 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LarryM
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 63
Location: Genoa, IL
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject: Re: Performance mods for 582. |
 |
|
Any, any mechanical thing will, fail, it's just of matter of when, or where you are at the time. I always fly prepared for when it fail, whether it be 2 stroke, or 4, or jet engine - they will all fail.
larry
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-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?Kitfox-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Float Flyr
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: Performance mods for 582. |
|
|
Now we get to the fun part!
I've flown my model III-A , a supposed converted model II with the 582 and
Areocet 1100 straight floats.
My gorss is only 950 lb. but with the Ivo set to give a 6800 T.O. rpm. It
is off the water pretty fast... Faster than I can get a light Super cub
with 160 hp off! Once airborne however the Super Cub easily out climbed the
Kitfox... And there are the gas bills to prove it. The Cub also took a bit
more water for me to get it down.
What I've been told is the 912 engine will give a better cruise and climb
but the 582 is better for getting airborne initially.
Noel Loveys
AME Intern, RPP
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 floats
--
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-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?Kitfox-List |
|
_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Float Flyr
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: Performance mods for 582. |
|
|
If there is a “con” to operating a two stroke engine it is in the efficiency. Two stroke engines tend to run a bit on the rich side because they use fuel to cool the combustion chambers so you can expect to use a bit more gas to produce the same power on a two stroke.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:25 AM
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Performance mods for 582.
Gary and Leonard
Thank you for the info on the 582's. I thought both you guys did a great job on the pro's and cons. I have a great interest in engines and had a two stroke in my 1962 SAAB a while back(a long while !) I loved that car and stupid me I traded it for a Renault Dauphine (which I soon got rid of ) I added a quart of oil at each gas fill to the SAAB.Super car and I sure would like to have another one
I have a 912UL in my Fox 4 and it runs great and I think I have the minor bugs worked out but I still do not like flying over any water with it ! (ie: Mobile Bay last weekend) Would I fly it to my cabin in NC about 450 miles away -no. I guess it is just a gut feeling (after three engine failures in other aircraft-one going straight up at 200ft agl) Any way ,I digress.
I have toyed with another project but have always disregarded the two strokes as unreliable. Now I am not so sure. Lockwood has a good two stroke school . Maybe I will go just to learn more about them. Thanks guys!
Dick Maddux
Fox 4-1200
Pensacola,Fl
Get movies delivered to your mailbox. One month free from blockbuster.com
| Quote: | | http://www.matronics.com/contribution |
01234567890123
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-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?Kitfox-List |
|
_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beemer
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 87
Location: Middle Georgia
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:40 am Post subject: Re: Performance mods for 582. |
|
|
| Quote: |
OK. Well. It looks like someone will have to weigh in on
behalf of the poor old 582. I've been running one for the past 312
hours, with little problem. I've been on numerous cross country
trips, including Oregon and Texas from SoCal. I personally think that
given a good installation, regular maintenance, and a good EGT
monitor it offers good service. I'll lay out some pro's and con's,
but for a really good analysis get the CPS catalogue. In there is an
excellent life-cycle cost breakdown. |
I'll try to provide some of my reasoning for going with the G10 over the 582 in my case.
| Quote: |
Pro
1. It's cheap to buy. (About $7k these days.) |
My G10 install initially cost about the same. By the time I bought 2 or 3 items to find one that worked, I wasted some cash. Knowing what I know now, I could realistically do this for a bit less than $5K all up.
| Quote: |
2. It has a very good power/weight ratio. It has very good thrust,
especially with the higher ratio gearboxes. |
No argument here. The biggest advantage of the 582 is it's power-to-weight ratio. The G10 is very close, but I'll admit the overall performance suffers from the extra weight.
| Quote: |
3. It's quiet. (At least mine is.) |
My G10 is loud inside, but I made no attempt to quiet it down. Others have muffled theirs down, and can't hear it over the prop. Mufflers add weight, however. One advantage to a four-stroke is the greater flexibility for the exhaust, and not having to have an expansion chamber.
| Quote: |
4. It's simple to operate. (Particularly with the RK400 clutch.) It's
much like flying with a snowmobile. Starting and stopping are so
trivial that if I'm asked to hold short, I shut down. |
I'll submit the G10 is even simpler to operate. I don't overheat holding short on a 90F day (good rad install-much research). No choke and no mixture (EFI). My only operational concern is the oil temps on full power climbs, and I have a solution I have not implemented yet. Simply reducing MAP to 24" stabilizes the temps quite well. My goal, however, is no operational limitations to throttle position in any phase of flight. I'm close, with the oil temps the only issue left to work on.
| Quote: |
5. It's simple to maintain. You can even do the rebuilds yourself.
Parts are readily available and not outrageously priced. (The engine
is so light you can lift it off the engine mounts yourself.) |
The G10 is simple, as well, all parts came from the local auto parts store (or mail order). Parts cost no more than any you'd buy for your car. Equivalent parts for the Suzi cost about 1/3 that of the Rotax. Probably more discussion required here...
| Quote: |
6. Mine seems to be at least as reliable as all the 912's at the
field. The old days of ruined rotary shaft seals, melted pistons,
stuck rings, broken cranks, and leaky seals seem to be in the past.
One nice thing about having a motor that's been around for a while -
all the bugs have been worked out. |
I'll submit the G10 reliability falls somewhere between the 582 and the 912. I don't expect a 1500hr TBO, but it should be far greater than 300 hrs. Some others have over 500hrs, and a couple are approaching 1000. There is not enough of the G10s in aircraft to build a good reliability argument, however.
| Quote: |
Con
1. It's TBO is so low that its life-cycle cost exceeds that of the
912. (300 hours.) (See the CPS catalogue for verification.) |
If you add normal operating costs (mainly fuel), and the cost associated with fixes/rebuilds, I believe the G10 is far lower in life-cycle costs than either engine.
| Quote: |
2. You have to feed it oil, and not just any oil. This means that for
long cross countries you have to carry a lot of oil with you, pretty
seriously degrading the otherwise excellent power/weight ratio. |
For cross-country's, the G10 requires nothing additional to be carried (as does the 912). You can burn 100LL, but not all the time due to the O2 sensor ($11 each). Additionally, at 2gph, either carry 1/2 the fuel, or go a LONG way on full tanks.
| Quote: |
3. It uses more fuel that a four stroke would; about the same as a 912s. |
G10: 4.4 gph on takeoff, high cruise 2.2 gph, economy cruise (at)60mph 1.1 gph, measured with a fuel flow sender (i.e. not guessing).
| Quote: |
4. The torque band is not that wide, so you must watch your RPM. Low
RPM = low power. |
If you look at charts, the G10 power output exceeds the 582 power at anything below 5200 rpm. Torque is nearly double below 4500 rpm (quoting from memory here). That's just a function of a two-stroke that needs pipes. Charts are not reality, but the G10 flies more akin to an aircraft engine in this respect. Just put the throttle where you want it.
| Quote: |
5. You MUST watch your EGTs. It's still true that you can turn your
2-stroke into a lump of slag if you're not careful. However the new
instrumentation, and the HACman manual mixture controls make this
much less likely. |
I have no EGT's (not needed), and the mixture is fully compensated via the EFI system. Water and oil temps are the limiting factor in operation.
| Quote: |
6. It doesn't like high temperatures. With a maximum water temp of
180F you have troubles when the air temp gets into the 100s. |
On the G10, and like all water cooled conversion engines, the temp range is critical. Below 180F, the ECU is in open loop mode (not reading the O2 sensor). You can run it up to about 220F safely, but I don't do that. 212F is my limit. In flight on an 85F day, my water temp in cruise runs about 195F, and oil at 208F. The 180F limit is one of the biggest factors I don't like about the 582. Another usable 20F would be very good. This has less to do with a particular engine, as it does with a sound radiator installation. I went through a great deal of experimenting and research to find what works. Mine does.
| Quote: |
7. It's actually a pretty big engine, by the time you stuff in the
air cleaner and exhaust system. |
The G10 is taller and heavier. I'm sure that's no surprise. But it does fit in the Kitfox round cowl, both height and length wise. The TBI manifold sticks out the top a bit, but I decided not to change it. The engine weighs about 130lbs, no fluids or radiator. My install ended up adding 70 lbs to the empty weight, but I carry that much less fuel around. Flying weight remains the same.
| Quote: | Now as to your question on mods. The sky is quite literally
the limit, if you've got the cojones. These engines are radically
modified in the snowmobile and watersports world and many of the mods
could easily be adapted to the 582. I have only found one "aircraft"
modification and that is the exhausts offered by
http://www.paraflite.net/muffler.htm. These pipes prove to be quite
simple: the more fuel you throw at the engine, and the narrower you
make the power-band, (see Con #4, above,) the more horsepower you
get. His 80hp comes at something like 10gph! The BSFC is almost
identical to the stock engine.
Two other non-performance related accessories are the HACman
manual mixture control and RK400 clutch. The mixture control helps
keep the EGTs in line, making jetting much less critical. The RK400
clutch disengages the prop below 2600 rpm, making starting, stopping,
and idling a breeze. (No more floaty landings, too.) |
I have several mods added to the G10. I have a mild street cam grind, with a little more lift and duration. I ported my intake manifold a little, basically just cleaned it up. I also have a crank scraper installed to help control the oil around the crank.
You could do a lot to the motor, pretty much anything you could do to any street motor for more power, such as carbs, cam grinds, turbos, etc. But they all decrease reliability, and are generally not recommeded for airplane applications.
| Quote: |
That's probably enough for now. There's still a few of us here
happily running 582s.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar. |
As long as you're happy with your engine, go for it. I'm not selling the G10 here. I just wanted to explain why I chose this over a replacement 582. I'm pleased with it so far.
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-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?Kitfox-List |
|
_________________
Beemer
KF2 (and now an M3!)
Suzuki G10 three-banger
Middle Georgia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
