Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:06 AM - Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke (Don Gherardini)
2. 07:17 AM - Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke (Paul Petty)
3. 07:57 AM - Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
4. 09:43 AM - kolb eis (b young)
5. 10:44 AM - Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke (WillUribe@aol.com)
6. 12:34 PM - Re: tie down system (John Cooley)
7. 03:06 PM - Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke (Michael Bigelow)
8. 03:23 PM - Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke (Don Gherardini)
9. 03:28 PM - Re: Tie downs, gust locks (FlyColt45@aol.com)
10. 07:08 PM - Fascinating Gas (Beauford)
11. 08:11 PM - Re: Fascinating Gas (Christopher Armstrong)
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: | Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Men...on the 2cycle Vs 4cycle engine issure, I have been following this
thread, and
in reading I sometimes wonder if some might be confuseing...or better said,
interchangeing, the meaning of the word relilable with durability?
Working for the largest manufacturer of 4 cycle engines in the world, I am
very familiar with the commonly misunderstood comparision of these 2
engines.
A 2 cycle can easily be built as reliable as a 4 cycle...but it is almost
impossible to build one as "durable"...I say "almost" because someone who
works for Detroit Deisel might be reading here and take issue with the
statement.
So remember in your reading of the posts...are we debateing a durability
problem..or a dependability problem. Sometimes both I think..and they
shouldnt be confused.
Could we agree that a certain Rotax 2 cycle might be as dependable as a
certain 4 stroke....but it just wont last for as long? With that might come
the admission that it wont be as "dependable" for as long......
Don Gherardini
OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
CortLand, Illinois
800-626-7326
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: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
required 4.6, BAYES_30 -0.90)
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <lynnp@c-gate.net>
Here Here Don! Well said. I bite my tongue every time I read the words
"Stroke" and "Motor" when talking about internal combustion "Engines"!
hehehe
Happy New Year Everyone!
Paul Petty
Building Ms. Dixie
Kolbra/912UL/Warp
www.c-gate.net/~ppetty
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
>
> Men...on the 2cycle Vs 4cycle engine issure, I have been following this
> thread, and
> in reading I sometimes wonder if some might be confuseing...or better
said,
> interchangeing, the meaning of the word relilable with durability?
> Working for the largest manufacturer of 4 cycle engines in the world, I
am
> very familiar with the commonly misunderstood comparision of these 2
> engines.
>
> A 2 cycle can easily be built as reliable as a 4 cycle...but it is almost
> impossible to build one as "durable"...I say "almost" because someone who
> works for Detroit Deisel might be reading here and take issue with the
> statement.
>
> So remember in your reading of the posts...are we debateing a durability
> problem..or a dependability problem. Sometimes both I think..and they
> shouldnt be confused.
>
> Could we agree that a certain Rotax 2 cycle might be as dependable as a
> certain 4 stroke....but it just wont last for as long? With that might
come
> the admission that it wont be as "dependable" for as long......
>
> Don Gherardini
> OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
> American Honda Engines
> Power Equipment Company
> CortLand, Illinois
> 800-626-7326
>
>
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: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <neilsenrmf@comcast.net>
I may have missed a few post while relocating to Florida but I would like to
add my $.02 worth. I fly a 4 stroke and wouldn't change to a 2 stroke for
anything but keep in mind that there are many things that comprise our power
systems that are not 2 or 4 stroke that can let you down. I had a forced
landing almost two years ago with my MKIIIc when my reduction drive bracket
cracked allowing the drive belts to fall off. The only warning I got was a
abrupt loss of thrust.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Petty" <lynnp@c-gate.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <lynnp@c-gate.net>
>
> Here Here Don! Well said. I bite my tongue every time I read the words
> "Stroke" and "Motor" when talking about internal combustion "Engines"!
> hehehe
>
> Happy New Year Everyone!
>
> Paul Petty
> Building Ms. Dixie
> Kolbra/912UL/Warp
> www.c-gate.net/~ppetty
>
> do not archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke
>
>
>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
>>
>> Men...on the 2cycle Vs 4cycle engine issure, I have been following this
>> thread, and
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "b young" <by0ung@brigham.net>
Boyd --
Which EIS is that? And where did you get the "prinston" fuel probe?
-- Robert
do archive
---------------
the eis is the " advanced eis - w for the 912 engine" I have a hand written
note that reads " sw ver 5.8 mod eis - 3 - adv - w/912 dual aux" I am not
exactly sure where that info came from but I would guess it came off the
label on the eis.
the Princeton capacitive fuel level probe was 1 of 2 that I had looked
at.... the less expensive of the two would only calibrate at empty and
full....... and the problem I had with that was mounting it.... the
electronics part of the probe was mounted to the end of the probe and is
about the size of a hockey puck...... that would have had an interference
fit with a structural member near my alum fuel tank. Princeton had a sensor
with the same configuration.... but after talking with them they also had
one with the electronics that would remote mount, and the probe would screw
into the fitting on my tank with out an interference fit.
I cant find the receipt but I believe I ordered it from
grand rapids technologies incorprated
4526 Poinsettia SE
KENTWOOD, MI 49508 ( 616 ) 583 - 8000
or possibly they refered me do the manufacture direct.
the information on the princeton sheet, assuming it is still accruate, is
1840 PEMBROKE DR SE
KENTWOOD, MI 49508 ( 616 ) 281 - 5193
the other thing that I liked about the setup is when setting the 5 set
points.... the princeton has no way to know how much fuel is present..... it
only knows that the levels are correct.... the eis has the option of
converting the full level to any value, ex. my tank holds 16 galleons.....
so when I am full of fuel it shows 16 when the level drops to the point
where I have calibrated 1/2 it shows 8.... for example with a custom tank,
if 1/2 the volume files the tank to 2/3 the level of the tank.... when the
level in the tank is at the 2/3 probe level, the eis reads 1/2 or in my case
8.0 gal. it will create a linear readout in a non linear tank.
boyd
mkIII
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: | 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: WillUribe@aol.com
Hi Don,
Don't get me wrong, I would never try to debate that a 2 stroke is better
then the 4 stroke engine, on dependability or durability. I would loose that
argument hands down. I would love to have a 4 stroke engine on my FireStar
and if the Kolb factory starts selling a 4 stroke kit for the FireStar I would
consider it.
I'm just trying to defend my reliable Rotax 503 engine from absurd claims.
After all that defending watch it quit on me tomorrow morning. ;-)
Regards,
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
Restoring a PA-22-108 N4551Z
_http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane_ (http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane)
Do Not Archive
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Men...on the 2cycle Vs 4cycle engine issure, I have been following this
thread, and
in reading I sometimes wonder if some might be confuseing...or better said,
interchangeing, the meaning of the word relilable with durability?
Working for the largest manufacturer of 4 cycle engines in the world, I am
very familiar with the commonly misunderstood comparision of these 2
engines.
A 2 cycle can easily be built as reliable as a 4 cycle...but it is almost
impossible to build one as "durable"...I say "almost" because someone who
works for Detroit Deisel might be reading here and take issue with the
statement.
So remember in your reading of the posts...are we debateing a durability
problem..or a dependability problem. Sometimes both I think..and they
shouldnt be confused.
Could we agree that a certain Rotax 2 cycle might be as dependable as a
certain 4 stroke....but it just wont last for as long? With that might come
the admission that it wont be as "dependable" for as long......
Don Gherardini
OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
CortLand, Illinois
800-626-7326
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Cooley" <johnc@datasync.com>
Hi Paul and Gang,
Paul,
I'm really surprised you didn't get any comments on your reply to the tie
down system thread. When I get to the point that I will be traveling some,
this is the system that I plan on using unless something better comes along.
At 8 lbs thats just a small amount over the weight of a gallon of gas.
Looks like it would have to be easier to setup also.
Take care,
John Cooley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Petty
Subject: Kolb-List: tie down system
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <lynnp@c-gate.net>
I'm surprised these haven't been mentioned. Best system I have ever seen and
not to bad on the price and weight scale. :-)
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/claw.php
Paul Petty
Building Ms. Dixie
Kolbra/912UL/Warp
www.c-gate.net/~ppetty
do not archive
I.L.D.S.
--
--
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: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Michael Bigelow" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Hi Guys,
Dont get me wrong, im not trying to scare anyone or down anyone that flys 2
strokes. I have read about some of the 2 stroke cross country flights you
guys have made in the archives and really enjoyed the stories. I think its
awesome you guys are able to do some of the things you do with 2 strokes, it
takes some big ones :)
It also takes a lot of skill to keep a 2 storke running correctly, skill in
maintainence, jetting, and skill operating the engine within its limits and
recognising warning signs. I would credit the good record you guys have
with 2 stroke engines to your knowlege and skill in operating them.
That being said, I would rather have an engine that does not require so much
care and skill to operate. It is worth a lot to have a 4 stroke engine that
is more efficient, more reliable, and less sensitive. I get the most
enjoyment out of flying, not so much constantly worrying about and
inspecting / rebuilding the engine... Bottom line is, 4 strokes are more
realiable, user friendly, and efficient than 2 strokes will ever be. I
think it would be awesome to see an HKS on a firestar, that engine might
make the Firestar into a really incredible cross country airplane. If I
were spending 20,000 or so building a Firestar, I think 4 thousand extra for
a reliable and efficient 4 stroke engine would be a bargain. For my MK III,
the 16,000 I spent for the 912-s is what turns a really good airplane into a
great airplane :)
Michael A. Bigelow
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear, you did not go as fast as you could have
!!!
Do Not Archive
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: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
HI Will,
Hehe...ya pard...I would brag on how good the 447 has treated me on the
Flagfly...but then it would probably quit me on the very next flight too!
I think I understand you perfectly Will, and I believe you are very likely
correct...that your 503 has been...and is a very dependable engine, much
like most of them.
What I think is happening in this thread is that sometimes the simple and
dependable nature of a well built 2 cycle is short changed when compared to
a well built 4 cycle because you cannot put as many hours on one before it
starts being "unreliable"..a fella just has to understand that they just
wear out faster.
I would venture to speculate that if we took 500 well built 2 cycles and
compared them to 500 well built 4 cycles fot the first 40 hours or so...all
operateing at 80% duty cycle, that we might get a statistic that shows the
2 cycles were actually more dependable...and this is due to its simple
design and fewer moving parts.
(that statement oughtta get thing stirred up!)
Also I understand John's desire to get more range...I share this desire...as
I bet most operaters of 2 cycle powered aircraft do. 4cycle alternative is
the logical choice if for nothing else than it more efficient fuel/power
ratio. with the same capacity fuel tank.(since we are limited by space and
weight) wouldnt it be nice to get 25 to 40 % better economy...
The HKS is obviously the best choice out there right now for this...its
long range durability has yet to be completely determined I think....but I
also think it surely should go the 300 or 400 hours we can expect out of the
average 2 cycle by now.
Because it is a 4 cycle, I doubt if it will be thought of as a "durable"
engine unless it shows that it can regularly go for 2 or 3 times the 503s
expected life.
It current price, like the ROTAX..is a function of what the market will
bear...and usually the best choices in any catagory of engine are the most
expensive...that rule is pretty well as good as gravity...in any market.
Don Gherardini
FireFly 098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
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: Tie downs, gust locks |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: FlyColt45@aol.com
FYI:
I'd always tighten up - as the tires will give a little.
Having said that:
Hurricane Wilma and negative pressure broke more than a few wings (struts
snapped) this past September. Lantana FL (Palm Bch Co Air Park). Just too
much of Mother Nature for anyone!
Jim FL/PA
do not archive
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
Kolbers:
A strange thing happened on the way to the kleenex airplane today...
As usual, I stopped at the tailgate of the carbon-encrusted pickup to mix a fresh
5 gallons of Race Trac's finest regular with the proper quantity of Amsoil
Sabre 100 to 1 air cooled synthetic... shook the fool out of it for a few seconds,
then dumped it through the filter funnel into the airplane.
I saved the small amount of residual mix in the bottom of the funnel to use to
load the hand primer syringe I employ to start the mighty 447... the hand-held
primer is part of a larger ritual developed over time, involving chants and some
fairly intricate dance steps... but I digress...
Long story short, I got delayed for about ten minutes (geezers tend to do that
a lot), then went back to finish loading the primer. I was surprised to see that
during the ten minutes I had been away, the fuel mix in the bottom of the
funnel had turned into a milky fluid with strings of nasty white mucus-looking
material collected in the bottom...the whitish opaque liquid was tinted a wicked
shade of pale blue from the dye in the oil... Hadn't seen anything like
that in the bottom of a container since a certain frat party at one of the universities
Beauford was asked to leave as a young man...
Anyway.... 'ol Beauford might not be the highest velocity cartridge in the clip,
but he has not yet consumed quite enough Beefeaters and smoked enough cheap
stogies so as to have rendered him wholly incapable of detecting whether the 5
gallons of concoction he was pouring in the tank had been miraculously transformed
by the fuel fairy into milk of magnesia... It looked perfectly OK going
in... But I just had to look...
I hot footed it over there and peered into the Kolb's tank .. nope... it was blue
all right, but crystal clear... you could read an in-law's obituary through
50 gallons of that stuff...
Bewilderment.
I suspect that the moisture in the air was interacting with the mix remaining in
the funnel...but today was a fair day, about 70F, and completely dry. Was it
forming an emulsion of some sort...? But if so, why not also the mix in the
fuel tank, which, through the vent openings, sits exposed to the same atmosphere
for weeks at a time...? The old mix I siphon out of the plane when refueling
is always as clear as the day I put it in.
The gas around here generally has no alcohol... they use MTBE... Is it something
peculiar about the Amsoil ester-base oil...? I know it supposedly has certain
hygroscopic characteristics, but is this normal behavior when mixed with gas
and allowed to sit for a few minutes..? What are the implications for running
this discolored mix through a Bing into a 447..? Will it lube bearings fully...?
Plug jets?
I have taken the liberty to post a close-up of the "stuff" pooled in the bottom
of the funnel... It is (or soon will be) on the Matronics photo-share...
Any insights or explanations from the List would be appreciated.
Baffled Beauford
FF#076
Brandon, FL
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
If it is a filter funnel that is designed to also separate water my guess is
that it separated water leaving mostly water in the funnel with a bit of
higher concentration fuel oil mix from the bottom of the can, being the last
bit that came out of the can and you say you only shook it a bit. Amsoil is
known to turn to goo if it gets much water near it, and that is probably
what happened. I am not a big fan of Amsoil because of this.
You can try to recreate the incident by mixing a similar batch of fuel, with
the same "few seconds" of shaking and intentionally put a little water in
the funnel before you pour through it. If you get the same goo after a few
minutes, then the funnel is doing its job and the Amsoil is doing its funky
thing with water.
Christopher Armstrong
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Beauford
Subject: Kolb-List: Fascinating Gas
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
Kolbers:
A strange thing happened on the way to the kleenex airplane today...
As usual, I stopped at the tailgate of the carbon-encrusted pickup to mix a
fresh 5 gallons of Race Trac's finest regular with the proper quantity of
Amsoil Sabre 100 to 1 air cooled synthetic... shook the fool out of it for
a few seconds, then dumped it through the filter funnel into the airplane.
I saved the small amount of residual mix in the bottom of the funnel to use
to load the hand primer syringe I employ to start the mighty 447... the
hand-held primer is part of a larger ritual developed over time, involving
chants and some fairly intricate dance steps... but I digress...
Long story short, I got delayed for about ten minutes (geezers tend to do
that a lot), then went back to finish loading the primer. I was surprised
to see that during the ten minutes I had been away, the fuel mix in the
bottom of the funnel had turned into a milky fluid with strings of nasty
white mucus-looking material collected in the bottom...the whitish opaque
liquid was tinted a wicked shade of pale blue from the dye in the oil...
Hadn't seen anything like that in the bottom of a container since a certain
frat party at one of the universities Beauford was asked to leave as a young
man...
Anyway.... 'ol Beauford might not be the highest velocity cartridge in the
clip, but he has not yet consumed quite enough Beefeaters and smoked enough
cheap stogies so as to have rendered him wholly incapable of detecting
whether the 5 gallons of concoction he was pouring in the tank had been
miraculously transformed by the fuel fairy into milk of magnesia... It
looked perfectly OK going in... But I just had to look...
I hot footed it over there and peered into the Kolb's tank .. nope... it was
blue all right, but crystal clear... you could read an in-law's obituary
through 50 gallons of that stuff...
Bewilderment.
I suspect that the moisture in the air was interacting with the mix
remaining in the funnel...but today was a fair day, about 70F, and
completely dry. Was it forming an emulsion of some sort...? But if so, why
not also the mix in the fuel tank, which, through the vent openings, sits
exposed to the same atmosphere for weeks at a time...? The old mix I siphon
out of the plane when refueling is always as clear as the day I put it in.
The gas around here generally has no alcohol... they use MTBE... Is it
something peculiar about the Amsoil ester-base oil...? I know it supposedly
has certain hygroscopic characteristics, but is this normal behavior when
mixed with gas and allowed to sit for a few minutes..? What are the
implications for running this discolored mix through a Bing into a 447..?
Will it lube bearings fully...? Plug jets?
I have taken the liberty to post a close-up of the "stuff" pooled in the
bottom of the funnel... It is (or soon will be) on the Matronics
photo-share...
Any insights or explanations from the List would be appreciated.
Baffled Beauford
FF#076
Brandon, FL
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! --
|