I TOO have been pretty much watching from the sidelines...
Richtoggle 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.
VW Type IV 2.4L
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 4:25 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] I have been pretty much watching from the sidelines
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Q-Vair still in progress
Quickie Builders Association WEB site
Yahoo! Groups Links