
>Firestar. By my calculations, using the Rotax HP and fuel burn graphs,
>it would be less than 2 gph. If correct, I would have a 320+ mile
>planned range with 8 of my 10 gallons. If it was possible to use a 912,
>and the calculations are correct, it would change the whole character
>of the plane. So what are the problems, and are they solvable? Any
>interest?
>
>John Jung
>Firstar II N6163J
>Surprise, AZ
>
>
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: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
electric
| start. But one thing that I am disappointed in is the lack ability
to
| travel. |
| John Jung
Hi John J/Gang:
If you want 912 power you need a Kolbra or MKIII. The FS was not
designed to accomodate the 912.
If you want to keep your FS II and 503 then design and build a larger
fuel tank. I had an 18 gal alum tank in my original Firestar,
configured same as the 25 gal tank in my MKIII, cross baffled and
mounted in the upper rear section of the fuselage. Not in the center
section as Larry B indicated in his post reference my fuel tank. I
did a lot of serious cross country flying in the FS back in the 1980's
powered by a point ignition 447.
Both fuel tanks were built from .050" 5052 aluminum. Was necessary to
cut a couple tubes to facilitate installation and removal if
necessary. Welded plates to the cut tubes and bolted them back with
3/16 bolts. Have had no reason to remove the tank in the MKIII. Have
had perfect service from the tank which was sloshed 4 times with
Randolph Slosh/Seal for auto and avn fuel.
Firestar and MKIII configured identically. By moving fuel tank into
the upper rear of the fuselage, this opened up the lower rear for my
gear.
The 912 series engines have to operate at a minimum of 190F oil temp
in order to burn off condensation. Would be very difficult to get the
912 to that temp if it was loafing along at 2 gph, even without an oil
cooler. I used to bypass the oil cooler on my 912UL during the winter
here in the SE in order to keep temps up to operating level. The 912
series engines also operate better when the CHT is kept up around
180F.
80 mph cruise in a FSII my be a bit uncomfortable in anything but
perfectly smooth air.
John J: You would love a Kolbra with a 912ULS!!! ;-)
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
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: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
| I don't think the mount and the associated parts
| are strong enough to handle that kind of weight, shaking and power.
|
| As far as a 4-stroke alternative to the 503, the closest motor I
know of is
| the HKS, And probably a hell of a
| lot more vibration too....
|
| LS
LS/Gang:
Could you expand on the "shaking" and "lot more vibration" you
associate with the 912 and HKS, please.
John J likes to do serious cross country flying. In order to enjoy
this type flying, one must have a machine that is set up for it. An
airplane that makes it fun to fly all day long, and at a comfortable
airspeed fast enough to get you there and keep you awake doing it.
Flying around with a gerry can of fuel in the back is not a good idea.
Much more comfortable to have the range and ease of a larger, safe
fuel tank. They are not that difficult to design and fabricate. We
always start off with a cardboard mockup, then move to the actual
aluminum fabrication once we get the size and shape correct.
Take care,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
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: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
Like you, my hangarmate with his 582 powered FSII is wanting more fuel
capacity. Since he seldom needs to carry cargo, he is going to a 6
gallon boat tank strapped securely into the back seat.
The better alternative is to resign yourself to doing a partial recover
on the main fuselage, and then weld up some good bracing tabs on the
cross braces that go in front of the stock tanks, so that they can be
removed and replaced without losing any structural integrity. Then cut
those braces out, make up a new, oversize tank to fit where the stock
tanks go, recover the fuselage around the areas you had to weld, put the
new tank in place and then bolt the original braces back in place. The
FSII with a 582 is not bad on fuel at all, Ed went flying Sunday
afternoon, was getting 75 mph at 5300 rpm, which is around 3.5 gph. With
18 gallons of fuel, that gives you more than 320 miles with a good
reserve. And the extra structural braces we added to the FSII so we
could safely use a 582 were not hard to make, they are bolt ons. The 582
is the same weight as a 503, not counting the cooling system, which
makes it a pretty easy swap, with predictable results.
The mods we did on the FSII are here
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/kolb.htm
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
John Jung wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
>
>Group,
>
>I really like my fully enclosed Firestar II and it's 503 DCDI, electric
>start. But one thing that I am disappointed in is the lack ability to
>travel. With 10 gallons of gas, I have only 140 miles planned range at
>70 mph. When I fly on cross-countries, I tend to worry about changing
>winds and remaining fuel. I have tried to figure out how to carry more
>fuel in my Firestar, but the best that I have come up with is an extra
>6 gallon tank in the back seat. Not a real solution. I need all the
>back seat for cargo. So, I searched for a light weight, economical four
>stroke for the Firestar. There is not much. And I don't like what there
>is. Because of that, I have considered a Kolbra. I paid attention when
>John W. wrote or talked about his, with special interest in fuel
>economy (which to me is range). What I got from that, is that if you
>push a Kolbra fast enough, you still have range problems. Recently, I
>have wondered what the fuel burn of a 912UL would be at 80 mph on a
>Firestar. By my calculations, using the Rotax HP and fuel burn graphs,
>it would be less than 2 gph. If correct, I would have a 320+ mile
>planned range with 8 of my 10 gallons. If it was possible to use a 912,
>and the calculations are correct, it would change the whole character
>of the plane. So what are the problems, and are they solvable? Any
>interest?
>
>John Jung
>Firstar II N6163J
>Surprise, AZ
>
>
>
>
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: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Robert Laird <rlaird@cavediver.com>
A friend has an HKS on a Murphy Maverick... He says it's smooth as
silk... here are some of the details:
gross weight 950 lbs
empty weight 538 lbs
rotate @ 35mph
best angle climb 46 mph
best rate of climb 58 mph
stall @ 30 mph
max-cross wind at 90 deg., 18 mph
vne max-120 mph
max cruise 90 mph
va maneuvering 80 mph at 6200 rpm
full throttle maximum at 3 min (60 hp)
cruise rpm 5,800 (56 hp)
1400rpm idle
oil pressure 85 psi at 6200 rpm
oil temp. 140-170F optimum, 190F max-122F min
Cht 338F max
Egt 1400F max
Gallons per hr about 3 1/2
Engine weighs about 121 lbs.
On 12/20/05, John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
> know of is
>
> LS/Gang:
>
> Could you expand on the "shaking" and "lot more vibration" you
> associate with the 912 and HKS, please.
>
> John J likes to do serious cross country flying. In order to enjoy
> this type flying, one must have a machine that is set up for it. An
> airplane that makes it fun to fly all day long, and at a comfortable
> airspeed fast enough to get you there and keep you awake doing it.
> Flying around with a gerry can of fuel in the back is not a good idea.
> Much more comfortable to have the range and ease of a larger, safe
> fuel tank. They are not that difficult to design and fabricate. We
> always start off with a cardboard mockup, then move to the actual
> aluminum fabrication once we get the size and shape correct.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
> MKIII/912ULS
> hauck's holler, alabama
>
>
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: | Re: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
>LS/Gang:
>
>Could you expand on the "shaking" and "lot more vibration" you
>associate with the 912 and HKS, please.
That's why I said "probably".... ;) I only base that on limited experience
with these motors, so I'm probably wrong and stand happily corrected if so.
For sure, the power pulses during the compression strokes will be a good bit
stronger on either of those two motors simply because they're bigger than
the 503. That'd be a major component of the additional stress either of
these motors might put on a FS II airframe.....
LS
N646F
do not archive
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: | 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
The 912 is simply too heavy and too much power to safely be put on a FSII.
If you modified it a bunch maybe but how about this engine...
http://www.aerotwinmotors.com/
Deliveries are scheduled to be starting early next year. This one is
extremely well funded by Woody Norris (a real rich guy) and has an existing
customer base via Airscooter corp. http://www.airscooter.com/index.html and
they have production parts in the pipeline already. I think they are
actually going to ship engines... lots of engines.
Weight with gearbox 115 pounds. Fuel burn should be really low, but not
available yet.
General Specifications:
65 HP @ 4200 RPM (with turbo)
Weight: Less than 95 lbs "Ready to Run"
(Includes cooling shroud, exhaust and oil reservoir)
Dimensions (Height): 17.5"
Two Cylinders, In Line
Dry Sump (Runs in Vertical and Horizontal position)
Air Cooled 972cc 4 Stroke
Firing Angle 360
Bore: 101.6
Stroke: 60mm
Compression Ratio: 8.0:1
Manifold Pressure: 8 psi
Two Sparkplugs per Cylinder
Two Valves per Cylinder
Belt Driven Twin Camshafts
Electronic Fuel Injection and Ignition
Fuel Octane Requirement: 91UL
Gear Reduction Box: 18.5lbs (see detail below)
Propellar Flange: standard output flange has 75mm and 100mm bolt-circle
pattern for mounting, an aircraft standard SAE No.2 propeller flange is also
available as an option
Detail Specifications:
Intake Valve dia ... 46mm / Exhaust ... 40mm
Intake Port dia ... 38mm / Exhaust ... 34mm
Intake Cam lift centre ... 102
Exhaust Cam lift centre ... 112
Total lift Inclusive ... 10mm
Included Angle ... 32
Feature Note: The cylinder head is designed to allow it to be rotated 180
so that intake and exhaust positions can be changed.
Piston Type ... Shallow Slipper
Piston Pin dia ... 22mm
Connecting Rod Centres ... 120mm
Connecting Rod Material ... Titanium (Ti 6AL 4V)
Connecting Rod Crankpin dia ... 50.8mm
Crankshaft Material ... Titanium (Ti 6AL 4V)
Crankshaft Main Bearing dia ... 58.42mm
Crankshaft Number of Bearings ... 3
Gear Reduction Box Ratios:
------ 22x47 =2.136
------ 23x46 =2.000
------ 24x45 =1.875
------ Thus for a Prop speed of 2000rpm;
------ 2.136 =4272rpm
------ 2.000 =4000rpm
------ 1.875 =3750rpm
------ Prop speed of 2200rpm
------ 2.136 =4699rpm
------ 2.000 =4400rpm
------ 1.875 =4125rpm
------ Prop speed of 2500rpm
------ 2.136 =5340rpm
------ 2.000 =5000rpm
------ 1.875 =4687rpm
Feature Note: The gear centres remain the same for all ratios, so it's just
a
gear pair to change from one ratio to another. All of the bearings have slip
fit
mounting clearances, as does the drive shaft, so the system requires no
pressing or heating to change a gear pair. The casing is sealed with one
perimeter Oring, so there are no gasketing issues to contend with.
Christopher Armstrong
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jung
Subject: Kolb-List: 912UL on a Firestar II
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
Group,
I really like my fully enclosed Firestar II and it's 503 DCDI, electric
start. But one thing that I am disappointed in is the lack ability to
travel. With 10 gallons of gas, I have only 140 miles planned range at
70 mph. When I fly on cross-countries, I tend to worry about changing
winds and remaining fuel. I have tried to figure out how to carry more
fuel in my Firestar, but the best that I have come up with is an extra
6 gallon tank in the back seat. Not a real solution. I need all the
back seat for cargo. So, I searched for a light weight, economical four
stroke for the Firestar. There is not much. And I don't like what there
is. Because of that, I have considered a Kolbra. I paid attention when
John W. wrote or talked about his, with special interest in fuel
economy (which to me is range). What I got from that, is that if you
push a Kolbra fast enough, you still have range problems. Recently, I
have wondered what the fuel burn of a 912UL would be at 80 mph on a
Firestar. By my calculations, using the Rotax HP and fuel burn graphs,
it would be less than 2 gph. If correct, I would have a 320+ mile
planned range with 8 of my 10 gallons. If it was possible to use a 912,
and the calculations are correct, it would change the whole character
of the plane. So what are the problems, and are they solvable? Any
interest?
John Jung
Firstar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Message 12
| 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: | 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
As far as a 4-stroke alternative to the 503, the closest motor I know of
is
the HKS, but there you're in somewhat unknown territory as far as the
installation goes and also a little more weight. And probably a hell of
a
lot more vibration too....
<snip>
Never flown a HKS, but talked extensively with 2 gents that combined had
approx. 1000 hours on them. They were flying Earthstar Gull 2000's
(Good bit cleaner then a Kolb ;-) Anyway they were absolutely smooth as
silk and they were so quiet they were unnerving. (A lot of the "quiet"
can be attributed to the DUC prop they used, but the motor has a very
mellow tone to it...)
By the way...the little single seat Gull saw an average 90mph at 2.2 gph
and 100mph at 2.3 gph...this was averaged over a lot of flying from
Texas to Florida and back, not a hop around the pattern.
Without a doubt though the HKS motors don't produce the HP of a 912 and
don't have the track record yet of the 912's. They ARE good little
motors in the 4 stroke world that are a good 503 replacement. They are
supposedly making 60hp but the guys I talked to said they figured more
like 54-55. That jived with what Dennis Souder said several years back
after they flew it on the Slingshot...he said it was a good 503
replacement powerwise if you wanted to spend the extra money over a 503
for 4 stroke...he said it WASN'T a 582 replacement. (paraphrased his
words...but the message is probably in the archives)
Jeremy Casey
John J. if you don't want to spend the money/time to build a Kolbra, I
think you would do good to consider the HKS...bolting a 912 on a
Firestar would definitely be "pushing" the design a bit...tread
carefully...
Message 13
| 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: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 912UL on a Firestar II
| --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong"
<tophera@centurytel.net>
|
| The 912 is simply too heavy and too much power to safely be put on a
FSII.
| If you modified it a bunch maybe but how about this engine...
|
| http://www.aerotwinmotors.com/
|
|
| Deliveries are scheduled to be starting early next year. This one
is
| extremely well funded by Woody Norris (a real rich guy) and has an
existing
| customer base via Airscooter corp.
http://www.airscooter.com/index.html and
| they have production parts in the pipeline already. I think they
are
| actually going to ship engines... lots of engines.
|
| Weight with gearbox 115 pounds. Fuel burn should be really low, but
not
| available yet.
|
| General Specifications:
| 65 HP @ 4200 RPM (with turbo)
| Weight: Less than 95 lbs "Ready to Run"
| (Includes cooling shroud, exhaust and oil reservoir)
| Dimensions (Height): 17.5"
| Two Cylinders, In Line
| Dry Sump (Runs in Vertical and Horizontal position)
| Air Cooled 972cc 4 Stroke
| Firing Angle 360
| Bore: 101.6
| Stroke: 60mm
| Compression Ratio: 8.0:1
| Manifold Pressure: 8 psi
| Two Sparkplugs per Cylinder
| Two Valves per Cylinder
| Belt Driven Twin Camshafts
| Electronic Fuel Injection and Ignition
| Fuel Octane Requirement: 91UL
| Gear Reduction Box: 18.5lbs (see detail below)
| Propellar Flange: standard output flange has 75mm and 100mm
bolt-circle
| pattern for mounting, an aircraft standard SAE No.2 propeller flange
is also
| available as an option
|
| Detail Specifications:
| Intake Valve dia ... 46mm / Exhaust ... 40mm
| Intake Port dia ... 38mm / Exhaust ... 34mm
| Intake Cam lift centre ... 102
| Exhaust Cam lift centre ... 112
| Total lift Inclusive ... 10mm
| Included Angle ... 32
| Feature Note: The cylinder head is designed to allow it to be
rotated 180
| so that intake and exhaust positions can be changed.
| Piston Type ... Shallow Slipper
| Piston Pin dia ... 22mm
| Connecting Rod Centres ... 120mm
| Connecting Rod Material ... Titanium (Ti 6AL 4V)
| Connecting Rod Crankpin dia ... 50.8mm
| Crankshaft Material ... Titanium (Ti 6AL 4V)
| Crankshaft Main Bearing dia ... 58.42mm
| Crankshaft Number of Bearings ... 3
| Gear Reduction Box Ratios:
| ------ 22x47 =2.136
| ------ 23x46 =2.000
| ------ 24x45 =1.875
| ------ Thus for a Prop speed of 2000rpm;
| ------ 2.136 =4272rpm
| ------ 2.000 =4000rpm
| ------ 1.875 =3750rpm
| ------ Prop speed of 2200rpm
| ------ 2.136 =4699rpm
| ------ 2.000 =4400rpm
| ------ 1.875 =4125rpm
| ------ Prop speed of 2500rpm
| ------ 2.136 =5340rpm
| ------ 2.000 =5000rpm
| ------ 1.875 =4687rpm
| Feature Note: The gear centres remain the same for all ratios, so
it's just
| a
| gear pair to change from one ratio to another. All of the bearings
have slip
| fit
| mounting clearances, as does the drive shaft, so the system requires
no
| pressing or heating to change a gear pair. The casing is sealed with
one
| perimeter Oring, so there are no gasketing issues to contend with.
|
| Christopher Armstrong
|
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
| [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jung
| To: kolb-list@matronics.com
| Subject: Kolb-List: 912UL on a Firestar II
|
| --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
|
| Group,
|
| I really like my fully enclosed Firestar II and it's 503 DCDI,
electric
| start. But one thing that I am disappointed in is the lack ability
to
| travel. With 10 gallons of gas, I have only 140 miles planned range
at
| 70 mph. When I fly on cross-countries, I tend to worry about
changing
| winds and remaining fuel. I have tried to figure out how to carry
more
| fuel in my Firestar, but the best that I have come up with is an
extra
| 6 gallon tank in the back seat. Not a real solution. I need all the
| back seat for cargo. So, I searched for a light weight, economical
four
| stroke for the Firestar. There is not much. And I don't like what
there
| is. Because of that, I have considered a Kolbra. I paid attention
when
| John W. wrote or talked about his, with special interest in fuel
| economy (which to me is range). What I got from that, is that if you
| push a Kolbra fast enough, you still have range problems. Recently,
I
| have wondered what the fuel burn of a 912UL would be at 80 mph on a
| Firestar. By my calculations, using the Rotax HP and fuel burn
graphs,
| it would be less than 2 gph. If correct, I would have a 320+ mile
| planned range with 8 of my 10 gallons. If it was possible to use a
912,
| and the calculations are correct, it would change the whole
character
| of the plane. So what are the problems, and are they solvable? Any
| interest?
|
| John Jung
| Firstar II N6163J
| Surprise, AZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message 14
| 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: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
|| The 912 is simply too heavy and too much power to safely be put on
a
| FSII.
|| If you modified it a bunch maybe but how about this engine...
||
|| http://www.aerotwinmotors.com/
||
|| Christopher Armstrong
Hi Topher/Gang:
Sorry about the previous uh-oh. Hit the send instead of the reply
button.
Great looking engine. Titanium rods and crank. I love titanium. 65
hp sounds good for a FSII or a beefed up FF.
Didn't find any info on price, nor what type torsional vibration
dampening this gear box will use. This is one of the biggest problems
with our little airplane engines, right up there with purchase price.
Like all the rest of the engines on the market, I wouldn't want to
invest a lot of money in an unproven system. Before I bought one I'd
let the user base work out the bugs.
Take care,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Message 15
| 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: | 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
By the way, before I get a rep as anti-HKS somehow,, I should mention these
guys:
http://www.greenskyadventures.com/
who are HKS dealers.
These are the Olenik's, Tom and his father Gerald I believe is his name (not
sure if Tom is also working at Greensky or not). I had Tom do the
maintenance on two of my previous 503's and he just simply does superb work.
The motors came back looking like little pieces of jewelry, I just wanted to
sit and admire them instead of putting them back on the planes........
Tom is a bottomless pit of knowledge of motors and I'm sure his dad is the
same way if not even moreso......
So.... if you do go with the HKS, I wouldn't get the motor from anyone else
but them. You'll be guaranteed to get the best support possible. And if Tom
and his dad think a motor is good you can be assured there's something to
it..
Might be worth an email to them to see if they've ever done a Kolb
installation of the HKS.....
LS
N646F
Message 16
| 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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Herb Gayheart <herbgh@juno.com>
Yeah , John---that Titanium is good stuff---the body does not reject it..
:-) Herb
>
> Great looking engine. Titanium rods and crank. I love titanium.
> 65
> hp sounds good for a FSII or a beefed up FF.
>
do not archive
Message 17
| 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: more questionsmore questions |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "D Lucas" <d_a_lucas@hotmail.com>
Re: Cargo Pod possibility.
>I wonder if that would not kill the advanage for having the Kolbra
>over the MkIII which is faster cruise speed?
Maybe, Maybe not, but just for info, those 10 cubic ft cargo pods on the bottom
of C180/185 which are about 9" deep by 30" wide only drop cruise speed at 75%
pwr by about 1 or 2 MPH (according to an article in 'Light Plane Maintenance',
January edition)
David L
No plane (yet), just a dream.
Do Not Archieve
Message 18
| 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: more questionsmore questions |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: bryan green <lgreen1@sc.rr.com>
David/all
Comparing a C-180/185 to a Kolbra is kind of like comparing apples to
oranges. JMHO
Bryan Green Do not archive
D Lucas wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "D Lucas" <d_a_lucas@hotmail.com>
>
>Re: Cargo Pod possibility.
>
>
>
>>I wonder if that would not kill the advanage for having the Kolbra
>>over the MkIII which is faster cruise speed?
>>
>>
>
>Maybe, Maybe not, but just for info, those 10 cubic ft cargo pods on the bottom
of C180/185 which are about 9" deep by 30" wide only drop cruise speed at 75%
pwr by about 1 or 2 MPH (according to an article in 'Light Plane Maintenance',
January edition)
>
>David L
>No plane (yet), just a dream.
>
>
>Do Not Archieve
>
>
>
>
Message 19
| 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: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
Topher and Group,
Well, after a slow Monday, I woke up the list with my wild idea. But I
am not yet convinced that it is so wild.
Why is it too heavy if I don't exceed the gross weight and can keep it
within CG limits?
And where is the problem with too much power? Couldn't a throttle stop
handle that, if in fact, it is a problem?
Now, the points John H. brought up about 912 temperatures are concerns
that I was not aware of.
I worry about things like will the thrust line be higher? Will the 912
really burn as little fuel as the chart says? What would the actual
installed weight be?
My Firestar does fly smooth at 80, and being enclosed, it is
comfortable at that speed.
As far as other engines goes, the only other engine that I would
consider is the Jabiru. For me to spend the kind of money that a 4
cycle costs, it is going to have to be a combination that does good
cross-country and a plane that I can get excited about. A little better
than a 503 is not enough for me.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong"
<tophera@centurytel.net>
The 912 is simply too heavy and too much power to safely be put on a
FSII.
If you modified it a bunch maybe but how about this engine...
Message 20
| 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: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
concerns
| that I was not aware of.
|
| John Jung
John J/Gang:
Adrial Heisey has a 912ULS on an original Twinstar he uses exclusively
for aerial photography:
http://www.statemuseum.arizona.edu/exhibits/heisey/heisey9.shtml
You can contact him from info on this page:
http://www.adrielheisey.com/contact.htm
I think a 912UL on a FSII would be cool. Heck, I have seen 912ULS's
on trikes at S&F and OSH.
A throttle stop would be the last thing I would put on an airplane to
prevent going full power. Never know when you might need that extra
little bit of power to get yourself out of trouble.
My personal opinion again. Continuous duty engines, such as we use on
airplanes, are designed to run at certain speeds, both two and four
stroke. The engineers did not design a 503 or a 582 to operate
continuously at 4,500 rpm so they would get good fuel economy. They
were designed to run best at 5,800 rpm, close to the best torque of
that engine. Same, same for 912UL and 912ULS. They weren't desgined
to run 4,000 rpm to get a 2 gph fuel burn. They were designed to run
best at 5,000 rpm, and are rated to run all day at 5,500 rpm maximum
continuous with no harm or accelerated wear. The two strokes have a
max continuous rpm of 6,500 rpm, yet most folks run them slow to
prolong their life, when they are probably accelerating wear and
reducing their life. Again, my own personal opinion, and what I have
gleaned from others and personal experience over the years.
I think it is doable is the FSII fuselage is beefed up to handle the
extra weight and power. I am no engineer. A lot of the stuff I have
experiemented with has failed, some more than once, over the years.
On the other hand, there are a lot of good things that Bro Jim and I
have been able to come up with to make my Kolbs fly better and
accomodate my needs better.
Have fun, something to think about,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Message 21
| 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: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
>Topher and Group,
>
>Well, after a slow Monday, I woke up the list with my wild idea. But I
>am not yet convinced that it is so wild.
>
>Why is it too heavy if I don't exceed the gross weight and can keep it
>within CG limits?
I think the weight and CG will probably be the limiting factor. Just to give
you an idea, my FSII has the 503 DCDI with a 3.47:1 C box and RK-400 clutch.
According to Kodiak, the installed weight of the 503 + C box is 103.1 lbs.
The RK-400 clutch adds a total of 3 more lbs altogether, making that 106.1
lbs. Add maybe another lb or two for the muffler bracket, and call it
107lbs.
With that installation, the plane as built just barely made the aft limit on
the CG (it was about 1/2" away from the aft limit with most-aft loading). In
fact, the builder had to add ballast to the nose to compensate for this (how
much I'm not sure, I'll have to look through the old weight and balance) and
get the aft load limit a little further in to the allowed CG.
The empty weight came out to 440lbs, a pretty heavy plane overall, though it
still flies heavenly. Add 10lbs of gas, 60lbs, that's 500lbs with full gas.
That only leaves 250lbs carrying capacity.... I'm about 190, so that leaves
only 60lbs leftover....
Now, with the Jabiru you're looking at 132 lbs (according to usjabiru.com)!
I believe the 912UL is about the same weight all up. So, just at a rough
guess, it's concievable that after adding ballast to get the CG right, you
could be near gross with full gas and just yourself in that case. And
probably not the best flying plane....
Anyway, that's my rough guess based on the results with my FSII. I'd say
personally that both of those motors are too large/heavy for the plane,
though you might push a pencil across a piece of paper to see what you get
on your setup.
>And where is the problem with too much power? Couldn't a throttle stop
>handle that, if in fact, it is a problem?
>
>Now, the points John H. brought up about 912 temperatures are concerns
>that I was not aware of.
>I worry about things like will the thrust line be higher? Will the 912
>really burn as little fuel as the chart says? What would the actual
>installed weight be?
>
>My Firestar does fly smooth at 80, and being enclosed, it is
>comfortable at that speed.
>
>As far as other engines goes, the only other engine that I would
>consider is the Jabiru. For me to spend the kind of money that a 4
>cycle costs, it is going to have to be a combination that does good
>cross-country and a plane that I can get excited about. A little better
>than a 503 is not enough for me.
>
Again, I think the motor you already have is ideal for the plane. I have no
reliability concerns about my 503, I"ve been running them for years now
without so much as a hiccup and they last quite a long time as long as you
avoid things that can reduce the lifetime of them. The 503 is the best
2-stroke Rotax makes in my opinion....
I agree they're not the most economical engines as far as gas consumption,
though I think that can be controlled somewhat by not running the motor too
hard. Flying at a slower cruise speed has helped my gas consumption quite a
bit and is probably easier on the airframe in heavy turbulence anyway....
Seems to me the alternatives don't really buy you that much until you get
into a bigger plane like the Kolbra or Mark III.....
Anyway, my .02,
LS
N646F
>John Jung
>Firestar II N6163J
>Surprise, AZ
>
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong"
><tophera@centurytel.net>
>
>The 912 is simply too heavy and too much power to safely be put on a
>FSII.
>If you modified it a bunch maybe but how about this engine...
>
>
Message 22
| 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: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
The problem is that the structure is probably not strong enough for a crash
at that engine weight. In flight loads ( up to 4 or 6 gs) may not be a
problem, have no idea. But in a crash the engine might end up on your back.
You want to be able to take at least 10 and probably 15 gs of crash load on
that engine mount before it sends the engine through your head. If the 912
is 30 pounds more then a 503 then you get 300 to 450 more pounds of crash
load. Total crash load for the big engine is around 1400 to 2100 pounds.
(20 gs is occasionally survivable, so that is all the way up to 2800 pounds
just for the engine! At 750 pounds gross weight the forward cage has to
catch 15,000 pounds in a 20 g crash.)
Power wise you will be able to exceed VNE easily and the wings will probably
flutter and fail if you go too fast. (I have no idea how fast is too
fast... who wants to find out?) So all you have to do is not go too fast...
ever ever ever!
More practically getting the cg right is going to be a real bear with an
extra 30 pounds about 2 feet behind the cg. And useful load is going to
take a big hit! Everything is a compromise... you would have a really
wicked performer that could go a long ways but not carry much load, and
would be tough to balance.
Christopher Armstrong
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jung
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
Topher and Group,
Well, after a slow Monday, I woke up the list with my wild idea. But I
am not yet convinced that it is so wild.
Why is it too heavy if I don't exceed the gross weight and can keep it
within CG limits?
And where is the problem with too much power? Couldn't a throttle stop
handle that, if in fact, it is a problem?
Now, the points John H. brought up about 912 temperatures are concerns
that I was not aware of.
I worry about things like will the thrust line be higher? Will the 912
really burn as little fuel as the chart says? What would the actual
installed weight be?
My Firestar does fly smooth at 80, and being enclosed, it is
comfortable at that speed.
As far as other engines goes, the only other engine that I would
consider is the Jabiru. For me to spend the kind of money that a 4
cycle costs, it is going to have to be a combination that does good
cross-country and a plane that I can get excited about. A little better
than a 503 is not enough for me.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong"
<tophera@centurytel.net>
The 912 is simply too heavy and too much power to safely be put on a
FSII.
If you modified it a bunch maybe but how about this engine...
Message 23
| 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: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
Topher, Lucien, John H. and Group,
I really appreciate all the input. The crash forces mentioned by
Topher, is another area that I had not considered. i will have to give
that some serious thought. I have had the chance to examine several
crashed Firestars.
I have considered W&B and gross weight and I believe that I can solve
those. One advantage that I have is that I only weigh 155 pounds. And
my plane is 400 empty with an electric start oil injected 503. So, I
can add a 912 and still be 45 pounds lighter than Luicen is flying now
with a 503. I may have to add 10 pounds of weight to the front for CG,
but I can easily afford it. My plane is 400 + 10 for CG + 30 for 912 +
60 for fuel + 160 for me = 660. That leaves 65 pounds for cargo, if I
limit myself to the suggested 725 pound gross weight. I could carry 5
gallons of gas, no cargo and still take my wife for her annual ride
without exceeding 750 pounds.
Has anyone added a thermostat to a 912? I never understood why they run
without them. I guess the low temperature issue that John H. brought up
is what I know least about. Anyone else have input on this?
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Message 24
| 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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
There are several manf. of similar devices. Looks like a
simple installation:
http://www.racerpartswholesale.com/mocal.htm
-BB, not aviatin' lately
do not archive
Message 25
| 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: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
| Topher, is another area that I had not considered. i will have to
give
| that some serious thought. I have had the chance to examine several
| crashed Firestars.
John J/Gang:
One gets a finer appreciation for the crash worthiness of his Kolb
aircraft if one has survived a serious crash in one.
The FSII was not designed or envisioned that it would ever be powered
by more than a 503. Now we have some flying with 582's, and now you
want to put a 912 on one. Nice thing about experimental/homebuilt
airplanes here in the States. We can do just about anything we want
to. Experimental, ain't it. As long as we don't hurt anyone else in
the process.
I think you need to take a very close look at what you are
anticipating. Would you put a big Harley V-Twin in a bicycle. Not
hardly. Bike wasn't designed and built for a Harley. Same, same the
FSII. Was not designed and built for the 912.
In order to fly safely with a 912 powered FSII, the FSII would have to
be redesigned/modified/beefed up to carry on that duty. Yes, Adrial
Heisey has a 912 powered Twin Star. Primary reason for this
configuration is reliability, based on the type terrain Adrial flies
to get his photos. Contrary to Lucien's faith in the two stroke,
they are not nearly reliable as the four stroke. Have a good friend
in North Florida who has flown two strokes for many years. Had
extremely good luck with them until last summer when the 582 failed on
takeoff. This gentleman is still recovering from some terrible
injuries he received when his Ferguson came apart on impact. He may
have a change of heart about the possibility of a four stroke in his
future.
Take care,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
Message 26
| 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: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
>to get his photos. Contrary to Lucien's faith in the two stroke,
>they are not nearly reliable as the four stroke. Have a good friend
>in North Florida who has flown two strokes for many years. Had
>extremely good luck with them until last summer when the 582 failed on
>takeoff. This gentleman is still recovering from some terrible
>injuries he received when his Ferguson came apart on impact. He may
>have a change of heart about the possibility of a four stroke in his
>future.
Just an FYI for the list, this looks like an invitation to the 2-stroke vs.
4-stroke argument which I've already done my time in many times over the
years. My response is: There are many engine-specific mailing lists and
yahoo groups where this has been gone over more than once, I refer the
reader there if there's any interest in the subject. It no longer holds
mine.
Meanwhile, I agree with John on this - the FS just isn't designed for the
bigger 912 and it would require, in my opinion, a lot of modification to be
able to handle it.
Have you considered the HKS? I may have spoken too soon against it, but it
looks like it might be a good alternative having looked at it again on
greensky's website.... Might be worth looking into...
LS
N646F
Message 27
| 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: more questionsmore questions |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
> Re: Cargo Pod possibility.
....
>those 10 cubic ft cargo pods on
> the bottom of C180/185 which are about 9" deep by 30" wide only
drop
> cruise speed at 75% pwr by about 1 or 2 MPH
If I were to have a clean start to re-build my Firestar, I'd weld up
those tabs on the bottom and construct just the pod you're
describing. I can see all benefit, no disadvantage.
As for the apples/orange comment, my second ride, a Bellanca
Super Viking, occupies the same hanger as my FS2. Each has it's
mission but there are more similarities than dis-similarities as far as
systems and operating envelopes go...each occupies it's corner of
the envelope.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
Message 28
| 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: 912UL on a Firestar II |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski" <rswiderski@earthlink.net>
John J,
The FSII is basically identical to the Twinstar wing & engine mount.
582's have been used on them for years. Some cracks in engine mount area
have been noticed in at least one. This has been discussed already & I
believe can be easily enough dealt with. The all up weight of a 912 with
all that it takes to fly is around 168 lbs. I'm not sure, but I think their
literature is much more "optimistic". I believe the excess power of the 912
would only be detrimental in straight & level flight where you could easily
exceed your Vne. I assume your brain is quite capable of controlling that
situation. Climb out would absorb the power. Intelligently installed &
used & modified, I believe it is not an irresponsible undertaking, but....
you would certainly need more vigilance in use & maintenance than a stock
setup, & undeniably, you will be a pioneer/test pilot.
My 1 liter, 3cylinder, 4-stroke Suzuki engine weighed in at 169 lbs
minus radiator. That included a heavy duty 150 hp redrive & turbocharger.
A naturally aspirated 60-64 hp (depending on fuel setup) & lighter redrive
could easily come in under 145 lbs. Bob Bean is flying one now on a MkIII &
there are several other Kolbs with them. They cruise at 2gph. You can see
ore info & pics on my website http://www.geocities.com/ib2polish/
Richard Swiderski
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jung
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
Topher, Lucien, John H. and Group,
I really appreciate all the input. The crash forces mentioned by
Topher, is another area that I had not considered. i will have to give
that some serious thought. I have had the chance to examine several
crashed Firestars.
I have considered W&B and gross weight and I believe that I can solve
those. One advantage that I have is that I only weigh 155 pounds. And
my plane is 400 empty with an electric start oil injected 503. So, I
can add a 912 and still be 45 pounds lighter than Luicen is flying now
with a 503. I may have to add 10 pounds of weight to the front for CG,
but I can easily afford it. My plane is 400 + 10 for CG + 30 for 912 +
60 for fuel + 160 for me = 660. That leaves 65 pounds for cargo, if I
limit myself to the suggested 725 pound gross weight. I could carry 5
gallons of gas, no cargo and still take my wife for her annual ride
without exceeding 750 pounds.
Has anyone added a thermostat to a 912? I never understood why they run
without them. I guess the low temperature issue that John H. brought up
is what I know least about. Anyone else have input on this?
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
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! --
|