|
Matronics Email Lists Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
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
| - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
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
| - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
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
| - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
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.
|
| - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
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
| - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
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.
| - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
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.
|
| - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|