Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Kitfox Engine

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

Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

A 2 stroke engine is much more likely to suddenly fail than a 4 stroke, this is FACT, not opinion.    There are always cases where guys have been able to make a 2 stroke engine work for many hours... There are even guys that have done extraordinary trips with  2 strokes, but this does not change the FACTS or the REALITY that 2 strokes are much more likely to suddenly fail in flight than a 4 stroke.  In theory the 2 stroke engine is very simple, but it has a fatal flaw, the 2 stroke engine requires PERFECT delivery of the fuel air mixture to not overheat in seize.  In an airplane, as in most applications, life happens, and sooner or later the mixture will not be laboratory perfect  for a few moments and the engine suddenly seizes up.  Then there are the additional issues of Cold Seizure, rings sticking, exhaust failures, and others...   So if you think you can make a 2 stroke engine work under laboratory perfect conditions for 1000 hours, then maybe you will be successful with a 2 stroke engine.  But very few installations are perfect, and even fewer engine operators are perfect, and the 2 stroke will fail at the first opportunity.



Why do you think that NO certified airplane has been made with a 2 stroke engine for the last 50 years ?   In the past fuel was cheap, and 2 stroke engines were lighter, but NO manufacture would sell a plane with an unreliable 2 stroke engine.    Even small dirt bikes are now being sold with 4 stroke engines now.   For manufacturers, and those that know how to separate FACTS from opinion, 4 stroke engines are the the clear choice, by about 100 %...  It is pretty rare to get 100 percent consensus on anything, but manufacturers have unanimously chosen 4 stroke engines for planes, cars, and now for even the smallest and lightest applications.  This FACT should be enough evidence to clue most people in that 2 stroke engines are problematic.



I fly both a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke engine, but I believe in being honest and giving the best advice to others possible.  The 2 stroke Rotax was the only choice available for a 103 legal ultralight, so that choice is already made for me...  For my larger plane, I worked overtime and did without a couple other of things ( new car ) to buy a Rotax 912-S.  There is no way I was going to fly with my friends and family behind a 2 stroke engine in my Kitfox.    Who out there would buy a new car with a 2 stroke engine ???   But then the same people ask if they should put a two stroke engine on their Kitfox, it is enough to boggle the mind...   For a person to give bad advice to others just because he has been able to make a  2 stroke work without a failure is nothing short of a disservice.   In the end, I would and do fly behind both a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke, but I never forget the fact that the 2 stroke engine is much more likely to suddenly fail at the worst possible time and get me hurt...



To top it off, if you do the numbers, with fuel usage and overhauls, the more reliable 4 stroke is actually CHEAPER in the long run than the 2 stroke.  That makes this choice a no brainier....



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:17 am Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

(Snip)   Even small dirt bikes are now being sold with 4 stroke engines now. 

For manufacturers, and those that know how to separate FACTS from opinion, 4 

stroke engines are the the clear choice, by about 100 %...

(Snip)



Come on Mike,  It is largely the EPA that is mandating the replacement of 2 

stroke engines with the 4 strokes.  It is burning oil that they don't like. 

Lake Tahoe and other lakes have banned 2 sroke engines, not because they are 

tired of rescuing folks stranded by engine failures, but they don't like the 

oil slicks on the water.  String trimmers, chain saws etc.  It is not the 

reliability, it is the smoke.



I don't mind discussion, but when the evidence is clearly edited, I steam a 

bit.



Lowell

akflyer

Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 574
Location: Soldotna AK

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

 	  JetPilot wrote: 	
		    The 2 stroke Rotax was the only choice available for a 103 legal ultralight, so that choice is already made for me...  

Mike 	




Me thinks this is a wee bit of an untrue statement.  Rotax is NOT the only 2 stroke aircraft engine manufacture.  I wont even touch the rest of it.

_________________
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Leonard Perry aka SNAKE
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 (147 hrs and counting on the rebuild)
IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1450
#1 snake oil salesman since 1-22-2009

I would rather die trying to live, than to live trying not to die....

Fox5flyer
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:16 am Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

This well written oratory below is a classic case of drawing a wide blurry 

line midway between fact and opinion with absolutely no objective data 

included to back any of it up.



In my opinion, and the FACT that before I sold it I put nearly 400 mostly 

trouble free hours on a Kitfox II/582 with the only problem being a cracked 

flywheel which had nothing to do with it being a 2 stroke, the only 

meaningful difference between the 582 and 912x is how much money do you want 

to spend!  Very big difference.



Sure, the 582 in the same airplane doesn't go as fast nor carry the same 

load as a 912x, but it also has the disadvantage of much less horse power 

and torque.  Sure, it takes a little bit of tinkering, but not much.  Not 

everyone has the deep pockets to drop in the 912, which I'm sure, anyone 

would prefer over the 582 if the money were not an issue.  Without the 582 

I'm sure there would be far fewer people out there flying experimentals and 

ultralights.



Deke Morisse

Mikado Michigan

S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT

"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."

- Joseph Joubert



---

paul(at)eucleides.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

On Sat, November 15, 2008 8:37 am, JetPilot wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 A 2 stroke engine is much more likely to suddenly fail than a 4 stroke, this is FACT,

 not opinion.


	


I don't think you can say that without some qualifications. For example, if you

compare two engines of roughly equal quality of construction such as a current 582 and

912 and specify that both are to be operated within operational directives: rpm

limits, mixture limits, service, inspection and overhaul directives, there should be

no particular known cause for sudden failure of either.



What it is true is that the two stroke cycle engine will have a higher BSFC (brake

specific fuel consumption, and engineering term), a lower TBO than the four stroke

cycle engine. But the two stroke cycle engine has a significantly better power to

weight ratio and will generally be smaller. This leaves two noticeable differences to

compare. One is aesthetics, both visual and audio and the other is economics. As to

aesthetics, I don't find the sound of a two stroke particularly pleasing compared to

the sound of tuned exhaust on a four stroke. I'll bet there are more than just a few

that relish the sound of a tuned two stroke under load though. I like the sound of a

Harley, whereas my wife thinks it's even worse than my Husqvarna chainsaw. But the

economics are really different. The two stroke has a significantly lower initial cost

(capitalization) but higher cost in both parts and labor for maintenance and overhaul

and since it's BSFC is roughly 50% higher, and it consumes more lubricating oil, it's

overall operational cost will be higher.



If initial cost is going to determine whether or not you can build and fly an airplane

then you're likely going to chose a smaller and lighter aircraft and that choice will

demand the lightest possible engine in order to provide some useful load and going

with the budget restriction, you're going to probably choose the two stroke engine.



I would concede that the two stroke engine has less tolerance for lean mixture but

given a good calibrated EGT gauge, you should not be guessing whether the mixture is

too lean. One of the Alaska 582 flyers cautioned that extended low partial power

descents is also cause for caution, but that may only apply to fixed mixture settings.

I believe there are in-flight mixture controls for the two stroke which should

eliminate the high rpm, low fuel flow, lubrication problem by simply enrichening the

mixture. But as has been pointed out, Rotax has an operations manual that is freely

downloadable and that will instruct the owner on proper operation. I have not read

that manual.



 	  Quote: 	
		      There are always cases where guys have been able to make a 2 stroke

 engine work for many hours... There are even guys that have done extraordinary trips

 with  2 strokes,


	


This isn't at all uncommon as you imply.



 	  Quote: 	
		   but this does not change the FACTS or the REALITY that 2 strokes are

 much more likely to suddenly fail in flight than a 4 stroke.  In theory the 2 stroke

 engine is very simple, but it has a fatal flaw, the 2 stroke engine requires PERFECT

 delivery of the fuel air mixture to not overheat in seize.


	


I disagree here. Perfection is not required. Adherence to the operating limits is

required. Too lean, temperatures are too high and lubrication suffers; too rich for

too long will cause soot deposits.



 	  Quote: 	
		    In an airplane, as in most

 applications, life happens, and sooner or later the mixture will not be laboratory

 perfect  for a few moments and the engine suddenly seizes up.  Then there are the

 additional issues of Cold Seizure, rings sticking, exhaust failures, and others...

 So if you think you can make a 2 stroke engine work under laboratory perfect

 conditions for 1000 hours, then maybe you will be successful wit!

  h a 2 stroke engine.  But most people are not......


	


These two strokes are used at many flight schools and when operated and serviced as

directed, it is not at all uncommon to outlast the TBO.



They don't have to be operated as a laboratory experiment, and you have a very

reasonable expectation of safe operation to TBO and beyond. The TBO is lower, perhaps

half of that of the 912 but those hours are all good hours. One must understand that

engine lubrication is delivered with the fuel and that is the primary difference. EGT,

water temperature, and RPM are the suitable operational indicators. You must know how

to run both 2 stroke and 4 stroke engines within the proper limits. You cannot turn

the fuel flow off and windmill the two stroke engine, it won't be getting lubrication.

You can't windmill a 4 stroke until the cylinders get very cold such as could be done

in the winter or in the arctic then suddenly go WOT either, you'd risk getting cracked

cylinder heads. Point is, you have to operate the aircraft engine within recommended

operational limits or you risk severe damage. I would say every owner, wants to avoid

engine damage and possible injury enough so that they will endeavor to learn the

envelope of operation. The designs of these engines are mature and the documentation

is readily available.



 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Why do you think that NO certified airplane has been made with a 2 stroke engine for

 the last 50 years ?   In the past fuel was cheap, and 2 stroke engines were lighter,

 but NO manufacture would sell a plane with an unreliable 2 stroke engine.    Even

 small dirt bikes are now being sold with 4 stroke engines now.


	


Environmental concerns are driving this decision, not power to weight ratio. The two

stroke engine will not meet standards for CO, particulate or NOx emissions. In some

locales, even two stroke engines are banned on trimmers and mowers.



 	  Quote: 	
		     For manufacturers,

 and those that know how to separate FACTS from opinion, 4 stroke engines are the the

 clear choice, by about 100 %...  It is pretty rare to get 100 percent consensus on

 anything, but manufacturers have unanimously chosen 4 stroke engines for planes, cars,

 and now for even the smallest and lightest applications.  This FACT should be enough

 evidence to clue most people in that 2 stroke engines are problematic.


	


Long term economics, emission standards, and aesthetics are driving this issue.



 	  Quote: 	
		   I fly both a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke engine, but I believe in being honest and giving

 the best advice to others possible.  The 2 stroke Rotax was the only choice available

 for a 103 legal ultralight, so that choice is already made for me...  For my larger

 plane, I worked overtime and did without a couple other of things ( new car ) to buy a

 Rotax 912-S.  There is no way I was going to fly with my friends and family behind a 2

 stroke engine in my Kitfox.


	


You're better off economically with the 912 over a longer period of time and you're

getting more horsepower, climb and cruise speed and range. But your useful load is

less. You may be really averse to the aesthetics (sound and appearance) of the two

stroke, but you're certainly capable of operating the 582 as safely as you can operate

the 912.



 	  Quote: 	
		      Who out there would buy a new car with a 2 stroke

 engine ???


	


It could be coming again with tiny little cars. With an ECU controlling fuel injection

and EGR, tiny little air cooled two stroke engines will be powering 600 to 900 lb cars

that can cruise 60 mph and get 100 mpg while meeting mandated emission standards for

2010 and having a reasonable life expectancy. The economics and power to weight ratio

of the two stroke engine powered car are far better than current battery powered

offerings.



 	  Quote: 	
		   But then the same people ask if they should put a two stroke engine on

 their Kitfox, it is enough to boggle the mind...   For a person to give bad advice to

 others just because he has been able to make a  2 stroke work without a failure is

 nothing short of a disservice.


	


Power to weight ratio and initial cost are the driving factors. I agree, that the

buyer needs to be well informed as to the operating limits and maintenance required

but the buyer of the two stroke should not be advised that he is buying certain

catastrophic failure. He is not.



 	  Quote: 	
		     In the end, I would and do fly behind both a 2 stroke

 and a 4 stroke, but I never forget the fact that the 2 stroke engine is much more

 likely to suddenly fail at the worst possible time and g!

  et me hurt...


	


Catastrophic failure is no more likely in a two stroke operated within manufacturer's

limits than is a four stroke. High temperatures caused by lean mixture and

insufficient lubrication must be avoided to prevent seizure, but that won't happen if

the engine water temperature (cyl head temp), EGT, and RPM are not exceeded. If you

overheat a four stroke it will be damaged too, if you run the 4 stroke too lean it

will burn the exhaust valves. You cannot windmill the two stroke engine if you run out

of fuel or shut the fuel off in flight either. A propeller clutch might automatically

prevent that problem though.



 	  Quote: 	
		  

 To top it off, if you do the numbers, with fuel usage and overhauls, the more reliable

 4 stroke is actually CHEAPER in the long run than the 2 stroke.  That makes this

 choice a no brainier....


	


True, over a lifetime where you have the option of one engine over the other. Some

don't have the option though because of engine weight or initial capital. Let's say a

65 year old retires, buys an early Kitfox kit such as a Model 1 or 2, builds it in a

year, then flies it at 100 hours a year for three, possibly 4 years. He may never have

had to do an overhaul and his cost of operation is probably higher, but he may never

have had the flying opportunity at all if he had to save for the more expensive engine

and the with the lighter weight of the two stroke, he has more capacity for fuel, and

baggage. Might make the difference of whether he can take his wife along on a trip or

not. The operational cost would be dominated by the fuel consumption difference. Let's

say it is 2 gallons per hour higher for the two stroke factoring in the lower cruise

speed and that the fuel is $5/gal including oil. Then for his 400 hours in 4 years,

he's spent an additional $10/hour or $4000. That's less than the price difference

between the two engines. Granted the two stroke is at or beyond TBO, but he might be

done with the plane at age 70 anyway so in this example, the 582 makes good sense.



Even if the person bought a higher gross weight kit such as a model 4, where it the

extra weight of the 912 is fine, the fact that the initial capital required to

complete the kit with a 582 may be the difference between being able to experience

flight or not. The extra $100/mo cost of operation is less important than the initial

investment.

-- 

Paul A. Franz, P.E.

PAF Consulting Engineers

Office 425.440.9505

Cell 425.241.1618

matronics(at)bob.brennan.
Guest

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:39 am Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

If we can't agree to go with 2 stroke vs 4 stroke, why not try flying with

Hybrid Power? No more worries about "unexpected" power loss either!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOvijQ0-6-g



DO NOT ARCHIVE 



Bob Brennan - N717GB 

1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox

Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop

Wrightsville Pa 



--

Rex Hefferan

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 147
Location: Olney Springs, Colorado USA "NOT a Kitpig"

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:20 am Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

Heh heh!  I looked at some of the others too. Interesting concept to 

bring TV commercial style safety messages to the GA masses.



 Oh, and what's up with your email address Bob?

Rex



Bob Brennan wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



If we can't agree to go with 2 stroke vs 4 stroke, why not try flying with

Hybrid Power? No more worries about "unexpected" power loss either!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOvijQ0-6-g



DO NOT ARCHIVE 



Bob Brennan - N717GB 

1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox

Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop

Wrightsville Pa 

  



-- 
	


Rex Hefferan

SE Colorado / K-II / 582-C / still waiting repairs

_________________
Rex
N740GP - M2/582
Colorado

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

Hahahaha,



I love the commercial !  The Kitfox glides pretty well, and can be landed in more fields than a Cessna ever dreamed of, count me in 



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

Guy Buchanan

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1204
Location: Ramona, CA

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:51 pm Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

At 08:37 AM 11/15/2008, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  but this does not change the FACTS or the REALITY that 2 strokes are 

much more likely to suddenly fail in flight than a 4 stroke.


	


Since you've decided to use facts in your argument, I'd really like 

to see them. Personally I believe you can substantiate your claim, 

depending on how you do the numbers, but now I think you owe us the data.



 	  Quote: 	
		  In theory the 2 stroke engine is very simple, but it has a fatal 

flaw, the 2 stroke engine requires PERFECT delivery of the fuel air 

mixture to not overheat in seize.  In an airplane, as in most 

applications, life happens, and sooner or later the mixture will not 

be laboratory perfect  for a few moments and the engine suddenly seizes up.


	


I wouldn't call it quite fatal, as I'm still alive, but you are 

correct that mixture is more important in a 2-stroke than four. You 

are incorrect in stating that the mixture must be perfect. It will 

certainly run rich without difficulty, and it takes time, albeit 

seconds not minutes, to melt a piston. Given good warning and 

operating with some margin it is possible to fly near that margin 

relatively safely. (. . .relative to all the other risks we take 

flying experimentals.)



 	  Quote: 	
		  For a person to give bad advice to others just because he has been 

able to make a  2 stroke work without a failure is nothing short of 

a disservice.


	


Providing honest information is never a disservice. And I don't think 

anybody has suggested a 582 is a better choice than a 912, or any 

4-stroke. In the world of experimental aviation it is up to the 

builder or buyer to convince themselves one way or another based on 

their requirements and what information they can glean. That's why 

the list exists, and why we, the moderators, try to keep the list 

information based. Yes, we encourage opinions and tolerate anecdotes 

and even strenuous assertions, but it all has to work toward the 

encouragement of fellow members, and therefore must somehow be 

objectively supportable.



So don't think I've forgotten about those facts, Mike. I'm looking 

forward to them.

Guy Buchanan, Kitfox List Moderator

San Diego, CA

K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.

_________________
Guy Buchanan
Deceased K-IV 1200
A glider pilot too.

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

Guy,



Turbine engines are much more reliable than piston engines, its a well known fact.    



Four stroke engines are much more reliable than two stroke engines on aircraft, this is also a well known fact.  



Its not necessary to dig up numbers and statistics to be aware of these two facts about airplane engines, both these facts are very well known and accepted in the aviation community.  And it is fact, not opinion.  You did not agree with my post, but you were very careful not to disagree with me that 4 stroke engines are more reliable than 2 strokes.   



For the new guy choosing an engine for his Kitfox, one of the first things he needs to know is the reliability of the engine he is going to put in his plane.   What people need is good, clear, and direct information about each type of engine, not a bunch of beating around the bush by people that are unwilling to post something on the list that might offend those that are flying with stroke engines...   



So do you disagree with me that 4 stroke engines are more reliable than 2 stroke engines ?  If you wife or children were about to fly across a large body of water in a Kitfox, would you rather that Kitfox have a 582 or a 912 powering it ?



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

gary.algate(at)sandvik.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

Mike. 

 

I think you have missed the point here and at this stage I almost wish I never started this. 

 

Neither is more reliable than  the other providing the engines are operated within the engineered parameters - this is fact! 

 

You mentioned before about engine selection and how you had decided to forego a new car in order to purchase the 912 over a 582. I guess you could take this a step further and look at the statistics around homebuilt aircrafts vs certified. It is a well known, and documented fact that homebuilts have a far higher incident rate than certified aircrafts.  

 

Using your argument perhaps you should have foregone the family home and brought a Cessna 210? 

 

It's all a matter of what we can individually afford and how we manage risk. 

 

A 912  that is poorly maintained and operated is just as dangerous as a 582 poorly maintained and operated - both are time bombs in the hands of an idiot. 

 

Unfortunately your attitude is mirrored by most certified pilots who believe that Continentals and Lycomings are the only safe engine to fly behind and Rotax 912's are but dangerous toys. 

 

That's my last comment on this issue and I aplogise up front, if I've offended you.

  

Regards, 

 

 



 Gary Algate

 Mech Eng 

Classic 4 Jab2200

 

 

 This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission. 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

"JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> 

Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com 

18/11/2008 11:23 AM 

Please respond to

 kitfox-list(at)matronics.com     To

 kitfox-list(at)matronics.com   cc

    Subject

 Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. 

     

 

 

 

--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>

 

 Guy,

 

 Turbine engines are much more reliable than piston engines, its a well known fact.    

 

 Four stroke engines are much more reliable than two stroke engines on aircraft, this is also a well known fact.  

 

 Its not necessary to dig up numbers and statistics to be aware of these two facts about airplane engines, both these facts are very well known and accepted in the aviation community.  And it is fact, not opinion.  You did not agree with my post, but you were very careful not to disagree with me that 4 stroke engines are more reliable than 2 strokes.   

 

 For the new guy choosing an engine for his Kitfox, one of the first things he needs to know is the reliability of the engine he is going to put in his plane.   What people need is good, clear, and direct information about each type of engine, not a bunch of beating around the bush by people that are unwilling to post something on the list that might offend those that are flying with stroke engines...   

 

 So do you disagree with me that 4 stroke engines are more reliable than 2 stroke engines ?  If you wife or children were about to fly across a large body of water in a Kitfox, would you rather that Kitfox have a 582 or a 912 powering it ?

 

 Mike

 

 --------

 &quot;NO FEAR&quot; -  If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

 

 Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 14792#214792

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 -

 

 

 

  

 [quote][b]

akflyer

Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 574
Location: Soldotna AK

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

 	  JetPilot wrote: 	
		  Guy,



Turbine engines are much more reliable than piston engines, its a well known fact.    



Four stroke engines are much more reliable than two stroke engines on aircraft, this is also a well known fact.  



Its not necessary to dig up numbers and statistics to be aware of these two facts about airplane engines, both these facts are very well known and accepted in the aviation community.  And it is fact, not opinion.  You did not agree with my post, but you were very careful not to disagree with me that 4 stroke engines are more reliable than 2 strokes.   



For the new guy choosing an engine for his Kitfox, one of the first things he needs to know is the reliability of the engine he is going to put in his plane.   What people need is good, clear, and direct information about each type of engine, not a bunch of beating around the bush by people that are unwilling to post something on the list that might offend those that are flying with stroke engines...   



So do you disagree with me that 4 stroke engines are more reliable than 2 stroke engines ?  If you wife or children were about to fly across a large body of water in a Kitfox, would you rather that Kitfox have a 582 or a 912 powering it ?



Mike 	




I cross large bodies of water on floats or at an altitude that will allow me to safely glide to the other side....sometimes 4 or 5 trips a day flying in all the gear and buddies for fishing or hunting.  Engine outs don't skeer me none, but the only one I have had the displeasure of experiencing was a certified 0320.



I was initially very wary of flying behind the 2 stoke 582, but many many hours have me not even thinking twice about doing long cross countries in one.



Oh yeah, I was in a 727 that lost an engine on initial climb out last year.  That one puckered me up as it was -40 outside and frozen tundra.  we made it back the runway, but it leaves me with the FACT that I have experienced 2 engine outs and neither were 2 strokes.

internet_fight.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

165.98 KB

Viewed:

664 Time(s)

occom

Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 404

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:00 pm Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

---

MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

Mike sez:



 	  Quote: 	
		  For the new guy choosing an engine for his Kitfox, one of the first 

things he needs to know is the reliability of the engine he is going 

to put in his plane.


	


Of course, the posting that started this latest round of engine 

bashing was from a guy who already has a 582 and was looking for 

advice on maximizing performance, so the rest of the 2-stroke vs. 

4-stroke discussion has been entirely irrelevant to that question and 

redundant with previous mine's-better-than-yours threads.



Mike G.

N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster

Phoenix, AZ

Dick Maddux

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 516
Location: Milton, Fl

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:23 am Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

Mike,

   I don't want to go across a large body of water in a Kitfox with either engine ! More engines are better.

                                                     Dick Maddux

                                                     Fox 4 912UL

                                                     Pensacola,Fl



You Rock! One month of f00000075x1212639737x1200784900/aol?redir=https://www.blockbuster.com/signup/y/reg/p.26978/r.email_footer">blockbuster.com

  [quote][b]

paul(at)eucleides.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

On Tue, November 18, 2008 5:21 am, Catz631(at)aol.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   ....More engines are better.


	


You know the old answer to the the question; 'Why two engines?' - The second one is to

get you to the scene of the accident.



I just read an NTSB accident report where a twin Comanche lost power just after

take-off and the pilot put it down in the trees. A hundred hour had just been

completed and all the spark plugs were changed. Wrong plugs and burned a bunch of

pistons as a result in both engines.



I've heard it said that having two engines makes it twice as likely to have an engine

failure!



Personally, I think multi-engine aircraft are chosen because of their higher useful

loads and higher cruise speeds. If there is a perceived or real safety difference,

that's icing on the cake. You certainly have your hands full with an engine out on a

twin, especially in IMC and that is aggrevated if you're above the single engine

service ceiling.



-- 

Paul A. Franz, P.E.

PAF Consulting Engineers

Office 425.440.9505

Cell 425.241.1618

LarryM

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 63
Location: Genoa, IL

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

Ultralight crashes



By Black Press - Surrey North Delta Leader



Published: November 18, 2008 2:00 PM

Updated: November 18, 2008 2:47 PM



A Surrey man suffered severe bruising to one hand in a noon-hour ultralight crash Sunday at a King George Highway airpark.



Airflow Ultralight Aviation's Fred Glasbergen said the crash occurred after the Australian-made Jabiru's engine failed on approach to landing.



"Just wasn't quite enough altitude to make the runway," Glasbergen said.



The ultralight "landed really hard," he said.



The pilot, believed in his 60s, walked away. The craft, however, was seriously damaged.



Surrey RCMP Sgt. Roger Morrow said police attended, but the crash is not a police matter. Glasbergen said a report will be provided to the Transportation Safety Board.



newsroom(at)surreyleader.com



I think that he really had a 582 in it, but threw the Jab in the wreckage to protect the Rotax reputation.



larry

Guy Buchanan

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1204
Location: Ramona, CA

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

At 04:43 PM 11/18/2008, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  I think that he really had a 582 in it, but threw the Jab in the 

wreckage to protect the Rotax reputation.


	


ROFLOL! It's a darn good thing those 582's are light!

Guy Buchanan

San Diego, CA

K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.



Do not archive

_________________
Guy Buchanan
Deceased K-IV 1200
A glider pilot too.

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

Uh............ok...........I think..........



What? Is it April 1st already? I must've overslept......damn, I  

missed the inauguration........



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

Jabiru 2200, 591hrs

Sensenich 62x46

flying again after rebuild, and new Electroair direct-fire ignition  

system

do not archive

On Nov 18, 2008, at 7:43 PM, LarryM wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Ultralight crashes



 By Black Press - Surrey North Delta Leader



 Published: November 18, 2008 2:00 PM

 Updated: November 18, 2008 2:47 PM



 A Surrey man suffered severe bruising to one hand in a noon-hour  

 ultralight crash Sunday at a King George Highway airpark.



 Airflow Ultralight Aviation's Fred Glasbergen said the crash  

 occurred after the Australian-made Jabiru's engine failed on  

 approach to landing.



 "Just wasn't quite enough altitude to make the runway," Glasbergen  

 said.



 The ultralight "landed really hard," he said.



 The pilot, believed in his 60s, walked away. The craft, however,  

 was seriously damaged.



 Surrey RCMP Sgt. Roger Morrow said police attended, but the crash  

 is not a police matter. Glasbergen said a report will be provided  

 to the Transportation Safety Board.



 newsroom(at)surreyleader.com



 I think that he really had a 582 in it, but threw the Jab in the  

 wreckage to protect the Rotax reputation.



 larry





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 15079#215079

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke.

The 582's are light?.....hell, he had the Jab in his hip pocket!



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

Jabiru 2200, 591hrs

Sensenich 62x46

flying again after rebuild, and new Electroair direct-fire ignition  

system

do not archive

On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:24 PM, Guy Buchanan wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 At 04:43 PM 11/18/2008, you wrote:

> I think that he really had a 582 in it, but threw the Jab in the  

> wreckage to protect the Rotax reputation.



 ROFLOL! It's a darn good thing those 582's are light!

 Guy Buchanan

 San Diego, CA

 K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.



 Do not archive

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

Display posts from previous:

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

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