Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:30 AM - Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke (Jack B. Hart)
2. 05:11 AM - Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (lucien stavenhagen)
3. 05:34 AM - Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (John Jung)
4. 06:05 AM - Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (robert bean)
5. 06:41 AM - Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (Don Gherardini)
6. 06:41 AM - Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (John Hauck)
7. 07:04 AM - Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (lucien stavenhagen)
8. 08:29 AM - Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (Christopher Armstrong)
9. 12:30 PM - Re: Tie downs, gust locks (Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL)
10. 12:30 PM - Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (John Hauck)
11. 02:24 PM - Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (Eugene Zimmerman)
12. 02:39 PM - Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (John Hauck)
13. 03:07 PM - Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke / Clutch Question (Earl & Mim Zimmerman)
14. 03:10 PM - Engine comparison (Mike Pierzina)
15. 03:32 PM - Re: Re: Tie downs, gust locks (Denny Rowe)
16. 03:57 PM - Re: Engine comparison (Don Gherardini)
17. 05:04 PM - 2 Stroke VS. 4 Stroke (Michael Bigelow)
18. 05:18 PM - Re: Engine comparison (Dennis Souder)
19. 06:15 PM - Re: 2 Stroke VS. 4 Stroke (Steve Garvelink)
20. 07:01 PM - Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (Jack B. Hart)
21. 07:03 PM - Re: 2 Stroke VS. 4 Stroke (ray anderson)
22. 08:18 PM - Re: Engine comparison (Don Gherardini)
23. 08:29 PM - Re: 2 and 4 Stroke (Tom Brandon)
24. 08:35 PM - Re: 2 Stroke VS. 4 Stroke (Don Gherardini)
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: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart@onlyinternet.net>
At 10:12 PM 1/3/06 -0500, you wrote:
>--> 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.
>
Eugene,
I have about 115 hours on a Simonini Victor 1+ belt reduction drive, and the belt
is holding up just fine. The belt reduction unit is much quieter than the
Rotax "B" gear box with no death rattles. Also with the belt reduction drive,
the reed valve engine will idle very nicely below 2,000 rpm with out the aid
of a clutch. Why carry the weight if it is not needed?
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
>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.
I'm not arguing either, but I do have an observation. I think the 2 and 4
stroke both have the same constraint here. I don't see this as a significant
difference between the two designs. 4-strokes also depend on a film of oil
keeping the piston and cylinder apart and if the film breaks down the
results are similar.
For example, one way the film of oil can be broken down on the 4-stroke is
excessively rich running. Too much raw gas in the cylinder can wash the oil
film away leading to piston/cylinder contact with the you-know-what result.
Don't ask me how I know this...
The main operative difference when it comes to the piston/cylinder
reliablity issue is probably thermal shocking and not lubrication. The
4-stroke has it all over the 2-stroke here. Because the 2-stroke fires on
every stroke, heat buildup is much more intense and rapid. Also, for
durability reasons, a steel liner is used in the Rotaxen - very very tough
and long wearing design, but susceptible to thermal shocking especially due
to it being a 2-stroke. A long period of idling followed by sudden sustained
full-throttle is a recipe for disaster in the 2-stroke (especially the water
cooled motors). The piston heats up much faster than the liner and expands
faster as well. In extreme cases, siezure is the result as the
piston/cylinder gap closes. Don't ask me how I know this either.
This is much less of a problem with the 4-stroke. The piston heats up a
somewhat less rapidly there, due to the extra intake/compression stroke
which helps slow down the heating of the piston. Generally, then, you can
hammer away with the throttle on a 4-stroke with much less danger of
siezure.
And yes the aluminum/nickasil liners also help with this since they tend to
expand at closer to the same rate as the piston.
If there is one single reason I would ever switch to a 4-stroke, this would
have to be it. They're so much more durable regarding thermal shocking than
the 2-stroke it's not even funny.
Then of course there's the fact that the 912 has a TBO 4x longer than the
2-stroke rotax and is just much beefier in general for the power output,
etc.....
All I need now is just to win the lottery and I can get my kolbra and 912
;).....
Anyway, just my thoughts while drinking my morning coffee.....
LS
N646F
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 and 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
Group,
All this talk about a 35 hp Vanguard engine, with the torque of a 503
got my attention. So, I Googled it. It weighs 153 pounds.
Source: http://www.commercialpower.com/display/router.asp?docid=78080
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
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: 2 and 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
Ack! 153 lbs? that's more than my suzuki G10. Now I will admit
that it IS physically more bulky than a rotax 2 stroke but after fuel
load
considerations you aren't talking more weight. There are both
a gear type and cog belt drive with good reps available.
What is the reluctance to use them, other than the undeniably
excellent 912 series? The brain cell taxing labor? Skill isn't a big
factor.
-BB, 4 stroke suzie, about $3000 invested including total overhaul
and redrive.
do not archive
On 4, Jan 2006, at 8:34 AM, John Jung wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
>
> Group,
>
> All this talk about a 35 hp Vanguard engine, with the torque of a 503
> got my attention. So, I Googled it. It weighs 153 pounds.
>
> Source: http://www.commercialpower.com/display/router.asp?docid=78080
>
> John Jung
> Firestar II N6163J
> Surprise, AZ
>
>
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: | Re: 2 and 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
John,
The Liquid cooled 35 is a real brute...but a tad heavy I think. It has a
double wide clevite bearing on the PTO end of the crank..makes it look like
a lycoming crankshaft.
Anyway...they have an aircooled 35 also...same size...just under 1 litre but
28 lbs less at 125...of which alot is a hugh commercial aircleaner.
another thing I might add,..is the 25 horse engines out there have the
torque of a 503....the 31/33/35 class of engines is a whole lot more, no
matter who the nmanufacturer...
Take the Vanguard 35 aircooled at 52.2 ft lbs torque vs the 582 blue head at
51 ft lbs
and you have a closer comparison
The Vanguard LC 35 is rated at 55 ft lbs...now we are gonna run these thru a
reduction unit and get the speed down to ...say 2500....lets see...1.44 to 1
ratio...what is the torque now?....(where's Topher when ya need him!)
anyway...you fellas see what I mean..these thoughts have been working on me
for awhile..I certainly dont know for sure just how it would be..but the
numbers sure seem favorable.
Some of you know , or remember a year or 2 ago I was fooling around with a
24 hp vtwin and a 60 inch ivo 3 blade. I was able to turn the ivo at a hub
speed of 2200, pitched at the same degree that it was on my cuyuna. At 2200
hub speed..the firefly would run 60 mph.
now..how can that be?...Cuyuna ULII-02 rated at 38 hp and the Vtwin rated at
24hp...both close performance when bolted to a reduction drive with a prop
for the load?....pretty obvious that the torque was about the same.
....just some thinkin as I am competeing to drain the coffee pot this morn!
http://www.commercialpower.com/display/router.asp?docid=78069
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 and 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
| reliablity issue is probably thermal shocking and not lubrication.
Lucien, are you sure lubrication is not an issue??? ;-)
|Generally, then, you can
| hammer away with the throttle on a 4-stroke with much less danger of
| siezure.
Not in the "real world". Try it in an old Continental or Lycoming
aircraft engine. ;-(
| And yes the aluminum/nickasil liners also help with this since they
tend to
| expand at closer to the same rate as the piston.
Not actually a liner, but a coating. Aluminum coated cyls and pistons
expand at the same rate, thus the "zero to 0.001" clearance on 912
engines.
| Then of course there's the fact that the 912 has a TBO 4x longer
than the
| 2-stroke rotax and is just much beefier in general for the power
output,
| etc.....
Not necessarily "beefier" but a better proven design.
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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 and 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
> | The main operative difference when it comes to the piston/cylinder
>| reliablity issue is probably thermal shocking and not lubrication.
>
>Lucien, are you sure lubrication is not an issue??? ;-)
It doesn't seem to be, no. Thermal shock is far and away the more prevalent
cause of scuffing and siezure in the 2-strokes I've run or seen run to
destruction than any design problem with cylinder wall lubrication. The
basic principle is the same in both motor types, though the source of the
oil is different in each case.
When not thermal shocked leading to seizure, 2-stroke piston/cylinder
lubrication appears to work pretty well. The liners actually wear very
little; frequently new pistons can be put in liners at 400 some odd hours
and the clearances obtained are close to new limits...
Putting it another way, 2-strokes tend to blow up and rot away from
neglect/abuse much more than they actually simply wear out through normal
operation.
Don't ask me why I know this....
>Not in the "real world". Try it in an old Continental or Lycoming
>aircraft engine. ;-(
I did for a number of years - the Continentals and Lycomings I learned
behind and rented took FAR more throttle abuse that I would ever _dare_ to
attempt to put over on my 2-strokes, with nary a problem. To my knowledge,
all those motors ran right out to TBO......
Those motors are much more durable regarding thermal shocking than even the
air cooled 2-strokes, trust me ;).
>Not actually a liner, but a coating. Aluminum coated cyls and pistons
>expand at the same rate, thus the "zero to 0.001" clearance on 912
>engines.
You're right - tnx for the correction....
>Not necessarily "beefier" but a better proven design.
Well, for example, take a 582 crank and set it beside a 912 crank. The delta
in terms of power output asked of them is only about 15 hp, but the
difference in size and strength is pretty substantial.......... That's what
I mean by beefy....
And yes it is a better proven design, IMO, probably the best 4-stroke on the
market.....
LS
N646F
do not archive
>john h
>
>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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
The Vanguard LC 35 is rated at 55 ft lbs...now we are gonna run these thru a
reduction unit and get the speed down to ...say 2500....lets see...1.44 to 1
ratio...what is the torque now?....(where's Topher when ya need him!)
anyway...you fellas see what I mean..these thoughts have been working on me
for awhile..I certainly dont know for sure just how it would be..but the
numbers sure seem favorable.
Some of you know , or remember a year or 2 ago I was fooling around with a
24 hp vtwin and a 60 inch ivo 3 blade. I was able to turn the ivo at a hub
speed of 2200, pitched at the same degree that it was on my cuyuna. At 2200
hub speed..the firefly would run 60 mph.
now..how can that be?...Cuyuna ULII-02 rated at 38 hp and the Vtwin rated at
24hp...both close performance when bolted to a reduction drive with a prop
for the load?...
How can that be? Because the rating for the two strokes is at 6500 rpm and
the rating for the little industrial engines is at 3500.
Relationship between torque and HP is really simple: power in units of "hp",
torque is in "lb-ft", and rotation rate is in "rpm", then
power = torque * rotation rate / 5252
(This means that the hp and torque curves always cross(they are equal) at
5252 rpm.)
So an engine with a hp rating given at a lower rpm will make more torque
then an engine with the same hp rating at a higher rpm.
Example:
Engine A makes 100 hp at 6000 rpm --> torque = 100*5252/6000= 87.5
Engine B makes 100 hp at 3000 rpm --> torque = 100*5252/3000= 157
Half the rpm twice the torque.
Put them both through a reduction drive to get them to the same rpm say 2200
so you can turn a nice big prop and they will both have the same torque.
Torque at 2200 = 100*5252/2200=238.7
100 hp at a given rpm is always the same torque... don't care where it comes
from.
Comparing the little industrial motors which would be perfect except for
having a poor power to weight ratio with the lighter 2-strokes you get
Rotax 503 makes 50 hp @ 6800 rpm --> torque = 50*5252/6800= 38.6
Brigss ns600 makes 24 hp at 3600 rpm --> torque = 24*5252/3600= 35.01
So yes the torque is about the same at the engine output shaft... but that
isn't what matters, we need torque at the prop shaft
When you put both engines through a redrive to get to a usable prop rpm
Then you see the real usable torque:
Rotax 503 makes 50 hp @ 2500 prop rpm --> torque = 50*5252/2500= 105.0
Brigss ns600 makes 24 hp @ 2500 prop rpm --> torque = 24*5252/2500= 50.4
Wow, half the power = half the torque... imagine that.
Sure the fuel burns are better( mostly cause your not making any power!),
but half the performance and it weights much more, especially after you add
the redrive.
I don't think these engines are ever going to make a high performance
aircraft engines. Low performance perhaps... but nobody wants low
performance.
Topher
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: Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL <Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil>
Here's another amazing (and true) Tie Down story:
Mid-80s, central Ohio, a warm summer Saturday morning, I flew with my
girlfriend (now my bride of 19 years) in the Aero Club Tomahawk from
Fairborn to Urbana (20 miles) for breakfast at the airfield caf. The
excellent food at this restaurant made it well-known as an ideal fly-in
eating destination (the $100 hamburger). Lots of other fly-in patrons were
there that particular calm July morning. Not a breath of wind all day. 6
aircraft were parked outside (our Tomahawk, an Aeronca, a Grumman AA-1, a
Swift, two Cessnas), but NOT tied down. After all, there was no wind that
day.
Suddenly, one of the pilots stood up, pointed to the window with an
astonished look and said, "What the heck is that?" Everybody looked at
once. There was a cornfield adjacent to the runway. About 100 yards out,
in the middle of the cornfield, the corn stalks were bending down sideways,
being blown over by what was obviously a huge gust of wind. And the wave of
sideways cornstalks was moving right toward us!
You never saw a restaurant empty so fast! It was chaos. Everybody was
scrambling madly to their planes, chairs getting knocked over, tables
getting bumped, food & drinks spilling off tables, pilots bumping into each
other while making for the only door to the tarmac, all with a singular
mission - like the Keystone Kops! I admit that I was one of those
complacent, non-tied-down pilots.
This gust was like a "rogue wave" you hear about in nautical stories - a
giant freak wave, rising from nowhere on a calm sea. The gust hit the
airport and provided a sustained 30 mph wind for about one minute. All
those unsecured airplanes started to waltz like I've never witnessed before:
They were all twirling and pirouetting around each other in smooth and
graceful arcs. High wings crossing over low wings, wingtips passing within
inches of the neighboring airplanes ... and all the while, their frantic
owners in and amongst the twirling airplanes. Pilots darting, ducking,
grabbing for a wing or a tail - like being in a moving obstacle course! (I
remember one guy got whacked in the butt pretty hard by the leading edge of
the AA-1 while holding onto the wing of his Cessna. Sent him tumbling in a
backwards summersault over the top of the Yankee wing - he never saw it
coming! After rolling across the top of the wing, he landed on the ground,
squarely on his feet behind the trailing edge of the wing. His bewildered
look didn't exactly communicate that "Yeah, I meant to do that!"
The amazing part is: Not one single aircraft contacted another. By the
time the dust settled, and all those frazzled pilots reconvened, we could
not believe how lucky we all were. Could've been a disaster.
Yeah, I learned my lesson: "Always tie your airplane down, even if it
doesn't seem windy." I got to learn this one the easy way.
Dennis Kirby
Mark-III, N93DK "Magic Bike" in
Cedar Crest, New Mexico
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 and 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
|
| How can that be? Because the rating for the two strokes is at 6500
rpm and
| the rating for the little industrial engines is at 3500.
| I don't think these engines are ever going to make a high
performance
| aircraft engines. Low performance perhaps... but nobody wants low
| performance.
|
| Topher
Topher/Gang:
Thank you for presenting a very understandable explanation of hp and
torque. I also got a lot out of your comparison of the two
"different" engines' performance. Nice to have someone explain
something mathematical to us old guys that are not mathematically
inclined.
Take care,
john h
PS: Got a good dose of aviating today. First flight since I flew
back from Texas a month ago. Had some airplane parts to deliver to my
buddy, Ted Cowan, over on the other side of the Tallapoosa River.
Didn't get to log quite two hours, but what I got was first class.
The old 912ULS is clocking 1,099.8 hours and still keeps on ticking.
Amazed that it would even fly with all the dirt we picked up on the
flight out to Texas and back, but it did.
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 and 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman@dejazzd.com>
On Jan 4, 2006, at 3:34 PM, John Hauck wrote:
> The old 912ULS is clocking 1,099.8 hours and still keeps on ticking.
WOW!
What is that?
More than $10,000.00 worth of hydrocarbons blown out the pipe?
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 and 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
| --> Kolb-List message posted by: Eugene Zimmerman
<eugenezimmerman@dejazzd.com>
|
Hi Gene/Gang:
Pretty close. Figures up to:
5,499 gals
@ 3.00 a gal
Looks like about:
$16,947.00
But........I don't look at it as hydrocarbons out the pipe, but where
those hydrocarbons took me. Worth every penny of that nearly
$17,000.00.
I don't control the price of fuel and I like to fly. So, in order to
fly, I have to bite the bullet and pay the price for the gas.
Take care,
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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 / Clutch Question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi@supernet.com>
lucien stavenhagen wrote:
>
> Personally, I'll never not use the clutch again if I can help it... Best
> thing since sliced bread for me....
>
> LS
> N646F
>
Thanks for the very helpful information about the clutch! Haven't
decided what I will do yet? ~ Earl
Do Not Archive
--
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: | Engine comparison |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Mike Pierzina <planecrazzzy@yahoo.com>
Thank you Topher,
That was a GREAT comparison and explaination that
"I" could understand ....
Usually I get lost in all the tech info.....but you laid it out very well....
Gotta Fly...
Mike
in MN
Hey Don, Thanks for calling him...
Firestar I&II Forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Kolb_Firestar/
My Web Site:
http://www.geocities.com/planecrazzzy/Planecrazzzy.html
Sometimes you just have to take the leap and build your wings on the way down...
Do not archive
---------------------------------
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: Tie downs, gust locks |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Denny Rowe" <rowedl@highstream.net>
Great story Dennis!
Do not archive
----- Original Message
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: Engine comparison |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Ya Mike..
I knew Topher would be there when we needed him!
Thx Chris, you laid it out well, and as you said,,The Vtwins are not going
to be a replacement for a high performance 2 cycle..
They could be an alternative, but only on some airframes. Kinda like a Jabi
works Great on a Sonex...but not so good on a Kolb. For these engines to be
able to be utilized, the airframes will need to match em.
Alot of us flew alot of miles behind Solos and McCullochs, Sachs and even
West Bends and Chotia's in the early days. all with alot less horses!!
IN the quest for more power we all migrated to higher hp snowmobile engines.
Most of the market stopped searching when we got to these. We started to
tweak airframes to fit em better...and as previously mentioned, even design
them specifically. Now, we are paying the price in Dollars because we have
put all our eggs (well, most or them) in this basket and the people carrying
this basket saw that they had an opportunity to squeeze....and they are
obviously taking that opportunity.
I cannot say if a 103 legal bird could be developed with a 125 lb engine,
but these all have electric start, heavy flywheels and industrial
aircleaners that could be stripped to reduce weight...would they be light
enough then?....I think so...and I think with the experience that the
designers have today all it will take is for someone to decide to just do
it....
From a strictly sales viewpoint....the benefits are obvious. Lower cost and
longer life,and more dependable. All by very large factors.
Imagine what TNK would have to do to try and remove a third of the cost of
any of their birds!!...it would be impossible.
Dreamin Don
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: | 2 Stroke VS. 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Michael Bigelow" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
This thread about engines have been very interesting and informative. The
Rotax 2 stroke engines definately have their place, and can obviously be
flown safely when the operator knows how run and maintain his engine
properly.
That being said, the day someone puts an HKS on thier Firestar they will
turn a really good ultralight into a great ultralight. The HKS is
expensive, but considering the price of building a new firestar, it is only
4,000 dollars extra to get the HKS over the Rotax. Im suprised no one has
done it yet. I paid an extra 10,000 dollars extra over the 2 stroke price
to put the 912S on my MK III , and its worth every cent. Just look what
the 912 S did for the MK-III. I bet the HKS will do the same thing for the
Firestar.
Michael A. Bigelow
MK-III Xtra under construction
Do Not Archive
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear, you did not go as fast as you could have
!!!
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: Engine comparison |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb@pa.net>
Don,
Yes, these out-of-the-box engines have a lot of sheet metal they don't need
and some have built in gas tanks which can be replaced by ligher plastic
ones. I would think they could shed quite a bit of weight. Plus the slower
crank speeds would make a reduction device easier to design and manufacture
because the ratio would not need to be a large one. Or a larger dia "fan"
with a suitable ratio could be turned relatively slowly and more
efficiently. It would not have the snap of the 2-strokes, but it would fly
credibly well.
The most refreshing thing in this direction I have ever seen was the "Hudson
Thing" by Sandy Hudson. He did have 2 "out-of the-box" briggs engines, one
on each side of the fusleage. I just couldn't get done looking at that
exercise in simplicty and economy and I just have never been able to get it
out of my mind.
Dennis
> I cannot say if a 103 legal bird could be developed with a 125 lb engine,
> but these all have electric start, heavy flywheels and industrial
> aircleaners that could be stripped to reduce weight...would they be light
> enough then?....I think so...and I think with the experience that the
> designers have today all it will take is for someone to decide to just do
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: | 2 Stroke VS. 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Steve Garvelink" <link@cdc.net>
Some one please enlighten me. Why do these 4 stroke engines turn above
2400 rpm to produce their rated horse power? Is it cylinder volume or
stroke? The little aeronca c3 had a twin cylinder that produced 36 hp in
the 2000+ rpm range (Must have had a much larger cylinder volume).
Wonder what it weighed. When engines run faster do they become more
efficient? I remember an article in popular science where Smokey Yunick
attempted to redesign an engine to comply with the upcoming
environmental pollution standards. He changed the stroke got more burn
out of the fuel and a great deal more torque Out of the engine and also
reduced the hydrocarbons. It just seems to me that there has to be a
simpler way to produce a lighter and more efficient 4 stroke engine.
Steve Garvelink
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Bigelow
Subject: Kolb-List: 2 Stroke VS. 4 Stroke
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Michael Bigelow"
<orcabonita@hotmail.com>
This thread about engines have been very interesting and informative.
The
Rotax 2 stroke engines definately have their place, and can obviously be
flown safely when the operator knows how run and maintain his engine
properly.
That being said, the day someone puts an HKS on thier Firestar they will
turn a really good ultralight into a great ultralight. The HKS is
expensive, but considering the price of building a new firestar, it is
only
4,000 dollars extra to get the HKS over the Rotax. Im suprised no one
has
done it yet. I paid an extra 10,000 dollars extra over the 2 stroke
price
to put the 912S on my MK III , and its worth every cent. Just look
what
the 912 S did for the MK-III. I bet the HKS will do the same thing for
the
Firestar.
Michael A. Bigelow
MK-III Xtra under construction
Do Not Archive
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear, you did not go as fast as you could
have
!!!
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: 2 and 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart@onlyinternet.net>
Kolbers,
Just viewed a program on the History Channel, that described a two stroke
engine that drives a container ship. I wrote down the model number
"12K98MC" and Googled it. The engine is designed by MAN B&W Diesel,
Denmark. It has 12 cylinders, with a total output of 101,645 bhp or 8,470
bhp per cylinder. Bore of 3 feet, 2.58 inches and a stroke of 8 feet 8.72
inches and develops full power at 97 rpm. Burns 0.281 pounds of oil per
horsepower hour or 14.27 tons of oil per hour at rated hp. This is quite
efficient in that if one computes fuel burn for a 40 hp engine at this rate
it comes out to be less than two gallons per hour. The engine weighs 2,157
"tonnes". This works out to 42 pounds per hp. This engine is expected to
run about 8,000 hours per year for the life of the ship.
At rated hp, the engine uses 165 pounds of cylinder oil per hour or 0.00162
pounds of lub oil per hp hour. The ratio of piston lube oil to fuel is 173
to one.
Now if we could just improve the weight to hp ratio and shrink it down to 40
hp ........
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
do not archive
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: | 2 Stroke VS. 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson <rsanoa@yahoo.com>
Steve,
I at one time had three C3 Aeroncas with the Aeronca engines. They had a bore
of
4-1/4" and a stroke of 4". Produced 36 HP at 2400 rpm. Displacement was 113.5
cu.in. Complete engine weighed 121 lbs.
Ray
UltraStar Tenn.
Do not archive
Steve Garvelink <link@cdc.net> wrote:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Steve Garvelink"
Some one please enlighten me. Why do these 4 stroke engines turn above
2400 rpm to produce their rated horse power? Is it cylinder volume or
stroke? The little aeronca c3 had a twin cylinder that produced 36 hp in
the 2000+ rpm range (Must have had a much larger cylinder volume).
Wonder what it weighed. When engines run faster do they become more
efficient? I remember an article in popular science where Smokey Yunick
attempted to redesign an engine to comply with the upcoming
environmental pollution standards. He changed the stroke got more burn
out of the fuel and a great deal more torque Out of the engine and also
reduced the hydrocarbons. It just seems to me that there has to be a
simpler way to produce a lighter and more efficient 4 stroke engine.
Steve Garvelink
-============================================================
---------------------------------
Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.
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: Engine comparison |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Dennis/ and all interested/
If you have not seen this video...take a peek at it. The link is here on
Monte Graves Homepage.
This is the Smiths Legal Eagle with the 32 hp vtwin completely stock
including governor....flown this fall.
Of course...we dont know how much the whole thing weighs. 32 ft wing..32
horses
http://home.usmo.com/~mgraves/
Don
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: 2 and 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Tom Brandon <tombrandon@mac.com>
This is what you want.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
do not archive
On Jan 4, 2006, at 9:06 PM, Jack B. Hart wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jack B. Hart"
> <jbhart@onlyinternet.net>
>
> Kolbers,
>
> Just viewed a program on the History Channel, that described a two
> stroke
> engine that drives a container ship. I wrote down the model number
> "12K98MC" and Googled it. The engine is designed by MAN B&W Diesel,
> Denmark. It has 12 cylinders, with a total output of 101,645 bhp
> or 8,470
> bhp per cylinder. Bore of 3 feet, 2.58 inches and a stroke of 8
> feet 8.72
> inches and develops full power at 97 rpm. Burns 0.281 pounds of
> oil per
> horsepower hour or 14.27 tons of oil per hour at rated hp. This is
> quite
> efficient in that if one computes fuel burn for a 40 hp engine at
> this rate
> it comes out to be less than two gallons per hour. The engine
> weighs 2,157
> "tonnes". This works out to 42 pounds per hp. This engine is
> expected to
> run about 8,000 hours per year for the life of the ship.
>
> At rated hp, the engine uses 165 pounds of cylinder oil per hour or
> 0.00162
> pounds of lub oil per hp hour. The ratio of piston lube oil to
> fuel is 173
> to one.
>
> Now if we could just improve the weight to hp ratio and shrink it
> down to 40
> hp ........
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke VS. 4 Stroke |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Steve..
the only 4 stroke engines mass produced that are more efficient than than
these Vtwins, are the auto engines today. EPA and CARB regulations have
forced this market to produce cleaner burning and since we sell in the
industrial market by the Horsepower....there was no choice but to gain in
efficiency. IN fact the calif air rescorce board (CARB) has instituted regs
than begining in 1999 started a year by year reduction in emmissions with
all engines produced faceing a stricter compliance each year thru 2008.
This has been a difficult process for manufacturers. when we sell engines to
our OEM customers in the USA...they seldom buy a bigger engine than just
will do the job to remain competitive in their respective market place. So
we could not just lean out the engines..because the resulting loss of
horsepower would not have satisfied the loads.
Maintaining horsepower and torque is a must in this biz...and it must be
done at the 3600 rpm level because the entire marget and all drive
components have been standardized to this level. Transmissions...blade
speeds...coupler ratings...everybodys machines are designed to run at 3600
input.
Honda has done it by varible ratio valve trains....super efficient carbs and
contolled ignition curves. This year we introduced the IGX series of fully
controled fuel mapping and ignition curves, which will be the next
generation of small industrials, just as the auto division as had to do to
keep up with the regs.
So as far as efficiency goes....you will be hard pressed to find engines
more efficient that what is currently out there.
It used to be...to make more horsepower, all we had to do was raise the rpms
and pour the fuel to em....not any more.
Honda engines as of 2005 are compliant to the CARB 08 regs BTW!
Don Gherardini
OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
CortLand, Illinois
800-626-7326
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! --
|