Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Generac engine test data on my FS II

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Generac engine test data on my FS II
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

gaman(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:28 am Post subject: Generac engine test data on my FS II

My apologies,

      Was doing the annual inspection on the Bonanza,And the copter was just behind me in the hanger when I noticed the big cog belt redrive.Should have looked for the name plate as well.But I'm sure they must be falling out of the sky regularly with all of those well known belt and bearing failures we've heard so much about.I'll stick to fixed wing just to be on the safe side.



---

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: Generac engine test data on my FS II

Gary:

  

 My first solo flight was in a Hughes TH-55 (269)  driven by 5 v belts.  Had a spring loaded  toggle switch operate the linear actuator and tension the belts on  start up.  I don't recall any belt problems during my limited time in  flight school or afterward.

  

 My first solo flight in a fixed wing was my  Ultrastar with Homer Kolb's redrive with two poly v belts.  Worked pretty  good.

  

 john h

 mkIII 

 [quote]    

      My    apologies,

      Was doing the annual inspection    on the Bonanza,And the copter was just behind me in the hanger when I noticed    the big cog belt redrive.Should have looked for the name plate as well.But I'm    sure they must be falling out of the sky regularly with all of those well    known belt and bearing failures we've heard so much about.I'll stick to fixed    wing just to be on the safe side.

 



[b]

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

willuribe(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:19 am Post subject: Generac engine test data on my FS II

Hi Mike,

 

 Please tell me where I can buy an HKS for $3000 more installed.

 

 Regards,

 Will Uribe

 FireStar II 

 El Paso, TX

 do not archive

 

 --

tkrolfe(at)toast.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: Generac engine test data on my FS II

Jimmy Young wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Eugene Zimmerman asked:

 >Does your plane still have the wing fold capability?<

 Eugene,

 I have to remove the oil filter to fold the right wing, but I just 

 tape a baggie over the opening and it's easy to do. I very rarely fold 

 it since I keep it in a hanger.

 George Alexander asked:

 >Was there a determination made as to what caused the 503 to fail?<

 George,

 Some of the local guys in my flying club think the wrist pin failed or 

 the "circlip" came loose, causing the #1piston to get damaged. The 

 piston skirt was broken off all the way around and the engine was full 

 of ground up aluminum. The 503 had 205 hrs. on it at the time of it's 

 demise and was running perfectly up until about 1 second before it 

 quit. I've been busy doing other things, but one day I'll get around 

 to looking inside and let you know what we found. I'm attaching a 

 photo of the front cylinder looking thru the intake manifold.

 Jimmy Y

Jimmy,

I'm curious!  Did you break the engine down before this happened to 

decarbon or something?  What kind of mixing oil were you using?

Seems like a very low hour engine to have that happen!!!  Just trying to 

learn

Terry -  FireFly #95

Jimmy Young

Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 182
Location: Missouri City, TX

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:08 am Post subject: Generac engine test data on my FS II

 	  Quote: 	
		  TK wrote:>I'm curious!  Did you break the engine down before this happened to decarbon or something?  What kind of mixing oil were you using?



Seems like a very low hour engine to have that happen!!!  Just trying to 

learn<Terry,At 150 hrs I looked inside the exhaust ports, there was very little carbon and the rings had good movement, never went inside to do a decarbon.The engine is oil-injected and I always used Pennzoil Air-Cooled 2 cycle oil. The engine did not sieze, it would still turn over and would even run for a few seconds on the #2 cylinder before I took it off the plane. I don't have an answer as to what happened. It will be opened up one day soon & I'll let you know what we found.Jimmy YoungTK wrote: 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  TK wrote: 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  TK wrote: 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  TK wrote: 	
3 [quote][b]

_________________
Jimmy Young
Missouri City, TX
Kolb FS II/HKS 700

grantr

Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 217

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:31 am Post subject: Re: Generac engine test data on my FS II

 	  Quote: 	
		  The very poor climb rate with the Genrac engine leaves you very vulnerable on takeoff, if you lose the engine on takeoff you will find yourself much lower, and with less landing options than you would with the 503 or with the HKS. 

	




Not true. Either engine could stop at the same altitude. Climb rate just changes the time it takes to get to a certain altitude. An engine out at 300 feet is an engine out at 300 feet.

grantr

Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 217

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:30 am Post subject: Re: Generac engine test data on my FS II

Here is my argument that having more engine power will not necessarily save you.



Say we have 2 Kolb firestars one with a 503 and one with the Generac.



Plane 1  with rotax climbs at 600 feet per min



Plane 2 with Generac climbs at 300 feet per min.



Flight conditions:



Runway is 3600 feet long with  80 foot trees 150 off the end.



Ground/ climb speed is 60mph



Glide ratio is 4:1



Engine quits 15, 20, 30 and 40 seconds after takeoff.



At 30 seconds the 503 would put you in the trees and the less powerful engine would allow you to land on the runway.



See the attached chart.



I really over analyze things sometimes

landing table.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

49.49 KB

Viewed:

366 Time(s)

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:55 am Post subject: Generac engine test data on my FS II

Grant,



At 30 seconds the 503, by your data, would be at 300 feet agl.  At this height, it may be possible to do a 180 and get back to the runway. ???



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN.



do not archive



At 06:30 AM 7/18/08 -0700, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Here is my argument that having more engine power will not necessarily save you.

Say we have 2 Kolb firestars one with a 503 and one with the Generac.

Plane 1  with rotax climbs at 600 feet per min

Plane 2 with Generac climbs at 300 feet per min.

Flight conditions:

Runway is 3600 feet long with  80 foot trees 150 off the end.

Ground/ climb speed is 60mph

Glide ratio is 4:1

Engine quits 15, 20, 30 and 40 seconds after takeoff.

At 30 seconds the 503 would put you in the trees and the less powerful engine would allow you to land on the runway.

See the attached chart.



I really over analyze things sometimes [Rolling Eyes]

George Alexander

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 245
Location: SW Florida

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:10 am Post subject: Re: Generac engine test data on my FS II

Grant:



Your statement from your earlier post said it all.....



 	  grantr wrote: 	
		  An engine out at 300 feet is an engine out at 300 feet.. 	




Then you wrote.......



 	  grantr wrote: 	
		  Here is my argument that having more engine power will not necessarily save you.



<<<<SNIP>>>>



I really over analyze things sometimes 	




Next you need to plug in a reliability factor to determine at what point each engine "might" fail after going to WOT.  Don't forget to consider OAT, DA, age of fuel, age of pilot (reflex time), etc.... etc.... etc....

_________________
George Alexander
FS II R503
E-LSA N709FS
http://www.oh2fly.net

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:48 am Post subject: Re: Generac engine test data on my FS II

 	  grantr wrote: 	
		   	  Quote: 	
		  The very poor climb rate with the Genrac engine leaves you very vulnerable on takeoff, if you lose the engine on takeoff you will find yourself much lower, and with less landing options than you would with the 503 or with the HKS. 

	




Not true. Either engine could stop at the same altitude. Climb rate just changes the time it takes to get to a certain altitude. An engine out at 300 feet is an engine out at 300 feet. 	




You are wrong about this Grant R,



With a good climb rate, if your engine quits over the end of the runway you are much higher  than you would be with less climb.    Lets say your engine quits at the end of the runway,  would you rather be 200 feet high, or 600 feet high ?  That extra altitude would make all the difference in the world in landing options and safety.



To make matters even worse with a low climb rate, you are totally Dependant on your engine running for a much longer time to achieve a safe altitude if your engine quits.   Lets say you want at least 500 feet AGL to have a chance at being able to make it to a good place for an engine out landing.  With good climb performance, you may only need your engine to run perfectly for 30 seconds to be at 500 feet and have good landing options.  With poor performance, you are totally Dependant on the engine running for over a minute to get to the same altitude.   Getting to altitude quickly is much safer.



Lastly on power, having lots power to get out of trouble quickly is a proven safety advantage.  There are a million unexpected things that can happen in aviation where having lots of power can save you.  No one ever plans needing lots power to save their butts, but schit happens.



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: Generac engine test data on my FS II

At 09:48 AM 7/18/08 -0700, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

Lastly on power, having lots power to get out of trouble quickly is a proven safety advantage.  There are a million unexpected things that can happen in aviation where having lots of power can save you.  No one ever plans needing lots power to save their butts, but schit happens.




	


Mike,



If you watch the FAA Accident and Incident Reports, one can not help but 

notice that the majority of fatal EXPERIMENTAL aircraft accidents are 

associated with the newer big engine, high speed kit planes.  Usually a big 

engine is associated with higher cruise, wing loading and stall speed.  All 

of these require greater pilot skill level and contribute to higher kinetic 

energies that must be carefully dissipated before contacting the 

ground.



So, if the power quits, it is much nicer to approach the ground or a tree at 

30 mph than say 55 mph with a mass of 500 lbs as apposed to 1,000 pounds.  

The kinetic energy that must be dissipated in the first case is 0.15 times 

less than in the second case.  



In either case all of this indicates that one should not mess around close 

to the ground.



Fly safe.



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN



do not archive

grantr

Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 217

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:57 am Post subject: Re: Generac engine test data on my FS II

 	  Quote: 	
		  At 30 seconds the 503, by your data, would be at 300 feet agl. At this height, it may be possible to do a 180 and get back to the runway. ???



	


That seems too low to do a 180 by the time you get setup for an approach.



 	  Quote: 	
		  With a good climb rate, if your engine quits over the end of the runway you are much higher than you would be with less climb. Lets say your engine quits at the end of the runway, would you rather be 200 feet high, or 600 feet high ? That extra altitude would make all the difference in the world in landing options and safety. 	


I do not disagree with this. However as I pointed out in my post at a certain point more power could put you in the trees where less power could have allowed a landing on the remaining runway.

grantr

Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 217

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: Re: Generac engine test data on my FS II

 	  Quote: 	
		  With good climb performance, you may only need your engine to run perfectly for 30 seconds to be at 500 feet and have good landing options. With poor performance, you are totally Dependant on the engine running for over a minute to get to the same altitude. Getting to altitude quickly is much safer. 	




True unless you are doing a steep rocketship climb out and the engine quits at low altitude and a high nose up attitude. That could lead to a deep stall and possibly a lawn dart. As you know a very steep climb out at low altitude can result in a deep stall and a unrecoverable dive into the ground if the engine fails at the right time.

slyck(at)frontiernet.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Generac engine test data on my FS II

On 18, Jul 2008, at 2:40 PM, Jack B. Hart wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

In either case all of this indicates that one should not mess around close  

to the ground. 	


I regretfully have to agree although the delights of low and slow are most entertaining.BB

do not archive

 [quote][b]

lcottrell

Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 1494
Location: Jordan Valley, Or

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:48 pm Post subject: Generac engine test data on my FS II

Subject: Re: Generac engine test data on my FS II

 	  Quote: 	
		   

> At 30 seconds the 503, by your data, would be at 300 feet agl. At this 

> height, it may be possible to do a 180 and get back to the runway. ???



 That seems too low to do a 180 by the time you get setup for an approach.

Gang,
	


  I have already typed a reply to this thread once, and deleted it thinking 

that it would die and wasn't worth the effort to prolong it. I guess I was 

wrong, so here goes. My Firestar II weighing 401 empty, and 600 plus with me 

and gas can make a 180 with no more than 40 feet altitude loss. That is with 

a stopped engine and VG's of course. At anything higher than 200 feet, I 

would not hesitate to turn back.

  Everyone has their opinion of course, and welcome to them, but for me - 

give me more power! Lots of it in fact, I will find some way to deal with 

it.



Larry C

do not archive



Why do you have to 'put your two cents in'... but it's only a 'penny for 

your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to?

_________________
do not archive

lucien

Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 721
Location: santa fe, NM

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: Generac engine test data on my FS II

 	  lcottrell wrote: 	
		  

  Everyone has their opinion of course, and welcome to them, but for me - 

give me more power! Lots of it in fact, I will find some way to deal with 

it.



Larry C

do not archive



Why do you have to 'put your two cents in'... but it's only a 'penny for 

your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to? 	




My one cent....



I like lots of power, but I don't think low climb rates automatically mean reduced safety. Here at my 7000' altitude, we deal with this issue all the time, where the performance of planes is reduced generally 30 to 40% most of the time. If low climb rates were too dangerous, we'd hardly fly at all, especially the local 150's which can't even hit pattern altitude in the pattern most of the time.



This was especially the case with my FS II, which gave typical climb rates of 400fpm or less even on cold clear days and with its monster warp drive prop. A couple techniques I found helpful to keep things safe:



- maintain a lot of energy during liftoff and early climbout. flat climbouts with a fair bit of airspeed, only pitch up to Vy once there's enough altitude to be able to land if the power went away.



- fly off to downwind side of the runway (if there's a downwind side) on upwind as early as possible. This makes the main runway accessible at lower altitudes via a 'carrier' 180 instead of a somewhat more altitude-eating teardrop. If you have long runways this isn't quite as important, but there's no reason you can't drift to a downwind side on upwind for this purpose. It does reduce the minimum altitude at which you can turn back to the runway. 



- if you're still too low on upwind you can turn as needed to keep landing areas under you or a runway under you or available like on a downwind. If you're at a towered airport, advise the tower that you'll need to do this. 



In my FS II I'd turn crosswind and fly a close-in downwind to the takoff runway if necessary to gain enough altitude before leaving the area. The tower never had a problem with it and I always had a runway or some landing spot available. 



As we all know, if you don't have the performance to safely land or takeoff from a place, don't go in there ........ At least, don't go in there all the time ....



Again, just my 1 cent,



LS

_________________
LS
Titan II SS

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum