Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:44 AM - Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke / Clutch Question (lucien stavenhagen)
2. 02:39 PM - Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke (Dennis Souder)
3. 03:04 PM - Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke (Don Gherardini)
4. 03:45 PM - Re: Tie downs, gust locks (David Lehman)
5. 04:34 PM - 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke (frank & margie)
6. 04:42 PM - Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke (Beauford)
7. 05:10 PM - Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke (Dennis Souder)
8. 05:19 PM - Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke (ray anderson)
9. 06:19 PM - Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke (Don Gherardini)
10. 07:15 PM - Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke (Eugene Zimmerman)
11. 07:17 PM - Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke (Don Gherardini)
12. 07:18 PM - Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke (Don Gherardini)
13. 07:23 PM - Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke (Don Gherardini)
14. 07:53 PM - 2 and 4 Stroke (John Hauck)
15. 08:51 PM - Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke (Jim Baker)
16. 08:55 PM - Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (Jim Baker)
17. 09:10 PM - Two stroke cars..... (Jim Baker)
18. 09:14 PM - Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (John Hauck)
19. 10:56 PM - Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (Steve Garvelink)
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 / Clutch Question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
>Lucien,
>
>How much experience do you have with the clutch? I was considering
>putting one on my plane. How long do they last? Have you ever had any
>slippage? Is it worth the money? ~ Earl
This one is my first, but the previous owner of my FSII used one on the
original motor for about 400 hours. They appear to last forever. According
to the logbook, there was something like 2 thousandths of wear on the shoes
after 200 hours of use... And there's something like 1/4" of lining on
there. I still have the old one which I kept because I plan to use it on
another project eventually.
Never had any slippage at all, once engaged it's engaged and you don't even
know it's there....
The RK-400 clutch is a very hefty, well built piece of equipment, very
precision that gives no problems once installed (I don't work for AirTech,
BTW, just a happy customer). Personally, I don't know how I ever got along
without it now that I have it.
Advantages:
- Very easy starting. Heaven heaven heaven... Just like pull-starting a
snomobile or ski-doo...
- Eliminates the "rotax rattle" at idle, basically eliminating the stress
that puts on the crank. The crank in the original motor went almost 500
hours with the clutch, I still have it and the runout is still within used
limits (it's rotting away now but isn't worn out).
- allows idling at 1500 rpm or even lower.
- no brakes needed to hold position on the ground anymore.
- allows practicing deadsticks without shutting motor down. Just pull back
to idle and you're in the engine-out configuration!
- windmilling prop adds a LOT of drag, which can be very useful in adjusting
an approach.
- stationary prop while on flight line quite a novelty, turns the heads of
the other pilots, your friends and impresses girls.
Disadvantages:
- expensive, about $500 (well worth the money though IMO).
- adds weight, about 3 lbs over the standard coupler it replaces in the C
box.
- can no longer hand prop engine in case starter is kaput.
- To prevent excessive wear, you have to run it either engaged or
disengaged. Fully engaged rpm is about 2800 or more which can be more than
needed to taxi comfortably. So to taxi, you have to work the throttle back
and forth, which can be slightly annoying (I've gotten used to this though).
- noticeable rattle at idle when disengaged, if you care about such things
(I don't and am used to it). This is due to the shoes rattling in the
housing (personally, it reminds me that it's a stout, strong piece of
equip).
- windmilling prop adds a LOT of drag, which will significantly reduce your
engine-off glide ratio.
The only other thing about adding the clutch is getting the idle speed low
enough to keep the clutch fully disengaged. The stock slides in the Bings,
even when bottomed out completely, will still give an idle of 2100 or more.
What I do is just idle a bit rich which solves the problem - when hot, the
motor idles down nicely to 1500 to 1700......
Personally, I'll never not use the clutch again if I can help it... Best
thing since sliced bread for me....
LS
N646F
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 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb@pa.net>
Don,
Are you trying to torment me? If so you are succeeding.
Dennis
>
> Just think...if Dennis and Homer would have set out to design that firefly
> to fit the v-twin industrials we have today instead of the
447...hmmmmmmmmm
>
> Don Gherardini
> FireFly 098
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>
>
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: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Herb,
have not used the red ivo yet.....got distracted with a 47 Luscombe 8A which
is now the project in the shed that will keep me outta the poolhalls this
winter!
I have always though that a Pup with about a 35 hp engine with a reduction
drive, so as to get the prop speed down to 23 or 2400 and allow a bigger
prop would be much better that the direct drive half v-dubs...but it is just
a seat of the pants guess...no expierience personally. There are 2 N-3s at
Tommy's airpark where I used to hangar..always admired em....but they took
such a long takeoff roll....
31 or 3200 is just too fast to spin a prop it seems to me...causes you to
have to use such a small dia that it just doesnt seem to have a chance to
maximize the 35 hp. That always seemed to be the biggest drawback of the
v-dub. I bet that the new briggs 35 with a reduction like they are useing on
airboats...swinging a 66 or 68 inch prop would get thet pup off the ground
likety-split and climb like a Kol.....er...eh....well...climb alot better!!
Then again...I dont know if a landing gear is long enough to allow that
prop.
what size is on the global?
I feel for you pard on the 447....hope you dont have to send it off the the
Count either...
Don G
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: Tie downs, gust locks |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: David Lehman <david@davidlehman.net>
I bought these when I had my Cessna 185, the kit is a little heavy, but it
has great holding power and is easy to use...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/flyties.php
David
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: "frank & margie" <frank-margie@worldnet.att.net>
"Briggs Vanguards are now up to 35 hp and are very well built
engines and I bet a buck we will see alot of those on airplanes like the
legal eagle's,N-3's and similar planes with alot of wing. Talk about
range!..todays V-twin engines burn from 1.5 to 2 gallons an hour at WOT and
full load.
We need continuous duty designed engines for our sport...and the industrial
engine market is quickly approaching a place where they will have just what
the back to basic flying machines need...the difference this time
around...is the engines will last about 20 time longer than the ones we
started with back in the late 70s.
BTW....a 24 hp honda costs about 1100 complete with electric starter. The
31 hp Vanguard is about 1500..and the 35 will probably be a 100 or so
more...RETAIL....!
Just think...if Dennis and Homer would have set out to design that firefly
to fit the v-twin industrials we have today instead of the 447...hmmmmmmmmm"
----------------------------------------------------
Don/All,
Appreciate the responses, they're what I consider really interesting reading.
On an extremely timely subject, considering the current price of Rotaxes,
and the effect Sport Pilot will likely have on U/L's. Don, I love the way you
bring up at least as many new questions as ones you answer----and if you'll let
me, I'd like to keep you (and Charlie/Herb/Jack/Michael) talking further.
For instance, is a Vanguard rated for continuous duty now? If not, can it be
derated (run at less RPM?) to continuous? What does one weigh? Would a 35HP
put out 30 or so if rated continuous? (30 seems like a minimum needed----most
of us don't want to go back to 25 or less---) I get the impression you think
the Vanguard would work now, even if not rated for continuous. I'm also under
the impression the BMW weighs too much for legal U/L's (but I hope I'm wrong---).
Are there other near-continuous duty candidates out there now? What would
Homer & Dennis have had to change to run a Vanguard on a 'Fly? Just more
wing? OK, I'll quit----:)
This List is the only intelligent U/L oriented forum I'm aware of (since the
demise of the Phantom-Flightstar newsletter), and I for one, really enjoy it.
Frank Clyma
do not archive
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: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
What's wrong with the 447...? I kinda like 'em.....
Beauford
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb@pa.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb@pa.net>
>
> Don,
>
> Are you trying to torment me? If so you are succeeding.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> >
> > Just think...if Dennis and Homer would have set out to design that
firefly
> > to fit the v-twin industrials we have today instead of the
> 447...hmmmmmmmmm
> >
> > Don Gherardini
> > FireFly 098
> > http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb@pa.net>
Don,
Are you familiar with the older Saabs that had 2-stroke engines: they had a
750 CC and an 850 CC, 3-cylinder. The Saab Sonnet had a 2-stroke too. I had
one of each and ran them both for a long time. They were very
conservatively rated. (They had a light that came on when it was time to
add another quart of oil to the oil injector tank.)
Dennis
> 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.
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: ray anderson <rsanoa@yahoo.com>
Someone might want to investigate the Onan Industrial 2 cylinder models ( 4 cycle).
I ran one on my Quickie with very satisfactory results. There is a slight
modification needed to reduce the weight but easily done. When Bert Rutan designed
the Quickie for his brother in law and his partner, they decided the Onan
was the best bet considering weight, etc. As you probably know, the Onan has
been a favorite for many years in fields like continuous operation pumping oil
in the field without a lot of supervision. Never tell anyone connected with
them, including the local distributors, you intend to use it on an airplane.
That makes them run for cover fast.
UltraStar ..Tenn
Do not archive
frank & margie <frank-margie@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "frank & margie"
"Briggs Vanguards are now up to 35 hp and are very well built
engines and I bet a buck we will see alot of those on airplanes like the
legal eagle's,N-3's and similar planes with alot of wing. Talk about
range!..todays V-twin engines burn from 1.5 to 2 gallons an hour at WOT and
full load.
We need continuous duty designed engines for our sport...and the industrial
engine market is quickly approaching a place where they will have just what
the back to basic flying machines need...the difference this time
around...is the engines will last about 20 time longer than the ones we
started with back in the late 70s.
BTW....a 24 hp honda costs about 1100 complete with electric starter. The
31 hp Vanguard is about 1500..and the 35 will probably be a 100 or so
more...RETAIL....!
Just think...if Dennis and Homer would have set out to design that firefly
to fit the v-twin industrials we have today instead of the 447...hmmmmmmmmm"
----------------------------------------------------
Don/All,
Appreciate the responses, they're what I consider really interesting reading. On
an extremely timely subject, considering the current price of Rotaxes, and the
effect Sport Pilot will likely have on U/L's. Don, I love the way you bring
up at least as many new questions as ones you answer----and if you'll let me,
I'd like to keep you (and Charlie/Herb/Jack/Michael) talking further. For instance,
is a Vanguard rated for continuous duty now? If not, can it be derated
(run at less RPM?) to continuous? What does one weigh? Would a 35HP put out 30
or so if rated continuous? (30 seems like a minimum needed----most of us don't
want to go back to 25 or less---) I get the impression you think the Vanguard
would work now, even if not rated for continuous. I'm also under the impression
the BMW weighs too much for legal U/L's (but I hope I'm wrong---). Are there
other near-continuous duty candidates out there now? What would Homer & Dennis
have had to change to run a Vangu!
ard on a 'Fly? Just more wing? OK, I'll quit----:)
This List is the only intelligent U/L oriented forum I'm aware of (since the demise
of the Phantom-Flightstar newsletter), and I for one, really enjoy it.
Frank Clyma
do not archive
---------------------------------
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: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Dennis,
So very sorry pard...definately no intention to torment!
The honest truth is...I believe the FireFly very likely to be the best
purpose designed little airplane in the part 103 market.
I Dont know all the exact details of what went on back when this baby was
spawned, I have heard bits and pieces, and I dont know how much you had to
do with it, but since your name is on every single page of the prints I
have, I suspect you put an awful lot of yourself into that project.
Sometimes I dont think people appreciate just what this plane really
is...and the resale value of them seems to support that thought, not that I
want to sell mine.
What other legal ultralite flys with the responsiveness of a FireFly?
What other legal ultralite performs as well as the FireFly?
Rate of Climb?....Top Speed?....roll response?...
What other legal ultralite builds as easy as the FireFly?
I could go on...But anyone who has flown one and has any experience in very
many of the other 103 legal birds out there will line up right behind me I
bet.
NO Dennis...if that little comment I made about a conversation between you
and Homer would have really happened, We would have had a different plane,
and I am quite certain it would not have been near the fun to fly bird as a
FireFly is today.
Now, you may know the truth, but I dont believe there was much luck
involved here, just an honest evolution of a design into an airplane that is
perfectly matched to the engine choice.
I must be honest and say that I had been aware for along time of The Kolbs,
but never really believed they were all that much different than the rest.
When I stumbled onto this FireFly, built it and flew it, it was probably
within the first hour of flight time that I was saying to myself.."I cant
believe I didnt get one a these a long time ago"
IN fact, now that I have a Luscombe project going on in the pole-shed, my
wife keeps asking, "what are we gonna do with 2 airplanes?", and "are you
going to sell the FireFly?" and so on...WEll, because you had the
forethought to put folding wings on it, it will fit in the rented hanger
with the Luscombe...or about any other plane I will ever be able to afford
to park in there. I suspect it will be a very long time before I find
another plane that will satisfy the urges as economically, and as completely
as the Fly.
NO Sir Mr. Souder, No torment intended. Job very well done.
What you might consider however, is figureing out a NEW and Different design
that would take advantage of the upcoming generation of V-twin industrials.
The mere fact that the engines would cost so much less, be so much more
durable, More competitive(read that as several choices of brand) and less
"finicky" than 2 strokes ,would almost insure a market success, and YOU
would likely be given credit for turning the entire part 103 market into a
new and more affordable direction. That direction would be alot closer to
the path we all started out on so many years ago before law dogs and Rotax
engine domination got the reigns and steered us to where we are today.
I might think that the resulting airplane would never perform as well as a
447 Firefly, given a slightly heavier engine of slightly less
horsepower...but then...It wouldnt have to. It would be a different
plane...and with an engine that cost 3000 dollars less...the whole plane
would be a third less cost to the owner...give or take....hmmmmmm
dang....now it sounds like I am tormenting you huh......sorry......
Thanks Dennis for your part in bringing us the FireFly, a masterpiece that
has yet to be outdone!
Don Gherardini
FireFly 098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
P.S. Should you ever decide to try such a thing, I will GIVE you an
engine...or 2 or 3 to help it along.
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: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman@dejazzd.com>
Don, what we really need is not another plane but a good reliable
prop GEAR reduction for the 35 horse Vanguard.
Who would want to go back to a belt again? Something like a C box
with a clutch might work ok with the right ratio.
On Jan 3, 2006, at 9:23 PM, Don Gherardini wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-
> eleven.net>
>
>
> P.S. Should you ever decide to try such a thing, I will GIVE you an
> engine...or 2 or 3 to help it along.
>
>
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: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Frank,
All of the current industrial v-twins are what the market considers
continuous duty engines, however their continuous duty rating is slightly
less that advertised hp...generally in the 90% range. Without looking at the
Vanguard website..I would guess it the 35 is rated at about 32
continuous...but in our industry, it is generally accepted as a 1 hour
rating...in other words...35 hp for 1 hour max...and 32 hp cont. All the
companies except Kohler have adopted a design goal of 2500 hours at the cont
rating. (Kohlers are much less)
The biggest thing one can consider, is the torque rating. Already any
current crop industrial 25 to 28 hp or so v-twin has a torque rating of a
Rotax 503. And it is the torque that we want to turn a prop. I suggest to
you all that a 35 hp industrial will probably out perform a 50 hp 2 cycle
when the job is turning a prop.
Also, due to the industrial markets demands for torque...they all produce
peak torque at around 24 to 2600 and the curve stays the same thru around
3200...then it drops off a bit...but not much.
Now as to what would need to be changed on a Firefly to run a vanguard...I
cannot say for sure, for I am certainly not an aircraft designer...I will
defer to someone with more experience and knowledge on that one. I will
speculate that nothing needs to be changed to be able to make it fly with
one...but as I inferred in a prev post..it is designed to be maximized with
a 447, and likely nothing will be better than that on one.
Don Gherardini
FireFly 098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
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: | Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Beauford,
I cant think of anything wrong with a 447 either..I like mine alot too. If I
had to wish for something...I would wish they would last longer and burn
less fuel and cost about a third of what they do...but just cause they dont
do any of the above dont make em bad..
Don
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: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Dennis,
YEs..I am Vaguely familiar with those old saabs....I also remember the old
Opel wagon with a 2 cycle engine...a buddy of mine had one in high school,
it was a really neat engine, but there wasnt a thing it would do that my 65
289 mustang wouldnt do alot better!
I will tell you that before I worked for Honda...I was with a certain
Swedish equipment company for 12 years, To this very day, I think no,one
builds 2 cycles better than the swedes!
Don
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Hi Gang:
Been a lot of discussion about 2 and 4 stroke engines for our little
airplanes.
I had the opportunity to build and fly three 2 stroke powered Kolbs,
and am still flying the third one, but not with 2 stroke any more.
Did some serious cross country flying with a 447 point ign engine and
an original Firestar. Had a ball doing them all. Had some
disappointments, but survived them. Like an engine failure over the
Niagara River, just north of Buffalo, NY. Broke the airplane in the
process of getting me back on the ground. Got it repaired in about 4
days and flew a very bent FS back to Alabama. That engine out and
bent airplane was the decision point to rebuild the FS to do serious
cross country flying a little better than the first time around. BTW
the engine failure was caused by the NGK fine wire plugs I was using.
One of them let go of the tiny center electrode which lodged between
the ground strap and the base of the spark plug, effectively shutting
it down. Won't fly on one cylinder.
Don't ask me how I got off on that tangent, but what I wanted to share
was a very short description of what I see as the major difference
between the 2 and 4 stroke light aircraft engines. Primarily,
lubrication. The 4 stroke uses a dedicated, precision type, pressure
lube system. The 2 stroke uses a fuel/oil/air mix that relies on air
flow and chance to get things lubricated correctly.
As far as reliability is concerned, the area the 4 stroke is hands
down over the 2 stroke is piston to cylinder wall lubrication. Here
the 2 stroke does a good job as long as that microscopic film of oil
is kept in place between the piston and cylinder wall metal. If, at
anytime, it is broken, just a little bit, the piston is going to scuff
and probably seize in the cylinder. We don't have that problem with
the 4 stroke unless we loose oil pressure, and then the crank and rod
bearings are going to go first.
There are a lot of ways to break the oil film in a 2 stroke:
1-broken ring
2-stuck ring and a little blow by
3-produces a lot of carbon that might have a bearing on creating a
break in the oil film
4-acts of God
5-unnatural, mysterious, unexplainable acts
Can't think of any more at this time, but maybe you all can.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't know of any problems we have
suffered with the 4 stroke Rotax in the area of piston and cylinder
scuffing and seizing. In fact, the factory tolerance for piston to
cylinder wall clearance when new is 0.000 to 0.001". Not a whole lot
of clearance. However, another advantage of the 912 is the use of
plated aluminum cylinders and not cast iron or steel sleeves as used
in the 2 strokes.
Not looking for arguments. Thinking out loud tonight and wanted to
share my thoughts.
Most engine failures are operator induced on both 2 and 4 stroke
engines. I believe the critical difference is the all important oil
film on the cylinder wall.
john h
mkIII
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: | Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
> Are you familiar with the older Saabs that had 2-stroke engines:
they
> had a 750 CC and an 850 CC, 3-cylinder. The Saab Sonnet had a
> 2-stroke too. I had one of each and ran them both for a long time.
> They were very conservatively rated. (They had a light that came
on
> when it was time to add another quart of oil to the oil injector
> tank.)
Had four different two stroke cars in Japan in the mid 70's. Two were
air cooled two cylinder 500cc and two were 750cc three cylinder, four
speed, water cooled. All of them were Suzuki. Used one of the 750s
for gymkhana, a slalom type event. We beat the living crud out of
that car, well past redline, ported, stuffed crankcase, honkin big
expansion chambers (that's one of the ways I lost some high
frequency hearing). Sure wish I had a couple of them now......
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 and 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
>However, another advantage of the 912 is the use of
> plated aluminum cylinders and not cast iron or steel sleeves as
used
> in the 2 strokes.
Aaaakkkk! Heresy! My Hirth has the same Nikasil as your 912. So
there!
; )
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
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: | Two stroke cars..... |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
Whoops...old age. The Suzuki displacements were 360cc and then
500cc. Time has a way of inflating memories....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
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: 2 and 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
| there!
|
| ; )
|
|
| Jim Baker
Sorry Jim:
Was talking about Rotax (or is it Rotaxen?) Should have spelled that
out in my original post.
Rotax calls it something else, and my Suzuki DRZ400E 4 stroke thumper
calls it something else again, and Yamaha thumpers call their plating
something difference. Amazing technology. There is a plant in
Auburn, Alabama, that will replate a single cylinder for about
$150.00. When they finish with it, it is ready to go back together.
Send the new piston along with the cylinder so they can hone it to
specs. Will be a new cylinder no matter how bad you screw it up.
I imagine your Hirth still survives as long as that microscopic film
of oil is in place between piston and cylinder.
john h
Titus, Alabama
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Steve Garvelink" <link@cdc.net>
Gentlemen,
This has been the most interesting post session of the year. I guess I
have been very interested in this very subject. I have a pressure
washing business and use these little industrial engines and from what I
have seen would have no problem putting one behind me as a power plant.
I have used the briggs 18hp L-head engines at close to maximum power and
regularly get 3000 plus hours of service out of them. I have not used
the v-twins yet but plan on replacing both of my engines with them soon.
The question that I have is if you can get the engine to run slow enough
to run the prop with out a reduction drive. I truly believe that These
engines will bring about a new chapter in ultralight aircraft. I Thank
Don and all who have contributed to this post .
Steve Garvelink
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Hauck
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 2 and 4 Stroke
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
| there!
|
| ; )
|
|
| Jim Baker
Sorry Jim:
Was talking about Rotax (or is it Rotaxen?) Should have spelled that
out in my original post.
Rotax calls it something else, and my Suzuki DRZ400E 4 stroke thumper
calls it something else again, and Yamaha thumpers call their plating
something difference. Amazing technology. There is a plant in
Auburn, Alabama, that will replate a single cylinder for about
$150.00. When they finish with it, it is ready to go back together.
Send the new piston along with the cylinder so they can hone it to
specs. Will be a new cylinder no matter how bad you screw it up.
I imagine your Hirth still survives as long as that microscopic film
of oil is in place between piston and cylinder.
john h
Titus, Alabama
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! --
|