Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

donghe(at)one-eleven.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:03 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke



Herb,

have not used the red ivo yet.....got distracted with a 47 Luscombe 8A which

is now the project in the shed that will keep me outta the poolhalls this

winter!

I have always though that a Pup with about a 35 hp engine with a reduction

drive, so as to get the prop speed down to 23 or 2400 and allow a bigger

prop would be much better that the direct drive half v-dubs...but it is just

a seat of the pants guess...no expierience personally. There are 2 N-3s at

Tommy's airpark where I used to hangar..always admired em....but they took

such a long takeoff roll....

31 or 3200 is just too fast to spin a prop it seems to me...causes you to

have to use such a small dia that it just doesnt seem to have a chance to

maximize the 35 hp. That always seemed to be the biggest drawback of the

v-dub. I bet that the new briggs 35 with a reduction like they are useing on

airboats...swinging a 66 or 68 inch prop would get thet pup off the ground

likety-split and climb like a Kol.....er...eh....well...climb alot better!!

Then again...I dont know if a landing gear is long enough to allow that

prop.

what size is on the global?

I feel for you pard on the 447....hope you dont have to send it off the the

Count either...

Don G

frank-margie(at)worldnet.
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke



"Briggs Vanguards are now up to 35 hp and are very well built

engines and I bet a buck we will see alot of those on airplanes like the

legal eagle's,N-3's and similar planes with alot of wing. Talk about

range!..todays V-twin engines burn from 1.5 to 2 gallons an hour at WOT and

full load.

We need continuous duty designed engines for our sport...and the industrial

engine market is quickly approaching a place where they will have just what

the back to basic flying machines need...the difference this time

around...is the engines will last about 20 time longer than the ones we

started with back in the late 70s.

BTW....a 24 hp honda costs about 1100 complete with electric starter. The

31 hp Vanguard is about 1500..and the 35 will probably be a 100 or so

more...RETAIL....!

Just think...if Dennis and Homer would have set out to design that firefly

to fit the v-twin industrials we have today instead of the 447...hmmmmmmmmm"

----------------------------------------------------

Don/All,

Appreciate the responses, they're what I consider really interesting reading. On an extremely timely subject, considering the current price of Rotaxes, and the effect Sport Pilot will likely have on U/L's. Don, I love the way you bring up at least as many new questions as ones you answer----and if you'll let me, I'd like to keep you (and Charlie/Herb/Jack/Michael) talking further. For instance, is a Vanguard rated for continuous duty now? If not, can it be derated (run at less RPM?) to continuous? What does one weigh? Would a 35HP put out 30 or so if rated continuous? (30 seems like a minimum needed----most of us don't want to go back to 25 or less---) I get the impression you think the Vanguard would work now, even if not rated for continuous. I'm also under the impression the BMW weighs too much for legal U/L's (but I hope I'm wrong---). Are there other near-continuous duty candidates out there now? What would Homer & Dennis have had to change to run a Vanguard on a 'Fly? Just more wing? OK, I'll quit----

This List is the only intelligent U/L oriented forum I'm aware of (since the demise of the Phantom-Flightstar newsletter), and I for one, really enjoy it.

Frank Clyma

do not archive

beauford(at)tampabay.rr.c
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke



What's wrong with the 447...? I kinda like 'em.....

Beauford

do not archive

flykolb(at)pa.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke



Don,

Are you familiar with the older Saabs that had 2-stroke engines: they had a

750 CC and an 850 CC, 3-cylinder. The Saab Sonnet had a 2-stroke too. I had

one of each and ran them both for a long time. They were very

conservatively rated. (They had a light that came on when it was time to

add another quart of oil to the oil injector tank.)

Dennis

 	  Quote: 	
		   A 2 cycle can easily be built as reliable as a 4 cycle...but it is almost

impossible to build one as "durable"...I say "almost" because someone who

works for Detroit Deisel might be reading here and take issue with the

statement.

rsanoa(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke



Someone might want to investigate the Onan Industrial 2 cylinder models ( 4 cycle). I ran one on my Quickie with very satisfactory results. There is a slight modification needed to reduce the weight but easily done. When Bert Rutan designed the Quickie for his brother in law and his partner, they decided the Onan was the best bet considering weight, etc. As you probably know, the Onan has been a favorite for many years in fields like continuous operation pumping oil in the field without a lot of supervision. Never tell anyone connected with them, including the local distributors, you intend to use it on an airplane. That makes them run for cover fast.

UltraStar ..Tenn

Do not archive

frank & margie <frank-margie(at)worldnet.att.net> wrote:

"Briggs Vanguards are now up to 35 hp and are very well built

engines and I bet a buck we will see alot of those on airplanes like the

legal eagle's,N-3's and similar planes with alot of wing. Talk about

range!..todays V-twin engines burn from 1.5 to 2 gallons an hour at WOT and

full load.

We need continuous duty designed engines for our sport...and the industrial

engine market is quickly approaching a place where they will have just what

the back to basic flying machines need...the difference this time

around...is the engines will last about 20 time longer than the ones we

started with back in the late 70s.

BTW....a 24 hp honda costs about 1100 complete with electric starter. The

31 hp Vanguard is about 1500..and the 35 will probably be a 100 or so

more...RETAIL....!

Just think...if Dennis and Homer would have set out to design that firefly

to fit the v-twin industrials we have today instead of the 447...hmmmmmmmmm"

----------------------------------------------------

Don/All,

Appreciate the responses, they're what I consider really interesting reading. On an extremely timely subject, considering the current price of Rotaxes, and the effect Sport Pilot will likely have on U/L's. Don, I love the way you bring up at least as many new questions as ones you answer----and if you'll let me, I'd like to keep you (and Charlie/Herb/Jack/Michael) talking further. For instance, is a Vanguard rated for continuous duty now? If not, can it be derated (run at less RPM?) to continuous? What does one weigh? Would a 35HP put out 30 or so if rated continuous? (30 seems like a minimum needed----most of us don't want to go back to 25 or less---) I get the impression you think the Vanguard would work now, even if not rated for continuous. I'm also under the impression the BMW weighs too much for legal U/L's (but I hope I'm wrong---). Are there other near-continuous duty candidates out there now? What would Homer & Dennis have had to change to run a Vangu!

ard on a 'Fly? Just more wing? OK, I'll quit----

This List is the only intelligent U/L oriented forum I'm aware of (since the demise of the Phantom-Flightstar newsletter), and I for one, really enjoy it.

Frank Clyma

do not archive

donghe(at)one-eleven.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 6:19 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke



Dennis,

So very sorry pard...definately no intention to torment!

The honest truth is...I believe the FireFly very likely to be the best

purpose designed little airplane in the part 103 market.

I Dont know all the exact details of what went on back when this baby was

spawned, I have heard bits and pieces, and I dont know how much you had to

do with it, but since your name is on every single page of the prints I

have, I suspect you put an awful lot of yourself into that project.

Sometimes I dont think people appreciate just what this plane really

is...and the resale value of them seems to support that thought, not that I

want to sell mine.

What other legal ultralite flys with the responsiveness of a FireFly?

What other legal ultralite performs as well as the FireFly?

Rate of Climb?....Top Speed?....roll response?...

What other legal ultralite builds as easy as the FireFly?

I could go on...But anyone who has flown one and has any experience in very

many of the other 103 legal birds out there will line up right behind me I

bet.

NO Dennis...if that little comment I made about a conversation between you

and Homer would have really happened, We would have had a different plane,

and I am quite certain it would not have been near the fun to fly bird as a

FireFly is today.

Now, you may know the truth, but I dont believe there was much luck

involved here, just an honest evolution of a design into an airplane that is

perfectly matched to the engine choice.

I must be honest and say that I had been aware for along time of The Kolbs,

but never really believed they were all that much different than the rest.

When I stumbled onto this FireFly, built it and flew it, it was probably

within the first hour of flight time that I was saying to myself.."I cant

believe I didnt get one a these a long time ago"

IN fact, now that I have a Luscombe project going on in the pole-shed, my

wife keeps asking, "what are we gonna do with 2 airplanes?", and "are you

going to sell the FireFly?" and so on...WEll, because you had the

forethought to put folding wings on it, it will fit in the rented hanger

with the Luscombe...or about any other plane I will ever be able to afford

to park in there. I suspect it will be a very long time before I find

another plane that will satisfy the urges as economically, and as completely

as the Fly.

NO Sir Mr. Souder, No torment intended. Job very well done.

What you might consider however, is figureing out a NEW and Different design

that would take advantage of the upcoming generation of V-twin industrials.

The mere fact that the engines would cost so much less, be so much more

durable, More competitive(read that as several choices of brand) and less

"finicky" than 2 strokes ,would almost insure a market success, and YOU

would likely be given credit for turning the entire part 103 market into a

new and more affordable direction. That direction would be alot closer to

the path we all started out on so many years ago before law dogs and Rotax

engine domination got the reigns and steered us to where we are today.

I might think that the resulting airplane would never perform as well as a

447 Firefly, given a slightly heavier engine of slightly less

horsepower...but then...It wouldnt have to. It would be a different

plane...and with an engine that cost 3000 dollars less...the whole plane

would be a third less cost to the owner...give or take....hmmmmmm

dang....now it sounds like I am tormenting you huh......sorry......

Thanks Dennis for your part in bringing us the FireFly, a masterpiece that

has yet to be outdone!

Don Gherardini

FireFly 098

http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my firefly.htm

P.S. Should you ever decide to try such a thing, I will GIVE you an

engine...or 2 or 3 to help it along.

eugenezimmerman(at)dejazz
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:14 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke

`Don, what we really need is not another plane but a good reliable prop GEAR reduction for the 35 horse Vanguard. Who would want to go back to a belt again? Something like a C box with a clutch might work ok with the right ratio. On Jan 3, 2006, at 9:23 PM, Don Gherardini wrote: eleven.net> P.S. Should you ever decide to try such a thing, I will GIVE you an engine...or 2 or 3 to help it along.`

donghe(at)one-eleven.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:16 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke



Frank,

All of the current industrial v-twins are what the market considers

continuous duty engines, however their continuous duty rating is slightly

less that advertised hp...generally in the 90% range. Without looking at the

Vanguard website..I would guess it the 35 is rated at about 32

continuous...but in our industry, it is generally accepted as a 1 hour

rating...in other words...35 hp for 1 hour max...and 32 hp cont. All the

companies except Kohler have adopted a design goal of 2500 hours at the cont

rating. (Kohlers are much less)

The biggest thing one can consider, is the torque rating. Already any

current crop industrial 25 to 28 hp or so v-twin has a torque rating of a

Rotax 503. And it is the torque that we want to turn a prop. I suggest to

you all that a 35 hp industrial will probably out perform a 50 hp 2 cycle

when the job is turning a prop.

Also, due to the industrial markets demands for torque...they all produce

peak torque at around 24 to 2600 and the curve stays the same thru around

3200...then it drops off a bit...but not much.

Now as to what would need to be changed on a Firefly to run a vanguard...I

cannot say for sure, for I am certainly not an aircraft designer...I will

defer to someone with more experience and knowledge on that one. I will

speculate that nothing needs to be changed to be able to make it fly with

one...but as I inferred in a prev post..it is designed to be maximized with

a 447, and likely nothing will be better than that on one.

Don Gherardini

FireFly 098

http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my firefly.htm

donghe(at)one-eleven.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke



Beauford,

I cant think of anything wrong with a 447 either..I like mine alot too. If I

had to wish for something...I would wish they would last longer and burn

less fuel and cost about a third of what they do...but just cause they dont

do any of the above dont make em bad..

Don

donghe(at)one-eleven.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:23 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke



Dennis,

YEs..I am Vaguely familiar with those old saabs....I also remember the old

Opel wagon with a 2 cycle engine...a buddy of mine had one in high school,

it was a really neat engine, but there wasnt a thing it would do that my 65

289 mustang wouldnt do alot better!

I will tell you that before I worked for Honda...I was with a certain

Swedish equipment company for 12 years, To this very day, I think no,one

builds 2 cycles better than the swedes!

Don

jlbaker(at)telepath.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke



 	  Quote: 	
		   Are you familiar with the older Saabs that had 2-stroke engines:

they 	


 	  Quote: 	
		   had a 750 CC and an 850 CC, 3-cylinder. The Saab Sonnet had a

2-stroke too. I had one of each and ran them both for a long time.

They were very conservatively rated. (They had a light that came

on 	


 	  Quote: 	
		   when it was time to add another quart of oil to the oil injector

tank.)

	


Had four different two stroke cars in Japan in the mid 70's. Two were

air cooled two cylinder 500cc and two were 750cc three cylinder, four

speed, water cooled. All of them were Suzuki. Used one of the 750s

for gymkhana, a slalom type event. We beat the living crud out of

that car, well past redline, ported, stuffed crankcase, honkin big

expansion chambers (that's one of the ways I lost some high

frequency hearing). Sure wish I had a couple of them now......

Jim Baker

580.788.2779

'71 SV, 492TC

Elmore City, OK

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:29 am Post subject: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke

`At 10:12 PM 1/3/06 -0500, you wrote: 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

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