Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:15 AM - Value of the List... (Matt Dralle)
1. 02:49 AM - Re: Scenry from an ultralight (icrashrc)
2. 06:15 AM - 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (grantr)
3. 06:43 AM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Richard Pike)
4. 07:10 AM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Richard Girard)
5. 07:34 AM - Re: Re: Scenry from an ultralight (Terry Frantz)
6. 07:49 AM - Re: Scenry from an ultralight (jb92563)
7. 08:28 AM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (jb92563)
8. 08:42 AM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Mike Welch)
9. 09:14 AM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (herbgh@juno.com)
10. 09:25 AM - Kolb : Help ! which form ? (BMWBikeCrz@aol.com)
11. 09:28 AM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (jb92563)
12. 09:51 AM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (JetPilot)
13. 10:19 AM - Re: Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Mike Welch)
14. 10:22 AM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (jb92563)
15. 10:42 AM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Richard Pike)
16. 11:04 AM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (ElleryWeld@aol.com)
17. 01:57 PM - Re: Kolb : Help ! which form ? (Carlos)
18. 02:25 PM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Dana Hague)
19. 02:39 PM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Dana Hague)
20. 02:40 PM - Re: Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Dana Hague)
21. 02:46 PM - Kolb-List Digest: GPS & 8050-88A (BMWBikeCrz@aol.com)
22. 02:53 PM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (jb92563)
23. 02:59 PM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (jb92563)
24. 03:23 PM - Re: Kolb : Help ! which form ? (gary aman)
25. 03:24 PM - Re: Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Richard Pike)
26. 03:51 PM - Re: Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Dana Hague)
27. 05:10 PM - Re: Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Richard Girard)
28. 06:35 PM - Re: Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Dana Hague)
29. 06:39 PM - a flying day (Larry Cottrell)
30. 06:59 PM - Re: Some pictures from Kolb Flying Today... (grantr)
31. 07:12 PM - Re: a flying day (Larry Bourne)
32. 07:14 PM - Re: Re: Some pictures from Kolb Flying Today... (Larry Cottrell)
33. 07:52 PM - Re: Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Richard Pike)
34. 08:19 PM - Re: Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Dana Hague)
35. 08:23 PM - Re: Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Richard Pike)
36. 08:32 PM - Re: Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Jim Baker)
37. 08:48 PM - Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Jim ODay)
38. 09:07 PM - Re: Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke (Dana Hague)
39. 10:34 PM - Re: a flying day (Larry Cottrell)
Message 0
| 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: | Value of the List... |
If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you have
written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least $20 or $30
worth of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a
subscription to some lame magazine or even a dinner out. Isn't the List worth
at least that much to you? Wouldn't it be great if you could pay that amount and
get a well-managed media source free of advertising, SPAM, and viruses? Come
to think of it, you do... :-)
Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support the
Lists?
Contribution Page:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Again, I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution thus far
during this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made possible exclusively
through YOUR generosity!!
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
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: Scenry from an ultralight |
For those that missed Larrys mass emailing you can view the pictures here...
http://www.ill-eagleaviation.com/larryc.htm
--------
Scott
www.ill-EagleAviation.com
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146163#146163
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: | 2 stroke vs 4 stroke |
What makes the 2 stroke less reliable than the 4 stroke? In theory the 2 stroke
should be more reliable especially the piston port engine because it only had
a few moving parts to fail. Pistons, crank and rods and thats it. 4 strokes have
many more parts that could lead to an engine failure.
So why are engine outs more common with 2 strokes? Why is there more maintenance
involved with the 2 cycle?
What oil do you guys use in your rotax engines? I know a lot of people use penzoil
air cooled 2 cycle oil.
Is anyone using the blue max in there 503? I like the idea of mixing it 100:1 because
it reduces the carbon build up. I talked to a guy who ran it in a hirth
for 100hrs with no problems. He said there was hardly any carbon build up running
it 100:1.
here is a link to the oil
http://www.recpower.com/blumax.htm
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146190#146190
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 |
Don't follow the siren song of 100:1 oil mixes, it's just not enough oil
for an aircraft application. I tried it years ago, the Rotax survived,
but I really didn't like listening to the engine rattle as I babied it
back to the field. Added enough oil to the premix to get it back to 50:1
and the rattle went away. Lesson learned...
Been running Phillips Injex in Rotax 2-strokes for 24 years and more
than 1200 hours with no problems, very little carbon build up, and rings
that easily go more than 100 hours without sticking. Jet your Bing so
that cruise power gives egt's between 1075 and 1125 and Injex will give
you almost no carbon buildup.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
grantr wrote:
>
> What makes the 2 stroke less reliable than the 4 stroke? In theory the 2 stroke
should be more reliable especially the piston port engine because it only had
a few moving parts to fail. Pistons, crank and rods and thats it. 4 strokes
have many more parts that could lead to an engine failure.
>
> So why are engine outs more common with 2 strokes? Why is there more maintenance
involved with the 2 cycle?
>
> What oil do you guys use in your rotax engines? I know a lot of people use penzoil
air cooled 2 cycle oil.
> Is anyone using the blue max in there 503? I like the idea of mixing it 100:1
because it reduces the carbon build up. I talked to a guy who ran it in a hirth
for 100hrs with no problems. He said there was hardly any carbon build up running
it 100:1.
> here is a link to the oil
> http://www.recpower.com/blumax.htm
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146190#146190
>
>
>
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 stroke vs 4 stroke |
4 stroke engines, in general, have pressure oiling systems, 2 strokes
have to rely on the oil being either direct injected into the engine
or being premixed with the gas.
I've used BlueMax oil in a Hirth I had in the shop last summer, but
not enough to make a statistical blip.
The primary killer of 2 strokes is running too lean. Remember how it's
oiled? Also faulty crank seals don't leak oil out, like a 4 stroke,
they leak air in, leaning the mixture. If you run a 4 stroke lean, it
won't like it, beyond a narrow range that is, but the quantity of oil
delivered to the piston skirt and bearings remains the same.
There's also the issue of proper storage. A 4 stroke, with good
quality oil in it, had that oil splashed all over its innards as it
ran. The 2 stroke has its oil delivered in a solvent. To store it
properly (Rotax says any time over 30 days of inactivity) you need to
run a can of misting oil, first through the carb until the extra oil
kills the engine, then into the combustion chamber via a spark plug
hole.
Last there is operating temperature. My HKS has a max head temp spec
of 338 degrees, the 912 is 300 continuous, 325 for short periods,
after which the heads must be Rockwell tested for proper hardness. The
447 I just broke in has a max CHT of 480 degrees, and regularly hit
close to 400 in climb.
These certainly aren't all the differences that effect engine
longevity, but its a start.
Rick
On Nov 15, 2007 8:14 AM, grantr <grant_richardson25@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> What makes the 2 stroke less reliable than the 4 stroke? In theory the 2 stroke
should be more reliable especially the piston port engine because it only had
a few moving parts to fail. Pistons, crank and rods and thats it. 4 strokes
have many more parts that could lead to an engine failure.
>
> So why are engine outs more common with 2 strokes? Why is there more maintenance
involved with the 2 cycle?
>
> What oil do you guys use in your rotax engines? I know a lot of people use penzoil
air cooled 2 cycle oil.
> Is anyone using the blue max in there 503? I like the idea of mixing it 100:1
because it reduces the carbon build up. I talked to a guy who ran it in a hirth
for 100hrs with no problems. He said there was hardly any carbon build up running
it 100:1.
> here is a link to the oil
> http://www.recpower.com/blumax.htm
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146190#146190
>
>
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: Scenry from an ultralight |
icrashrc wrote:
>
> For those that missed Larrys mass emailing you can view the pictures here...
>
> http://www.ill-eagleaviation.com/larryc.htm
>
> --------
> Scott
>
> www.ill-EagleAviation.com
>
> do not archive
>
Scott,
Thanks for posting the pictures on your web site for the dial-up users
of the list like me! I too enjoy looking at all the pictures that
listers post. Too bad more can't size them for easy transmission and
viewing. The computer screen can only show so many pixels anyway.
Do Not Archive
Terry - FireFly #95
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: Scenry from an ultralight |
Thanks Scott for putting those up on your site for easy access.
Larry,
Those are fantastic pictures......you have an awesome environment to fly in up
there....better watch out....some might want to retire there [Wink]
--------
Ray
Riverside County, CA
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146203#146203
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 |
Another consideration in 2 vs 4 stroke longevity is the fact that the 2 stroke
revs higher along with all the inherent stresses and vibrations.
Also, the 2 stroke fires once per revolution as opposed to the 4 stroke firing
every 2nd revolution so there is more time for the heat to distribute to the cooling
fins in a 4 stroke.
2 strokes lead a hard life by their very nature and they have to be treated with
extra care to ensure they last and perform properly.
The advantages are high power output at minimum weight compared to most other practical
solutions.
--------
Ray
Riverside County, CA
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146208#146208
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: | 2 stroke vs 4 stroke |
Regarding the argument of 2 stroke engines versus 4 strokes, I read an article
once that did a very deep and scientific explanation of why 2 strokes are short
lived, when compared to 4 stroke engines.
Including all the items mentioned by Rick, there was a huge difference that has
to do with the velocity of the moving parts. Yes, 2 strokes produce prodigious
amounts of power, but the friction of these internal surfaces is incredibly
higher than the comparable frictions a 4 stroke sees. And when you add in
the sensitivities of oiling that the 2 stroke has, (proper ratio, no suction leaks,
etc.), the 4 stroke usually lasts many times over the life of a 2 stroke
engine.
BUT!! As always, there is a but. In this comparison, one could conclude a 4
stroke engine is better, but that isn't a a complete win for the 4 stroke. A
2 stroke will generally produce significantly more power for a given weight.
A 4 stroke could only dream of the power output of a typical 2 stroke, and this
is because of the obvious; a 4 stroke engine only has 1/2 the opportunity to
produce power that the 2 stroke has. Every second rotation of the crankshaft
a 2 stroke is working on a power stroke, whereas a 4 stoke engine only sees
this at every 4 revolutions.
Another limiting factor of the 2 stroke engine is its size. Recall a moment
ago where we stated the high velocity of the internal moving parts of a 2 stroke.
As everyone knows, force is increased with the square of the velocity. In
other words, as a 2 stroke gets bigger, the higher speed of the parts becomes
a huge detriment to keeping the engine together. A 100 cc engine can easily
spin 8000 RPM. A 1000 cc will have more difficultly being able to spin 8000
RPM's....and stay together. A 3000 cc 2 stroke engine could only spin 8000 RPM
for only a few seconds. As the piston's mass increases, so does its momentum.
And the bigger the piston, the less interested it is in stopping, and turning
around and going the other direction. Therefore, you would have to increase
the size (and mass) of the rod, to handle this huge piston. But a more massive
rod is less likely to be changing directions, just like the more massive
piston. And what you have is vicious cycle, the engine is held to being relatively
"small", due to the physics of velocity of the moving parts.
This is explained by the formula: KE = 1/2 x mass x velocity x velocity
or KE = 1/2mV(sqrd)
KE equals Kinetic Energy, m means mass of the item that's moving, and v means the
velocity of the moving mass.
Obviously, as a piston's velocity is increased, the Kinetic Energy (KE) goes
WAY up!!!
Example: Let's say we have a 1 kg piston moving up and down at 75 cm/sec, therefore
we would get:
KE = 1/2 x 1 kg x 75 cm/sec (squared),......which equals.........5,625 Kinetic
Units
But, let's double the velocity of our piston to 150 cm/sec, and see what this produces:
We then get: KE = 1/2 X 1 kg x 150 cm/sec x 150 cm/sec.......which equals........22,500
Kinetic Units
Wow! By simply doubling the pistons velocity, the Kinetic Energy quadrupled!!
And all this extra energy is focused on the connecting rod. If you keep increasing
the velocity, or even the mass, for that matter, there will be a point
where the connecting rod will no longer be able to contain this energy.
This scenario is classily displayed at the "races", when some fire breathing
dragster blows an engine. He usually "throws a rod", where the rod couldn't keep
up with the kenetic energy of the pistons spinning at 9 grand!!!
Anyway, that's what I was thinking. Mike Welch
_________________________________________________________________
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 |
2 stroke reliability.??
two or three things imho...Lack of operator knowledge...and
lubrication.... striving for good fuel consumption equals less
lubrication... a common thread on 2 cycle lists is fuel burn... You have
to put some fuel through to get good lubrication...
My notion...decarbon frequently...mix the oil at a low ratio(50 to 1)
and run the pee out of them...and when they hit 5 to 600 hours...sell
them on ebay as low or unknown time!! :-) And there in lies the other
problem....used and unknown time engines....No one should complain about
a bad 2 stroker if they buy used!!! Herb
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:14:56 -0800 "grantr"
<grant_richardson25@yahoo.com> writes:
> <grant_richardson25@yahoo.com>
>
> What makes the 2 stroke less reliable than the 4 stroke? In theory
> the 2 stroke should be more reliable especially the piston port
> engine because it only had a few moving parts to fail. Pistons,
> crank and rods and thats it. 4 strokes have many more parts that
> could lead to an engine failure.
>
> So why are engine outs more common with 2 strokes? Why is there
> more maintenance involved with the 2 cycle?
>
> What oil do you guys use in your rotax engines? I know a lot of
> people use penzoil air cooled 2 cycle oil.
> Is anyone using the blue max in there 503? I like the idea of mixing
> it 100:1 because it reduces the carbon build up. I talked to a guy
> who ran it in a hirth for 100hrs with no problems. He said there was
> hardly any carbon build up running it 100:1.
> here is a link to the oil
> http://www.recpower.com/blumax.htm
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146190#146190
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Kolb : Help ! which form ? |
Working on the regestration of the firestar
Have N-Number Have Serial Number But 8050-88
is no good ... which form do I use to claim owmership of a non Regesterd "fat
ultralight"
Thanks! Dave
**************************************
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 |
Mike, not to pick nits but a 2 stroke has an induction of fuel & expulsion of exhaust
on one stroke (180 degrees) and compression and ignition on the other stroke(another
180 degress).
and those 2 strokes added together = 360 degrees of crank rotation and is 1 rev
....therefore the 2 stroke produces power every rev as opposed to the 4 stroke
producing power on every 2nd rev.
The 4 stroke has the following strokes(180 degrees):
1) Fuel Valve 1 opens letting in fuel/air on doward stroke.
2) Valve 1 closes and compresses fuel/air on upward stroke.
3) Fuel/air ignition on downward stroke, both valves closed.
4) Exhaust valve 2 opens and exhaust expelled on upward stroke, and then closes
valve 2.
Cycle is complete after 4 x 180 degrees = 720 degrees = 2 revs
Here is a 4 stroke animation:
The 2 stroke is a bit harder to explain since multiple things are occuring at the
ports both above and below the piston at the same time, so here is an animation:
The valve that lets in fuel in our engines is the piston skirt clearing the fuel
intake port and sucking the fuel into the crank case.
The fuel in the crank case is also what lubricates and cools the engine parts internally,
requires the premix oil to do its thing here.
--------
Ray
Riverside County, CA
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146230#146230
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 |
grantr wrote:
>
> What makes the 2 stroke less reliable than the 4 stroke? In theory the 2 stroke
should be more reliable especially the piston port engine because it only had
a few moving parts to fail.
>
2 Strokes are less reliable than 4 strokes, that is just a fact of life. Don't
get hung up on the theory, just recognize the real world results for what they
are. For a 2 stroke to run reliably it must have near perfect fuel air mixture
AND prop loading, and there is the problem. In real life, perfection rarely
exists, and it is ever harder to keep perfection of these things in hundreds
of hours of aircraft use. Many companies have tried making 2 stroke engines
reliable enough for certified aircraft, and every project has been abandoned.
If a bunch of engine experts and companies with lots of resources were unable
to make a 2 stroke more reliable on airplanes than 4 strokes, chances are almost
zero that you will be able to.
Bottom line is if you want a reliable engine that is least likely to quit then
its a no brainier, fly a 4 stroke.
If you can not afford a 4 stroke, and have no other option then to fly with a 2
stroke, do yourself a favor and read this article. Its short, and gives you
really good useful, real world information (not a bunch of theory ) on how to
keep your 2 stroke running as reliably as possible.
http://curedcomposites.netfirms.com/twostroke.html
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146238#146238
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 |
Ray,
I knew that. I just wanted to see if anyone was paying attention. he he he
After I sent the email, I thought "you know, someone is going to point out that
I described this wrong."
But you have to admit the rest of the email sounded fairly scinetific for a dopey
basterd. Mike
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke
> From: jb92563@yahoo.com
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:28:30 -0800
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
>
>
> Mike, not to pick nits but a 2 stroke has an induction of fuel & expulsion of
exhaust on one stroke (180 degrees) and compression and ignition on the other
stroke(another 180 degress).
>
> and those 2 strokes added together = 360 degrees of crank rotation and is 1 rev
....therefore the 2 stroke produces power every rev as opposed to the 4 stroke
producing power on every 2nd rev.
>
>
> The 4 stroke has the following strokes(180 degrees):
> 1) Fuel Valve 1 opens letting in fuel/air on doward stroke.
> 2) Valve 1 closes and compresses fuel/air on upward stroke.
> 3) Fuel/air ignition on downward stroke, both valves closed.
> 4) Exhaust valve 2 opens and exhaust expelled on upward stroke, and then closes
valve 2.
>
> Cycle is complete after 4 x 180 degrees = 720 degrees = 2 revs
> Here is a 4 stroke animation:
>
>
> The 2 stroke is a bit harder to explain since multiple things are occuring at
the ports both above and below the piston at the same time, so here is an animation:
>
> The valve that lets in fuel in our engines is the piston skirt clearing the fuel
intake port and sucking the fuel into the crank case.
>
> The fuel in the crank case is also what lubricates and cools the engine parts
internally, requires the premix oil to do its thing here.
>
> --------
> Ray
> Riverside County, CA
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146230#146230
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook together at last. Get it now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke |
Very timely Mike....Thanks for the article.
I am just trying to tune my Cuyuna UL II-02 and this info has come at just the
right time for me to do a proper job of tuning.
--------
Ray
Riverside County, CA
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146250#146250
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 |
Which is exactly why I like to cruise my 582 as close to 5,000 rpm as I
can get it. Good synopsis.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Mike Welch wrote:
>
>
> Regarding the argument of 2 stroke engines versus 4 strokes, I read an article
once that did a very deep and scientific explanation of why 2 strokes are
short lived, when compared to 4 stroke engines.
>
> Including all the items mentioned by Rick, there was a huge difference that
has to do with the velocity of the moving parts. Yes, 2 strokes produce prodigious
amounts of power, but the friction of these internal surfaces is incredibly
higher than the comparable frictions a 4 stroke sees. And when you add in
the sensitivities of oiling that the 2 stroke has, (proper ratio, no suction
leaks, etc.), the 4 stroke usually lasts many times over the life of a 2 stroke
engine.
>
> BUT!! As always, there is a but. In this comparison, one could conclude a
4 stroke engine is better, but that isn't a a complete win for the 4 stroke.
A 2 stroke will generally produce significantly more power for a given weight.
A 4 stroke could only dream of the power output of a typical 2 stroke, and
this is because of the obvious; a 4 stroke engine only has 1/2 the opportunity
to produce power that the 2 stroke has. Every second rotation of the crankshaft
a 2 stroke is working on a power stroke, whereas a 4 stoke engine only sees
this at every 4 revolutions.
>
> Another limiting factor of the 2 stroke engine is its size. Recall a moment
ago where we stated the high velocity of the internal moving parts of a 2 stroke.
As everyone knows, force is increased with the square of the velocity.
In other words, as a 2 stroke gets bigger, the higher speed of the parts becomes
a huge detriment to keeping the engine together. A 100 cc engine can easily
spin 8000 RPM. A 1000 cc will have more difficultly being able to spin 8000
RPM's....and stay together. A 3000 cc 2 stroke engine could only spin 8000
RPM for only a few seconds. As the piston's mass increases, so does its momentum.
And the bigger the piston, the less interested it is in stopping, and turning
around and going the other direction. Therefore, you would have to increase
the size (and mass) of the rod, to handle this huge piston. But a more
massive rod is less likely to be changing directions, just like the more massive
piston. And what you have is vicious cycle, the en!
> gine is held to being relatively "small", due to the physics of velocity of
the moving parts.
>
> This is explained by the formula: KE = 1/2 x mass x velocity x velocity
or KE = 1/2mV(sqrd)
>
> KE equals Kinetic Energy, m means mass of the item that's moving, and v means
the velocity of the moving mass.
>
> Obviously, as a piston's velocity is increased, the Kinetic Energy (KE) goes
WAY up!!!
> Example: Let's say we have a 1 kg piston moving up and down at 75 cm/sec, therefore
we would get:
>
> KE = 1/2 x 1 kg x 75 cm/sec (squared),......which equals.........5,625 Kinetic
Units
>
> But, let's double the velocity of our piston to 150 cm/sec, and see what this
produces:
>
> We then get: KE = 1/2 X 1 kg x 150 cm/sec x 150 cm/sec.......which equals........22,500
Kinetic Units
>
> Wow! By simply doubling the pistons velocity, the Kinetic Energy quadrupled!!
And all this extra energy is focused on the connecting rod. If you keep increasing
the velocity, or even the mass, for that matter, there will be a point
where the connecting rod will no longer be able to contain this energy.
>
> This scenario is classily displayed at the "races", when some fire breathing
dragster blows an engine. He usually "throws a rod", where the rod couldn't
keep up with the kenetic energy of the pistons spinning at 9 grand!!!
>
> Anyway, that's what I was thinking. Mike Welch
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
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 stroke vs 4 stroke |
While the list is on an engine subject who is running a Jabaru Engine which
model and How do you like the preformance and Have you got any pictures of
your Setup
Still pondering other engines
Ellery Building MK3Xtra
do not archive
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kolb : Help ! which form ? |
Hi Dave,
The Affidavit of Ownership, AC Form 8050-88a is the one to be used for
Fat Ultralights. Bascially You state in writing before an Notary Public
that this plane is your plane and nobody else's.
Then you submit your AC Form 8050-1, application for Aircraft
Registration and $5.00 dollars to the FAA in Oklahoma.
The EAA has a packet for about $20 bucks + shipping that has all the
forms and a booklet as to how to fill in the blanks.
Thats it really. Just get it into the FAA as soon as possible. Time is
running out!
Good Luck
Carlos G
Kolb Firestar
N6177R
----- Original Message -----
From: BMWBikeCrz@aol.com
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:20 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb : Help ! which form ?
Working on the regestration of the firestar
Have N-Number Have Serial Number But 8050-88
is no good ... which form do I use to claim owmership of a non
Regesterd "fat ultralight"
Thanks! Dave
************
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 stroke vs 4 stroke |
At 09:14 AM 11/15/2007, grantr wrote:
>
>What makes the 2 stroke less reliable than the 4 stroke? In theory the 2
>stroke should be more reliable especially the piston port engine because
>it only had a few moving parts to fail. Pistons, crank and rods and thats
>it. 4 strokes have many more parts that could lead to an engine failure.
>
>So why are engine outs more common with 2 strokes? Why is there more
>maintenance involved with the 2 cycle?
>
>What oil do you guys use in your rotax engines? I know a lot of people use
>penzoil air cooled 2 cycle oil.
>Is anyone using the blue max in there 503? I like the idea of mixing it
>100:1 because it reduces the carbon build up. I talked to a guy who ran it
>in a hirth for 100hrs with no problems. He said there was hardly any
>carbon build up running it 100:1.
>here is a link to the oil
>http://www.recpower.com/blumax.htm
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146190#146190
>
>
--
But I don't have an "any key" on my computer!
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke |
At 09:14 AM 11/15/2007, grantr wrote:
>What makes the 2 stroke less reliable than the 4 stroke? In theory the 2
>stroke should be more reliable especially the piston port engine because
>it only had a few moving parts to fail. Pistons, crank and rods and thats
>it. 4 strokes have many more parts that could lead to an engine failure.
>
>So why are engine outs more common with 2 strokes? Why is there more
>maintenance involved with the 2 cycle?
The primary reason is the way that 2-strokes are lubricated. Yes, as
others have pointed out, they're more highly stressed since they get more
power out of the same size package, but modern metallurgy and materials
technology means that actual mechanical failures (not related to
lubrication) are rare.
The lubrication, of course, is dependent on the fuel/air mixture. Assuming
there's the proper amount of oil mixed with the fuel (or injected in),
having the right fuel/air mixture is critical. Too little (too lean) and
the engine seizes, or bearings fail, or it runs hot... and the engine
quits. Too much (too ruch) and it carbons up, eventually shorting out the
spark plug... and the engine quits. Even if it's adjusted right initially,
air leaks (bearing seals, gaskets, and carburetor boots) can make it run
lean. Furthermore, the optimum mixture point changes with the seasons and
weather conditions.
Here's an interesting thought: Many people remove the oil injection system
from their Rotax engines, fearing the failure of the injection pump. I'd
like to see statistics regarding the relative reliability of the same model
engine with and without oil injection. At least with oil injection, you
always have the intended amount of oil per revolution regardless of
fuel/air mixture.
Another thought: If you _do_ have oil injection, seems it would be
possible to inject at least part of it into the bearings, getting the
benefit of a 4-stroke's pressurized oil system to at least the lower end...
from whence the oil would find its way into the crankcase to mix with the
fuel as it does on any 2-stroke.
Still another thought: I have long believed that electronic fuel injection
(EFI) could be a major improvement to 2-stroke reliability. By taking the
mixture adjustment out of the operator's hands, it should be possible to
eliminate the problems from ignorant adjustments, or failure to make a
needed seasonal adjustment. Or, perhaps not even the complexity of fuel
injection, just an automatic mixture controlled carburetor, with feedback
from an exhaust oxygen sensor sensing the ratio (I know that O2 sensors are
problematic with oil in the fuel but it shouldn't be insurmountable).
-Dana
--
But I don't have an "any key" on my computer!
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 stroke vs 4 stroke |
At 12:51 PM 11/15/2007, JetPilot wrote:
>-
>If you can not afford a 4 stroke, and have no other option then to fly
>with a 2 stroke, do yourself a favor and read this article. Its short,
>and gives you really good useful, real world information (not a bunch of
>theory ) on how to keep your 2 stroke running as reliably as possible.
>
>http://curedcomposites.netfirms.com/twostroke.html
That's a good article. One thing I found particularly interesting, the
point about long partial power descents. I've always been leery about long
idling descents, partially from concern about shock cooling, but also for
fear of the engine loading up and quitting. I have to think about that one.
-Dana
--
But I don't have an "any key" on my computer!
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: | Kolb-List Digest: GPS & 8050-88A |
I LOVE my Gps 72 ...NO frills has saved my bacon on several occasions
...Kinda like me its "cheap 'N Good"
also found my form ...8050-88A still trying to figure out which box to check
"I dunno where I got it ,just slapped a bunch of parts togather" soubds a
little scairy to tell the Government ...LOL ...Dave
**************************************
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: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke |
There are fuel injected 2 strokes available.
I agree these must be more reliable and probably worth the extra cost.
--------
Ray
Riverside County, CA
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146314#146314
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 stroke vs 4 stroke |
I also found this document that guides you through jetting and proping your 2 stroke
properly and the relationship between the EGT, CHT and Static RPM.
Good info and still points out the descending under mid power issue for 2 strokes
due to inadvertent leaning through unloading the prop in a shallow dive.
--------
Ray
Riverside County, CA
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146317#146317
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/principles_of_2_stroke_jetting_166.doc
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: Kolb : Help ! which form ? |
your form is 8050-88A
BMWBikeCrz@aol.com wrote: Working on the regestration of the firestar
Have N-Number Have Serial Number But 8050-88
is no good ... which form do I use to claim owmership of a non Regesterd "fat
ultralight"
Thanks! Dave
************
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke |
Yep, that is a pretty good document.
Somebody got it off my web page, here:
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg11.htm
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
jb92563 wrote:
>
> I also found this document that guides you through jetting and proping your 2
stroke properly and the relationship between the EGT, CHT and Static RPM.
>
> Good info and still points out the descending under mid power issue for 2 strokes
due to inadvertent leaning through unloading the prop in a shallow dive.
>
> --------
> Ray
> Riverside County, CA
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146317#146317
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/principles_of_2_stroke_jetting_166.doc
>
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke |
At 05:53 PM 11/15/2007, jb92563 wrote:
>There are fuel injected 2 strokes available.
>
>I agree these must be more reliable and probably worth the extra cost.
Well, Rotax oughta get with the program!
-Dana
--
Censorship: The reaction of the ignorant to freedom.
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke |
The question of fuel injection came up at the Rotax Service Center
classes at Lockwood this last spring. Eric Tucker was asked, why it
wasn't used by Rotax. None available that meets Rotax reliability
standards.
I spent two years around a group of Hirth fuel injected engines
installed in MiniMaxes at Arlington, WA. We were flying a Kasperwing
at the time, probably the most weather finicky aircraft ever built,
but that's another discussion. At any rate, we would come out an a
beautiful day and run 14 gallons of fuel through the little Zenoah
over the course of the day. The Minimaxes would come out to the flight
line, get started and their tuning would get fiddled with for awhile
(I really don't know what else to call it, since it never resulted in
anything more than a circuit around the pattern), then the owners
would retire to the picnic benches for the remainder of the day.
Eric Tucker has more experience with 2 strokes than all the people on
this list put together. I trust his judgment. You can do as you wish.
Rick
On Nov 15, 2007 4:53 PM, jb92563 <jb92563@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> There are fuel injected 2 strokes available.
>
> I agree these must be more reliable and probably worth the extra cost.
>
>
> --------
> Ray
> Riverside County, CA
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146314#146314
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 stroke vs 4 stroke |
At 08:08 PM 11/15/2007, Richard Girard wrote:
The question of fuel injection came up at the Rotax Service Center
classes at Lockwood this last spring. Eric Tucker was asked, why it
wasn't used by Rotax. None available that meets Rotax reliability
standards.
Unless you could adapt an existing automotive fuel injection system I can
well imagine that the development cost for a reliable system would be
prohibitive.
From time to time I've played with the idea of developing an electronic
carburetor adjustment system for the small 2-strokes used on PPG's (nice
thing about a PPG is that an engine failure during testing is normally a
non event). My thought was to use an oxygen sensor in the exhaust to
measure the air/fuel ratio, and some electronics to drive an off the shelf
R/C servo to adjust the main mixture needle valve (most of these engines
use Walbro pumper carburetors). You could program it to keep as far on the
rich side of a stoichiometric ratio as desired. It would have to have a
failsafe mode, of course, to revert to a rich condition in the event of
failure of the O2 sensor, as well as during startup before the sensor is
hot enough to generate a signal (cars use heated sensors for startup, until
the exhaust is hot enough to keep the sensor hot, but they require too much
power for the lighting coil on a small engine).
On an engine with a float carburetor, it could control the mixture by
porting and metering manifold vacuum to the float bowl, similar to how the
altitude compensating carbs do it.
FAR simpler than true fuel injection, and mechanically simple... but
unfortunately a little beyond my own electronics skills.
Along those lines, has anybody tried the altitude compensating carbs
available for Rotax engines? Unfortunately they don't compensate for air
temperature as well...
-Dana
--
Of all the forces in the world, only the Federal Government has enough
power left to destroy America.
Message 29
| 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 |
|
The weather turned off clear and of course a bit cold. The wind forecast
was from the south at no more than 10 all day. I rolled out the Firestar
and fueled up to max. When I took off at 10: AM the temp was 31 degrees.
I have been presenting the Ranchers that allow me to hunt my hawks on
their property with a framed 8x10 aerial photo of their ranch. It seems
to go over pretty well, and it is the least that I could do. There were
two ranches that I did not like the picture that I had and wanted to do
it over. I climbed up to 1600 feet agl and headed east. I have a
enclosure around the front, but leave off the clear plastic that Kolb
sends to make their full enclosure. (Slows flight by 10 mph) I do have a
heater that captures the air from the engine shroud. I also use a cowboy
(buckaroo in this area) "Wild Rag", a silk scarf around my neck, down
vest, leather flight jacket. I also use "Bog" boots on my
feet.(neoprene) as my feet generally get cold at these temps. The flight
was just great. I had my 10 MPH wind from the south and was making 86
over the ground. The air was as stable as it ever gets. I had checked
the batteries in the camera before leaving the ground and of course
after I took three pictures the rascal was showing dying batteries. My
path after the ranch houses took me along the Jordan River, and out to
the Jordan Craters Lava Flow. I was also checking for duck ponds to
visit later.
The Jordan craters flow covers about 25 miles, and was featured in one
of Louis Lamour's novels. The lava has not collapsed, so the lava is
scabbed over and it is hollow underneath. Kind of unnerving when you
walk on it. Little spots have collapsed making little potholes where
grass and willows grow. Some of them are filled with water and ducks are
as safe there as they ever get. I also took a picture of a "line shack"
made out of the lava rock. A bit hard to see. Then I came back over the
Pillars of Rome. As I came back over the desert leaving the ranches
behind, I can see a glowing white dot that is a feral horse that lives
there with a buckskin and a bay. She shows up when the sun hits her for
at least 10 miles. She is a "Cream" and to me looks like Silver, Gene
Autry's horse. She also has black eyes, but that is the only color on
her. She is also as wild as a March hare, and starts running as soon as
she sees a plane. ( They round them up with choppers) I took this
picture and lined up for a real close up and had her with her head up
looking behind her at me. Mane and tail were flying, I was 25 feet high
and 50 feet behind. You guessed it, the camera died!
Larry C
Message 30
| 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: Some pictures from Kolb Flying Today... |
Where are you located? I see you have some nice farm land around.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146366#146366
Message 31
| 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: a flying day |
Heck of a shot, Larry. I want to see the next ones. Take a spare
battery in your shirt pocket. I learned the hard way,
too. Lar. Do not Archive.
Larry Cottrell wrote:
> The weather turned off clear and of course a bit cold. The wind
> forecast was from the south at no more than 10 all day. I rolled out
> the Firestar and fueled up to max. When I took off at 10: AM the temp
> was 31 degrees. I have been presenting the Ranchers that allow me to
> hunt my hawks on their property with a framed 8x10 aerial photo of
> their ranch. It seems to go over pretty well, and it is the least that
> I could do. There were two ranches that I did not like the picture
> that I had and wanted to do it over. I climbed up to 1600 feet agl and
> headed east. I have a enclosure around the front, but leave off the
> clear plastic that Kolb sends to make
Message 32
| 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: Some pictures from Kolb Flying Today... |
42 40.419 N 117 51.198 W South Eastern Oregon. High Desert, more sage
than farm land.
Larry C
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "grantr" <grant_richardson25@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:59 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Some pictures from Kolb Flying Today...
>
> Where are you located? I see you have some nice farm land around.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146366#146366
>
>
>
Message 33
| 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 |
Years ago, the guy that now has the 582 FSII in the hangar adjacent to
mine had a Hummer with a Zenoah 250 and a Mikuni pumper carb on it. We
rigged a long length of aluminum tubing from next to the seat back to
the high speed needle so that he could turn it in or out to adjust the
high speed needle according to what the EGT was showing. Anvil simple
and he never had an engine out.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Dana Hague wrote:
>
> At 08:08 PM 11/15/2007, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> The question of fuel injection came up at the Rotax Service Center
> classes at Lockwood this last spring. Eric Tucker was asked, why it
> wasn't used by Rotax. None available that meets Rotax reliability
> standards.
>
> Unless you could adapt an existing automotive fuel injection system I
> can well imagine that the development cost for a reliable system would
> be prohibitive.
>
> From time to time I've played with the idea of developing an
> electronic carburetor adjustment system for the small 2-strokes used
> on PPG's (nice thing about a PPG is that an engine failure during
> testing is normally a non event). My thought was to use an oxygen
> sensor in the exhaust to measure the air/fuel ratio, and some
> electronics to drive an off the shelf R/C servo to adjust the main
> mixture needle valve (most of these engines use Walbro pumper
> carburetors). You could program it to keep as far on the rich side of
> a stoichiometric ratio as desired. It would have to have a failsafe
> mode, of course, to revert to a rich condition in the event of failure
> of the O2 sensor, as well as during startup before the sensor is hot
> enough to generate a signal (cars use heated sensors for startup,
> until the exhaust is hot enough to keep the sensor hot, but they
> require too much power for the lighting coil on a small engine).
>
> On an engine with a float carburetor, it could control the mixture by
> porting and metering manifold vacuum to the float bowl, similar to how
> the altitude compensating carbs do it.
>
> FAR simpler than true fuel injection, and mechanically simple... but
> unfortunately a little beyond my own electronics skills.
>
> Along those lines, has anybody tried the altitude compensating carbs
> available for Rotax engines? Unfortunately they don't compensate for
> air temperature as well...
>
> -Dana
> --
> Of all the forces in the world, only the Federal Government has
> enough power left to destroy America.
>
>
Message 34
| 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 |
At 10:50 PM 11/15/2007, Richard Pike wrote:
>Years ago, the guy that now has the 582 FSII in the hangar adjacent to
>mine had a Hummer with a Zenoah 250 and a Mikuni pumper carb on it. We
>rigged a long length of aluminum tubing from next to the seat back to the
>high speed needle so that he could turn it in or out to adjust the high
>speed needle according to what the EGT was showing. Anvil simple and he
>never had an engine out.
One of my PPG's has a Solo 210 engine (single cylinder, 14hp). No EGT, but
at the start of every day of flying it, I start it slightly rich, lean it
for peak rpm, then back off 100 rpm or 1/8 turn. In 350+ hours flying it,
I've had problems with engine accessories (muffler, ignition, redrive) but
never a seizure or any other trouble inside the engine.
-Dana
--
Balance the budget--declare politicians a game species.
Message 35
| 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 |
The recipe for all Experimental aircraft: Simplicate and add lightness.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Dana Hague wrote:
>
> At 10:50 PM 11/15/2007, Richard Pike wrote:
>
>> Years ago, the guy that now has the 582 FSII in the hangar adjacent
>> to mine had a Hummer with a Zenoah 250 and a Mikuni pumper carb on
>> it. We rigged a long length of aluminum tubing from next to the seat
>> back to the high speed needle so that he could turn it in or out to
>> adjust the high speed needle according to what the EGT was showing.
>> Anvil simple and he never had an engine out.
>
> One of my PPG's has a Solo 210 engine (single cylinder, 14hp). No
> EGT, but at the start of every day of flying it, I start it slightly
> rich, lean it for peak rpm, then back off 100 rpm or 1/8 turn. In
> 350+ hours flying it, I've had problems with engine accessories
> (muffler, ignition, redrive) but never a seizure or any other trouble
> inside the engine.
>
> -Dana
> --
> Balance the budget--declare politicians a game species.
>
>
Message 36
| 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 |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
X-SpamReason %%SpamReason%%:
> Years ago, the guy that now has the 582 FSII in the hangar adjacent to
> mine had a Hummer with a Zenoah 250 and a Mikuni pumper carb on it. We
> rigged a long length of aluminum tubing from next to the seat back to
> the high speed needle so that he could turn it in or out to adjust the
> high speed needle according to what the EGT was showing. Anvil simple
> and he never had an engine out.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Richard has a sterling idea...but let's extend this out a bit.
http://www.acroname.com/robotics/info/ideas/continuous/continuous.html
There are some really powerful 1/4 scale servos out there that would
work nicely to control a needle. All one would need is the pulse
width generating electronics to control the servo....about $6 in
parts and $15 for the servo. An easy project, electronically. The
harder part would be building a servo mount. Perhaps a gear drive
set?
And then this......
> > The question of fuel injection came up at the Rotax Service Center
> > classes at Lockwood this last spring. Eric Tucker was asked, why it
> > wasn't used by Rotax. None available that meets Rotax reliability
> > standards.
Gee....hope Rotax doesn't hear about this.....
"Two-stroke, twin-cylinder Rotax, Fuel Injection, R.A.V.E.TM exhaust;
Water cooled"
On what? SeaDoo GTi, Rotax powered.
> > Unless you could adapt an existing automotive fuel injection system I
> > can well imagine that the development cost for a reliable system would
> > be prohibitive.
Now, I'm sure you'll try to tell me that JetSki engines are apples
and UL engines are oranges. Several other two stroke engine lines
have fuel injection: Fuji, Hirth, Orbital (especially Orbital),
Mercury, OMC, Bimota.....it's not hard to do, just not worth it in
the small volume world of UL sales. THAT is what Eric really means
but doesn't have the heart to say. I can't imagine that all these
companies would front all that research and $$$$, risking customer
loyalty, for an unreliable product....even Rotax.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
Message 37
| 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 |
JetPilot wrote:
>
> grantr wrote:
> >
> > What makes the 2 stroke less reliable than the 4 stroke? In theory the 2 stroke
should be more reliable especially the piston port engine because it only
had a few moving parts to fail.
> >
>
>
> Bottom line is if you want a reliable engine that is least likely to quit then
its a no brainier, fly a 4 stroke.
>
> If you can not afford a 4 stroke, and have no other option then to fly with a
2 stroke, do yourself a favor and read this article. Its short, and gives you
really good useful, real world information (not a bunch of theory ) on how to
keep your 2 stroke running as reliably as possible.
>
> http://curedcomposites.netfirms.com/twostroke.html
>
> Mike
Good information on engines. Thank you! Can you point me to more reading on these
engines? I am a novice on these little motors.
Can you recommend any video programs or books on operating the Rotax 2 cycle engine?
A "Rotax 2 Stoke for Dummies" would be perfect.
I "can afford a 4 stroke"; what type of 4 stroke can be used on the Firestar, or
is that not an option?
If 2 stoke is my only option, I have a 477, is a dual ignition model more reliable?
Or is it the proper tuning that is the primary key to good service?
Thanks.
Jim
--------
Jim O'Day
Fargo, ND
Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146394#146394
Message 38
| 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 |
At 11:29 PM 11/15/2007, Jim Baker wrote:
>http://www.acroname.com/robotics/info/ideas/continuous/continuous.html
>
>There are some really powerful 1/4 scale servos out there that would
>work nicely to control a needle. All one would need is the pulse
>width generating electronics to control the servo....about $6 in
>parts and $15 for the servo. An easy project, electronically. The
>harder part would be building a servo mount. Perhaps a gear drive
>set?
Mechanically it's simple. You don't need continuous rotation, the needle
adjustment needed for weather or altitude changes is small, maybe 1/4 turn.
>"Two-stroke, twin-cylinder Rotax, Fuel Injection, R.A.V.E.TM exhaust;
>Water cooled"
>
>On what? SeaDoo GTi, Rotax powered.
>
> > > Unless you could adapt an existing automotive fuel injection system I
> > > can well imagine that the development cost for a reliable system would
> > > be prohibitive.
>
>Now, I'm sure you'll try to tell me that JetSki engines are apples
>and UL engines are oranges. Several other two stroke engine lines
>have fuel injection...
I knew there were some outboards with fuel injection; I didn't realize
Rotax made any. If the development is already done, I'm surprised they
haven't applied it to the aircraft engines.
-Dana
--
When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced...
Live your life so that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice.
-- Cherokee saying
Message 39
| 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: a flying day |
My wife has informed me that Silver was the Lone Rangers Horse. I
actually knew that.
Larry (Dangerfield) C
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! --
|