I TOO have been pretty much watching from the sidelines...
Chris Adkins
Rich
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
You've apparently done a tremendous amount of detailed investigation in support of using a 2 stroke engine on a Q. I'm puzzled as to why the debate is ongoing when you're already convinced. There are many who will not be changing their minds, but you are clearly set about your course. Obvious to me (and I suspect several other subscribers), the next logical step is for you to just go ahead and choose one/ use one and report back here on your success with detailed flight data. There's been previous debate regarding the appropriateness of this subject on the regular Q-list vs the Q-performance list. Since the audience is so much smaller on the Q-performance list I suspect you've chosen to present your opinions on this list for exposure. Please consider us all adequately exposed at this point. I look forward to reading of your success. Chris Adkins Q2 LS1 VW Type IV 2.4L -----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Armilite@... Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 4:25 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] I have been pretty much watching from the sidelines Larry: Out of 750+ Ultralight/Kitplane manufactures, per Kitplane Magazine in the last 30+ years, very few of them have used anything but a 2 stroke. But all them 750+ manufactures could be wrong. That's why Rotax held about 90% of the World Market of Ultralight/Kitplanes. Hirth, Jabaru, MKz, is the other big engine manufactures today, making their way slowly into the market. Today, Rotax, not sure about Hirth, Jabaru, MKz, are offering 4 stroke engines for Airplanes, but at very big $$$. Still not Certified engines. A Rotax 912 80hp starts out at about $18,000 and a 914 115hp for $38,000. Kind of defeats the CHEAP engine idea for most people. Not ONE Manufacture of airplanes has ever adopted any, Corvair, VW, Subaru, Mazda, Surplus Continental 084, 042, 032, Suzuki, etc., that I know of out of 750+. Suzuki is the only one that has made some inroads in the Experimental Market, used in the parachute Type planes. People have tried to use Auto engines because their CHEAP, not as loud, or smoke as must as a 2 stroke. But, their CHEAP Auto engine, when built right for an Airplane, lots of R&D, PSRU, isn't so CHEAP. There way heavier than than 2 strokes, HP vs WEIGHT, and most car engines have proved, Not to be any more reliable than the UL 2 strokes when used in Airplanes. Last time I went to OSH, 2 years ago, I talked to a guy who had flown his plane, with a Rotax 582UL all the way from the state of Washington to Oshkosh EAA fly in. Funny, I didn't see any, Corvair, VW, Subaru, Mazda, etc., in that Ultralight/LSA area, 99% were Rotax (2 Strokes), and a few Hirth (2 Strokes). If the 4 stroke auto engines are so great, where were they at OSH? Why hasn't One Manufacture out of 750+ adopted one? Having a few (1-5) guys(pioneers) really Flying a Corvair(????), Subaru EA82/EJ22(Jon Finely), Mazda 13B(Tracy Crook), in the whole WORLD does not make them a reliable power plant for the mass's. Most of them auto engines used, haven't even been produced in 30+ years in a car, so you have to pull one out of a junk yard and rebuild it. The VW probably has the biggest following of car engines, with many aftermarket HD Racing parts available for it. You can't compare a CERTIFIED 0-200, which probably had many millions of dollars, spent to develop it just for AIRPLANES, with any uncertified engine, 2 or 4 stroke, that someone is trying to adapt for airplane use. Since this is a Q List. Lets see, how many out of the many 1000s of plans sold for the Q1, Q2, Q200, Probably less than 30 of the Q2s are flying with a 0-200 in the whole World. That leaves many 1000s of plans built airplanes for all the other engines. You can't fit most of the auto engines in a Q1. Those plans are still being sold today on ebay, QBA, or downloaded FREE off the net, etc. But your right, the 2 strokes win again in the weed wacker department. Never seen a Corvair, VW, Subaru, Mazda, Suzuki, used on one. :) Mine worked reliably for over 10 years, before the old lady put regular gas in it with no oil. So, do I blame the 2 stroke weed wacker motor when it siezed up? The questions that should be asked, is how do we make Any of these Engines better, more reliable, and hopefully lighter for a Q Type aircraft? Most of that engine info can be applied to other aircraft also. On all of these Newsgroups, I have never read much on HOW TO MAKE this 2 or 4 stroke engine better, more reliable for airplane use. Every engine has it's own drawbacks and cost related to making it somewhat airworthy. Will they have a 400hr TBO, a 800hr TBO, a 1200+hr TBO, no one really knows. Show me just (20) people in the Real World, really Flying a Corvair, a VW, a Subaru, a Mazda, a Surplus Continental 084, 042, 032, that's made just 1000hrs with no troubles, just normal maintenace. Now that would impress me. Has (1) person, said they have made the 1000hr mark, on a Mazda 13B(Tracy Crook), a Continental 084(Brie), Yes. The Mazda 13B requires a $3500 PSRU, sold by Tracy Crook. My 90 RX7 13B made 165hp at 7000rpm. The Continental 084 makes only 45hp MAX, direct drive. I believe it's to big/heavy for the Q1, and not enough HP for the Q2.You would be real hard pressed to find 10 people for each 4 stroke engine type with 500hrs, where as there are many 1000s of flying Rotax 2 strokes on many different Type of aircraft in the real world flying past the Rotax, recommended TBO. Also, you have Kawasaki, Cununa, etc, older 2 strokes, that have been around for 30+ years, not to mention the newer, Hirth, Jabaru, MKz 2 stroke engines. Jon Finely, probably the best Subaru guy I have heard of, I don't think put much over 250hrs on a Subaru EA82, and then switched to the Subaru EJ22. Never heard much about him lately, or how many hrs he has on that EJ22 engine. I haven't heard of anyone who has a 1000 hrs on a VW, a Corvair, or the 032, 042 engines. The Surplus engines parts are drying up fast. No one makes New replacement parts for them. Cheaper doesn't usually go hand in hand with all the R&D work and upgrades needed to make any engine airworthy. Also, what Type of Aircraft is this engine more suited for, should be asked? Just to keep it, Real. Anybody on here, ever make TBO with their 0-200, which I believe is 1800 hours of operation or 12 years in service? I doubt, very few have made it. That's not 12 years sitting in the shop on your project either. It is considered one of the best small airplane engines made. Last I heard, they were being sold to China. Last I new, a New 0-200 cost about $23,000+ for 100HP. So why, would anyone buy a Rotax 912 - 914 $18,000(80hp) - $38000(115hp). I know one guy who has over 1200hrs on a Rotax 582UL with just a decarbon every 200hrs(normal). _http://jbmindustries.com/582.html_ (http://jbmindustries.com/582.html) What's the suggested TBO on a Rotax 582UL(300-400hrs)? Many people have posted on many different newsgroups of 400-600hrs on Rotax 447UL and 503UL's and still flying them past the recommended TBO. We all have different wants, needs, and amount of cash to spend, and different aircraft. No two Qs are exactly the same. Just like people are all different sizes and weights. What happened to the guys that were going to reproduce the Q2/Q200 airframe? Why don't we hear more about that, or did they go under already? Just Trying to keep it real Rich Gillen =========================================================================== 3a. Re: Digest Number 4633 Posted by: "larry baxter" ssshvac@... ssshvac Date: Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:12 pm ((PDT)) I have been pretty much watching from the sidelines, but I want to add my 2cents worth. Two stroke engines work great in large diesel prime movers, but all others belong in weed wackers and leaf blowers. Back to the sidelines Larry Baxter Q-Vair still in progress ------------------------------------ Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://www.quickiebuilders.org Yahoo! Groups Links |
|