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

Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

Today I weighed the Suzuki motor with the SPG-2 reduction drive. The motor net weight without intake ECM muffler and radiator tipped the scale at 172 pounds. I am fairly certain that up and running with all the peripherals ready to fly it should be around 220 pounds total. With some real trimming I guess I could knock off around 20 pounds.

I also weighed the Kolb frame today it came in at 312 lb no fabric or lexan or instruments. 

can I get some ideas of M3X's empty weight so I can compare.

I am guessing that my M3X ready to fly will weigh around 580 lbs.

Your guess is as good as mind at this stage.

Thanks

Ron

huronflyer

Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 18

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:33 pm Post subject: Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

Which Kolb are you putting the Suzuki on?



I know a guy with a Geo turbo on a 2place Beaver, which works very well for him

TO from 4000'+ lake in BC.



I am just entering the Kolb scene, I fly another ultralight.



Cheers,



drh

C-IIII, CYEL

Richard Pike

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1671
Location: Blountville, Tennessee

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 5:04 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

Very interresting, 220 pounds is the same weight as a fully tricked out 

Corvair engine, which would be my first choice for an ultra-reliable 

affordable engine. The only thing holding me back is the extra weight, about 

80 pounds more than the airframe was designed for. Which is sitting up and 

behind your head in the event of a mishap. But keep us posted, I am still 

interested.



Richard Pike

MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

---

_________________
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0

Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing.

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 5:40 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

The reason the Army finally gave up on Wright pushers and bought Curtiss trainers was so many deaths caused by the engine ripping loose from it's mounting in otherwise survivable minor crashes.

220 lb., Geez, you could have any of the four cylinder Continentals, save the IO-240B, or the Lyc O-235 for that weight. 

Just MHO.



Rick



do not archive



On 8/4/07, Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org (richard(at)bcchapel.org)> wrote: [quote]--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Pike" < richard(at)bcchapel.org (richard(at)bcchapel.org)>



Very interresting, 220 pounds is the same weight as a fully tricked out

Corvair engine, which would be my first choice for an ultra-reliable

affordable engine. The only thing holding me back is the extra weight, about 

80 pounds more than the airframe was designed for. Which is sitting up and

behind your head in the event of a mishap. But keep us posted, I am still

interested.



Richard Pike

MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

 



---

NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 7:06 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

Ron



220 lbs is a bit heavy. My VW is around 170-175 and that is heavy. The empty 

weight of my MKIIIC is 598lbs. Add 10 gallons of fuel and my 210 and I have 

142lbs for a passenger. I assume the MKIIIX is a bit heaver than a MKIIC and 

add 50lbs of engine and you will end up with a 1 to 1 1/2 passenger 

airplane.



I see Raven advertises their 1.3 engine at 168lbs and 115HP with turbo. Is 

this all advertising? There is a current trend for aircraft engine 

manufactures exaggerate. You really need to put that engine on a diet. What 

is the power rating on that engine. Someone at Oshkosh last week was telling 

me his 1.3 engine with the same redrive you have weighed 220lbs. and 

produced 70HP. Lets assume you will be happy with that engine weight what 

about power? You really don't want want a under powered and over weight 

airplane.



Also I hear people talking about turbo charging their engines to get more 

power. Is that a good idea? Aircraft engines are turbo charged only to 

maintain power at higher altitudes not to increase rated power. In a 

automobile a engine is designed to run at close to 30% rated power with only 

short bursts of 100% power. In a airplane you run at 60-70% power all the 

time. Assuming you have a engine designed to be turbo charged is it designed 

to run at 60% power?



For my own peace of mind I built my VW using parts that are designed to run 

in a dune buggy in the 150+ range at 6,000-7,000 RPM. I fly it at cruise 

3200RPM and calculate it is producing 50HP. When taking off I turn 3600RPM 

and around 80HP. This engine has a history of running reliably at these 

power levels in airplanes. We know the 912 series Rotax engines are reliable 

at their rated power and their 2 strokes some what less.



Food for thought.



Rick Neilsen

Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC

---

sspence801(at)sbcglobal.n
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:49 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

Ron:



Mine is an older heavy cage and weighs in empty with BRS at 663.4, no fuel.



Steve Spence

Mk3X-tra 912-S

Auburn Hills MI

---

captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:16 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

I am guessing you are addressing this to me. Its a Kolb Mark iii xtra. If you are going to buy a Kolb I suggest the second thing you ought to do is go to the Kolb site and read up on everything there.

Normally its also a good idea to provide a brief back quote, its particularly helpful for those who may be off for a while so they know what you are talking about.



Ron 



=============

---- huronflyer <herrondr(at)yahoo.ca> wrote: 



=============




Which Kolb are you putting the Suzuki on?



I know a guy with a Geo turbo on a 2place Beaver, which works very well for him

TO from 4000'+ lake in BC.



I am just entering the Kolb scene, I fly another ultralight.



Cheers,



drh

C-IIII, CYEL





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=127421#127421



--

kugelair.com

captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:35 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

I have been eying my frame designed engine mount support, and although I am not worried about its strength in normal hard flights I am constantly looking at it for moment dynamics. After its installed I'll attach some more bracing. I don't know how many G's it takes to crumple the cage to be fatal, but I certainly think that with some nominal bracing I can make the mount strong enough to exceed that value, so it won't be the cause..... I think,,,, .



Ron



==================

---- Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> wrote: 



=============




Very interresting, 220 pounds is the same weight as a fully tricked out 

Corvair engine, which would be my first choice for an ultra-reliable 

affordable engine. The only thing holding me back is the extra weight, about 

80 pounds more than the airframe was designed for. Which is sitting up and 

behind your head in the event of a mishap. But keep us posted, I am still 

interested.



Richard Pike

MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

---

captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:56 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

My impression of Jeron at Raven is that he is not a B's' artist, but he gotta sell those conversions. its also possible I am over stating the final weight of my installation. Maybe I can stuff all the remaining peripherals into 200 lb. package. 

 I think I would believe Jeron's figures plus about 10 pounds just to make sure. 

If you go with the regular 13B 16V SOHC 80 hp motor I think you would be also in the 175 lb. range and if you use Raven's RDU maybe lighter. The SPG-2 ain't light, its built for lots of HP. I'll go and weigh it  again today to make sure I didn't read it wrong  (I had a "helper" yesterday...), before I sit it onto the mount for positioning study.



Ron

=============



---- Richard & Martha Neilsen <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> wrote: 



=============




Ron



220 lbs is a bit heavy. My VW is around 170-175 and that is heavy. The empty 

weight of my MKIIIC is 598lbs. Add 10 gallons of fuel and my 210 and I have 

142lbs for a passenger. I assume the MKIIIX is a bit heaver than a MKIIC and 

add 50lbs of engine and you will end up with a 1 to 1 1/2 passenger 

airplane.



I see Raven advertises their 1.3 engine at 168lbs and 115HP with turbo. Is 

this all advertising? There is a current trend for aircraft engine 

manufactures exaggerate. You really need to put that engine on a diet. What 

is the power rating on that engine. Someone at Oshkosh last week was telling 

me his 1.3 engine with the same redrive you have weighed 220lbs. and 

produced 70HP. Lets assume you will be happy with that engine weight what 

about power? You really don't want want a under powered and over weight 

airplane.



Also I hear people talking about turbo charging their engines to get more 

power. Is that a good idea? Aircraft engines are turbo charged only to 

maintain power at higher altitudes not to increase rated power. In a 

automobile a engine is designed to run at close to 30% rated power with only 

short bursts of 100% power. In a airplane you run at 60-70% power all the 

time. Assuming you have a engine designed to be turbo charged is it designed 

to run at 60% power?



For my own peace of mind I built my VW using parts that are designed to run 

in a dune buggy in the 150+ range at 6,000-7,000 RPM. I fly it at cruise 

3200RPM and calculate it is producing 50HP. When taking off I turn 3600RPM 

and around 80HP. This engine has a history of running reliably at these 

power levels in airplanes. We know the 912 series Rotax engines are reliable 

at their rated power and their 2 strokes some what less.



Food for thought.



Rick Neilsen

Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC

---

captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:00 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

Hi Steve

thanks  I can also make that weight empty. How does it fly and what motor are you using?



Ron

=======

---- Steve Spence <sspence801(at)sbcglobal.net> wrote: 



=============




Ron:



Mine is an older heavy cage and weighs in empty with BRS at 663.4, no fuel.



Steve Spence

Mk3X-tra 912-S

Auburn Hills MI

---

captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:13 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

Need some help in trying to make up my mind for shock mounts. I am thinking, or have been thinking of laying one or  two strips of tire rubber along the length of the rail bed mount. I am thinking that it will give better weight distribution on the rails and it will make for a trimmer installation. I don't know if anyone already tried that. I am also thinking that buying the regular circular shock mounts is what "everybody is doing" and thus just as good or a better solution. In both cases I am going to have to weld some tabs through which to fasten the motor to the frame.

Any thoughts?

captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:23 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

I re weighed the engine and its around the same result, I can subtract 5 pounds for the plank of wood between the scales to bring the weight to around 168. So I think around 220 is a good max guess. 

I checked the great plains site again and the new water cooled cyl heads with the RDU would be really good for the M3X. If the Euro exchange rate ever gets back to parity the Rotax 912S would be a real contender again.



---- Richard & Martha Neilsen <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> wrote: 



=============




Ron



220 lbs is a bit heavy. My VW is around 170-175 and that is heavy. The empty 

weight of my MKIIIC is 598lbs. Add 10 gallons of fuel and my 210 and I have 

142lbs for a passenger. I assume the MKIIIX is a bit heaver than a MKIIC and 

add 50lbs of engine and you will end up with a 1 to 1 1/2 passenger 

airplane.



I see Raven advertises their 1.3 engine at 168lbs and 115HP with turbo. Is 

this all advertising? There is a current trend for aircraft engine 

manufactures exaggerate. You really need to put that engine on a diet. What 

is the power rating on that engine. Someone at Oshkosh last week was telling 

me his 1.3 engine with the same redrive you have weighed 220lbs. and 

produced 70HP. Lets assume you will be happy with that engine weight what 

about power? You really don't want want a under powered and over weight 

airplane.



Also I hear people talking about turbo charging their engines to get more 

power. Is that a good idea? Aircraft engines are turbo charged only to 

maintain power at higher altitudes not to increase rated power. In a 

automobile a engine is designed to run at close to 30% rated power with only 

short bursts of 100% power. In a airplane you run at 60-70% power all the 

time. Assuming you have a engine designed to be turbo charged is it designed 

to run at 60% power?



For my own peace of mind I built my VW using parts that are designed to run 

in a dune buggy in the 150+ range at 6,000-7,000 RPM. I fly it at cruise 

3200RPM and calculate it is producing 50HP. When taking off I turn 3600RPM 

and around 80HP. This engine has a history of running reliably at these 

power levels in airplanes. We know the 912 series Rotax engines are reliable 

at their rated power and their 2 strokes some what less.



Food for thought.



Rick Neilsen

Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC

---

d-m-hague(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:58 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

At 12:13 PM 8/8/2007, Ron wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Need some help in trying to make up my mind for shock mounts. I am 

thinking, or have been thinking of laying one or  two strips of tire 

rubber along the length of the rail bed mount. I am thinking that it will 

give better weight distribution on the rails and it will make for a 

trimmer installation. I don't know if anyone already tried that. I am also 

thinking that buying the regular circular shock mounts is what "everybody 

is doing" and thus just as good or a better solution. In both cases I am 

going to have to weld some tabs through which to fasten the motor to the frame.

Any thoughts?


	


Designing vibration mounts is not as simple as it looks.  You have to take 

into account the mass of the engine, the vibration frequency (engine and 

prop rpm), resonant frequency of the system, etc.  Improperly sized mounts 

can actually make things worse by amplifying the vibration.  A simple strip 

of rubber won't do it if the bolts go through it and make metal to metal 

contact.



The vibration mount manufacturers ( http://www.lord.com/ and others) have 

lots of information in their catalogs and/or websites on selecting the 

appropriate mounts.



                                 -Dana

--

--

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public

debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom tempered and

controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest

Rome become bankrupt" -Cicero, 68 B.C.

mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:28 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

Hey Ron,

   Why not duplicate the mounting system like Jeron uses?  I could take some 

photos if you want.  Let me know.                        Mike Welch



Do not archive.

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net>

Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com

To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 9:13:05 -0700






Need some help in trying to make up my mind for shock mounts. I am 

thinking, or have been thinking of laying one or  two strips of tire rubber 

along the length of the rail bed mount. I am thinking that it will give 

better weight distribution on the rails and it will make for a trimmer 

installation. I don't know if anyone already tried that. I am also thinking 

that buying the regular circular shock mounts is what "everybody is doing" 

and thus just as good or a better solution. In both cases I am going to 

have to weld some tabs through which to fasten the motor to the frame.

Any thoughts?






	


_________________________________________________________________

See what you’re getting into…before you go there 

http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507

captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:13 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

Yes that would be great help Mike 

Thanks

Ron



=====================================

---- Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> wrote: 



=============




Hey Ron,

   Why not duplicate the mounting system like Jeron uses?  I could take some 

photos if you want.  Let me know.                        Mike Welch



Do not archive.

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net>

Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com

To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 9:13:05 -0700






Need some help in trying to make up my mind for shock mounts. I am 

thinking, or have been thinking of laying one or  two strips of tire rubber 

along the length of the rail bed mount. I am thinking that it will give 

better weight distribution on the rails and it will make for a trimmer 

installation. I don't know if anyone already tried that. I am also thinking 

that buying the regular circular shock mounts is what "everybody is doing" 

and thus just as good or a better solution. In both cases I am going to 

have to weld some tabs through which to fasten the motor to the frame.

Any thoughts?






	


_________________________________________________________________

See what youÂ’re getting intoÂ…before you go there 

http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507

--

kugelair.com

captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:22 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

You are correct, that its possible to make it much worse, in any case I was envisioning a sandwich type one strip on top and one on bottom of the rail. I am guessing tire rubber is pretty hard so as not to increase resonant oscillations, but other than that I don't know.

Do you have the Rotax type rubber shocks PN # and where to buy them? maybe 3 per side would work with the increased weight.



Ron

========================

---- Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> wrote: 



=============




At 12:13 PM 8/8/2007, Ron wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Need some help in trying to make up my mind for shock mounts. I am 

thinking, or have been thinking of laying one or  two strips of tire 

rubber along the length of the rail bed mount. I am thinking that it will 

give better weight distribution on the rails and it will make for a 

trimmer installation. I don't know if anyone already tried that. I am also 

thinking that buying the regular circular shock mounts is what "everybody 

is doing" and thus just as good or a better solution. In both cases I am 

going to have to weld some tabs through which to fasten the motor to the frame.

Any thoughts?


	


Designing vibration mounts is not as simple as it looks.  You have to take 

into account the mass of the engine, the vibration frequency (engine and 

prop rpm), resonant frequency of the system, etc.  Improperly sized mounts 

can actually make things worse by amplifying the vibration.  A simple strip 

of rubber won't do it if the bolts go through it and make metal to metal 

contact.



The vibration mount manufacturers ( http://www.lord.com/ and others) have 

lots of information in their catalogs and/or websites on selecting the 

appropriate mounts.



                                 -Dana

--

--

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public

debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom tempered and

controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest

Rome become bankrupt" -Cicero, 68 B.C.

--

kugelair.com

lndc

Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 9
Location: northern MN

Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject: Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

I have a friend that's mounting a Jabiru on his Avid right now. It's supposed to weigh the same as a 582 but has 80 hp. He said that it will be flying next week. I'll try to keep you posted. That engine should work fine on a Kolb.

Dan Charter

northern MN

gaman(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:39 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

Dan,

   There may be others who have a jabiru mounted on their Kolb,but I for one do not recommend it.It is a fine engine and runs sweetly with super fuel economy easy starting hot or cold,but turning a direct drive 3000 rpm propeller in a Kolb's wing wash produces more noise than you can control.You will not believe the lengths I have gone to  trying to isolate the cabin from this din.Any geared option would serve you better.Keeping the prop rpm under 2200 or 2300rpm makes a big difference.A geared engine w/3.47-1 would be my choice.

                      G Aman,235hr on the Jabiru with my ears still ringing



lndc <lndc(at)fnbcnet.com> wrote:[quote] --> Kolb-List message posted by: "lndc" 



I [quote][b]

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:04 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

Gary, Have you tried an extension to get the prop a little further from the wing and pod? You'd have to check with the Jabiru folks to see if the bearings can handle the extra leverage the extension adds to all the usual prop forces, but if can be used, it might help reduce your noise level. 



Rick



do not archive



On 8/12/07, gary aman <gaman(at)att.net (gaman(at)att.net)> wrote:[quote] Dan,

   There may be others who have a jabiru mounted on their Kolb,but I for one do not recommend it.It is a fine engine and runs sweetly with super fuel economy easy starting hot or cold,but turning a direct drive 3000 rpm propeller in a Kolb's wing wash produces more noise than you can  control.You will not believe the lengths I have gone to  trying to isolate the cabin from this din.Any geared option would serve you better.Keeping the prop rpm under 2200 or 2300rpm makes a big difference.A geared engine w/3.47-1 would be my choice. 

                      G Aman,235hr on the Jabiru with my ears still ringing



lndc <lndc(at)fnbcnet.com  (lndc(at)fnbcnet.com)> wrote:[quote] --> Kolb-List message posted by: "lndc" 



I [quote][b]  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List http://forums.matronics.com 

when you live at the airport.  [quote][b]

NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:49 am Post subject: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V

Rick

  

 It isn't a fluke. High RPM direct drive  engines on Kolbs just don't perform very well. You can add extensions which I  did with my direct drive VW to cut noise or add power but it really  didn't help anything. John W had a Jabiru and New Kolb tried them for  a while but they don't recommend them any more. In England where the 912  hasn't been certified they don't have a choice. The horsepower to weight  figure sounds great but it is thrust that moves airplanes and high RPM props  just don't produce thrust as efficiently as low RPM props. I hear people say  that it works better on higher speed airplanes which maybe true but world war II  airplanes used reduction drives on V12s and radial engines. I don't consider  WWII aircraft slow so there must have been some advantage for them  too.

  

 Rick Neilsen

 Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC 

  

  

 [quote]   ---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

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