tc1917(at)bellsouth.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:13 am Post subject: Kolb-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 01/08/13 |
 |
|
Gotta respond to these thoughts of small engines on kolbs
Been flying these little buggers from abt 1993. I feel mpg is important but when I hit a sinker, downdraft, sudden tailwind
or just plain nasty wind I am mighty glad I have some reserve power to save my butt. We played with most all those cart and industrial engines and pretty much came to the conclusion we wanted strong, fast and reliable power plants. This dicussion might get some newbies thinking they should put their lawn mower engine on a kolb and die for it. While it may be perfectly fine for you expert engineers to configure a five horse briggs to fly do not encourage the average dude to try it. I would not want that on my head. Make sure they understand the ramifications of engine failure in flight and lack of power in emergencies.
My opinion. Ted Cowan slingshot 912ul zoom zoom
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 9, 2013, at 2:02 AM, Kolb-List Digest Server <kolb-list(at)matronics.com> wrote:
| Quote: | *
==================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
==================================================
Today's complete Kolb-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Kolb-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 13-01-08&Archive=Kolb
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 13-01-08&Archive=Kolb
================================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
================================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Kolb-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Tue 01/08/13: 8
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:11 AM - Re: 4A084 power? (GeoB)
2. 07:56 AM - Re: Re: 4A084 power? (Rick Neilsen)
3. 09:35 AM - Re: Re: 4A084 power? (Dan)
4. 11:27 AM - Re: Re: 4A084 power? (HShack(at)aol.com)
5. 11:36 AM - Re: Re: 4A084 power? (HShack(at)aol.com)
6. 02:39 PM - Re: Re: 4A084 power? (Herb Gayheart)
7. 03:27 PM - Re: 4A084 power? (GeoB)
8. 05:43 PM - michigan seminar (Malcolm Brubaker)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 01:11:48 AM PST US
Subject: Re: 4A084 power?
From: "GeoB" <gab16(at)sbcglobal.net>
Thanks for your reply Shack!
I hate it when someone asks a question then argues with someone who answers him!
This isn't my intent here. Since this is a public forum and we have a public
conversation here I am citing some information that I have collected from good
sources, simply to keep the lurkers from making wrong decisions.
> Too heavy for FS I.
I have been wondering about this. Reason I was considering it is that the FS has
a reasonably good gross weight (which I forget), and with not all that many
structural changes it became a 2-place. The wings are not as strong as the 2-place
but they are about the same sq footage. That being said, I have no clue if
it is *really* too heavy.
My 503 weighs about 98 lbs. The 084 weighs 127 lbs complete with prop in a typical
setup.
The 084 would be operated direct-drive. At the slow speeds of the FS-I, I think
the advantage goes to the 503 with the gear reduction unit.
> Who said 50 hp? Gov't rated at 10 hp,; it may actually be 20 hp
> From a military manual:
Bore: 3"
Stroke: 3"
Displacement: 84.8 cu in
Rated continuous net hp: 20 (at) 3600 rpm
Max hp 33.3 (at) 3600 rpm
Max torque (at) 2000 rpm; 60.3
This is to 5000 ft.
Note that we free up some serious hp when we remove the huge cooling fan.
Also, remember I said that the 084 cab 'built' to about 50 hp. This is without
raising the low compression ratio. 084 experts (true experts) suggest that one
NOT raise the CR because it would lead to over-heating. One expert markets an
EFI setup for this engine. Over-all he seems to be a conservative can-do person,
very believable. His engine is close to 50 hp based on the size/pitch of prop
he spins with it. Most of us interested in the 084 accept that it produces
42-44 hp stock, w/o the fan. About 1/2 hp/cu inch.
> It is 48 c,i., doubt it can produce over 1 hp per cube.
we are looking at the 084, 84 cu inches. I think you are remembering the smaller
2-cylinder, the 2A042 (42 cu inches)
> I had one; fun to play with. Don't waste your time .
Now I am not sure if you had the 042 or the 084. There is a video on Youtube with
a fella flying around just fine with the 042 on a Minimax. I have seen videos
of several planes flying with the 084 but none of them were Firestar-I's. IIRC
I have an old pic of a Kolb with an 084 but I can't seem to dig up more info
on it. I already have three 084's. Haven't had a chance to crank them up yet.
I am planning to build a big workshop but it will be months before that happens.
> You already have the best engine for FS I.
That is gratifying to hear. I like thinking about these swaps but will probably
just learn to like a ring-ding.
> Should be good for 500 hrs.
Mine hasn't been run for 5-7 years. I expect I will have to tear it down and replace
seals, from what I have heard. TT = 38 hours.
Have you seen the 4A032? Cute lil 4-banger! About 70 lbs. I doubt it would ever
be of use for flight but maybe on a Kart! I see that a class of karting using
the Honda 390 or clone is getting popular. At 13 hp it really scoots. How much
nicer to have a 4-banger with cute lil zoomies sticking up! I am guessing that
it will put out ~14 hp.
GeoB
--------
GeoB
"Members of Congress should be compelled to wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers,
so we could identify their corporate sponsors"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391791#391791
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 07:56:17 AM PST US
Subject: Re: Re: 4A084 power?
From: Rick Neilsen <neilsenrm(at)gmail.com>
Just a few more thoughts.
The RPMs listed are real close to my direct drive VW. Thrust is what makes
a airplane fly, that and MONEY. The horse power needs to be converted to
thrust and at a 3600 working RPM you are restricted to a small prop
somewhere around 58" or less. The general rule is the bigger the prop the
more HP is turned into thrust until the prop tips go supersonic.. My direct
drive VW used to turn a good portion of its power into noise instead of
thrust. Also the rated max torque is at 2000 RPM. I configured my latest VW
to have maximum torque in the cruise to takeoff RPM range. Unlike a car a
aircraft engine doesn't need very much torque at low RPMs but does require
the most torque at cruise and takeoff RPMs.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:11 AM, GeoB <gab16(at)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply Shack!
>
> I hate it when someone asks a question then argues with someone who
> answers him! This isn't my intent here. Since this is a public forum and we
> have a public conversation here I am citing some information that I have
> collected from good sources, simply to keep the lurkers from making wrong
> decisions.
>
>> Too heavy for FS I.
>
> I have been wondering about this. Reason I was considering it is that the
> FS has a reasonably good gross weight (which I forget), and with not all
> that many structural changes it became a 2-place. The wings are not as
> strong as the 2-place but they are about the same sq footage. That being
> said, I have no clue if it is *really* too heavy.
>
> My 503 weighs about 98 lbs. The 084 weighs 127 lbs complete with prop in
> a typical setup.
>
> The 084 would be operated direct-drive. At the slow speeds of the FS-I, I
> think the advantage goes to the 503 with the gear reduction unit.
>
>> Who said 50 hp? Gov't rated at 10 hp,; it may actually be 20 hp
>
>> From a military manual:
>
> Bore: 3"
> Stroke: 3"
> Displacement: 84.8 cu in
> Rated continuous net hp: 20 (at) 3600 rpm
> Max hp 33.3 (at) 3600 rpm
> Max torque (at) 2000 rpm; 60.3
>
> This is to 5000 ft.
>
> Note that we free up some serious hp when we remove the huge cooling fan.
>
> Also, remember I said that the 084 cab 'built' to about 50 hp. This is
> without raising the low compression ratio. 084 experts (true experts)
> suggest that one NOT raise the CR because it would lead to over-heating.
> One expert markets an EFI setup for this engine. Over-all he seems to be a
> conservative can-do person, very believable. His engine is close to 50 hp
> based on the size/pitch of prop he spins with it. Most of us interested in
> the 084 accept that it produces 42-44 hp stock, w/o the fan. About 1/2
> hp/cu inch.
>
>> It is 48 c,i., doubt it can produce over 1 hp per cube.
>
> we are looking at the 084, 84 cu inches. I think you are remembering the
> smaller 2-cylinder, the 2A042 (42 cu inches)
>
>> I had one; fun to play with. Don't waste your time .
>
> Now I am not sure if you had the 042 or the 084. There is a video on
> Youtube with a fella flying around just fine with the 042 on a Minimax. I
> have seen videos of several planes flying with the 084 but none of them
> were Firestar-I's. IIRC I have an old pic of a Kolb with an 084 but I can't
> seem to dig up more info on it. I already have three 084's. Haven't had a
> chance to crank them up yet. I am planning to build a big workshop but it
> will be months before that happens.
>
>> You already have the best engine for FS I.
>
> That is gratifying to hear. I like thinking about these swaps but will
> probably just learn to like a ring-ding.
>
>> Should be good for 500 hrs.
>
> Mine hasn't been run for 5-7 years. I expect I will have to tear it down
> and replace seals, from what I have heard. TT = 38 hours.
>
> Have you seen the 4A032? Cute lil 4-banger! About 70 lbs. I doubt it would
> ever be of use for flight but maybe on a Kart! I see that a class of
> karting using the Honda 390 or clone is getting popular. At 13 hp it really
> scoots. How much nicer to have a 4-banger with cute lil zoomies sticking
> up! I am guessing that it will put out ~14 hp.
>
> GeoB
>
> --------
> GeoB
>
> "Members of Congress should be compelled to wear uniforms like NASCAR
> drivers, so we could identify their corporate sponsors"
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391791#391791
>
>
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 09:35:01 AM PST US
From: Dan <dan42101(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Re: 4A084 power?
=C2-=C2-=C2-ENGINE Q&A=C2-- your engine questions investigated
Experimenter - November 95=C2-Q.=C2-=C2-Dear Engine Q&A - To answer t
he questions about engine horsepower ratings=C2-in the September EXPERIME
NTER, I can suggest some rules of thumb that I have heard through the years
. They seem to be good approximations.1) To get the effective prop swinging
horsepower for small direct drive four-cycle engines, divide the cubic inc
hes by two. That makes an O-200 Continental a 100 horse engine. The hopeles
sly weak Corvair rated at 150 hp in a car has 145 cubic inches like the 65
hp Lycoming, and that=99s about all it can do. The 750 cubic Hisso en
gine is rated at 150 horses but has an effective propeller power of 375 hp.
That=99s why it can turn an eight-foot propeller and fly a big airpl
ane that a 150 hp Lycoming can barely taxi. The source of this rule was Hob
art Sorrell (now deceased) of Tenino, Washington. His crafty wits produced
the Guppy biplane that flew on a Cushman golf cart engine.2) Using the effe
ctive power described
above, you can multiply times 4-1/4 to get the approximate thrust with typ
ical propeller efficiency of 85%. Source of this rule was John Thorp (decea
sed) of the T-18. See "Cowling and Cooling of Engines" which appeared in SP
ORT AVIATION some years ago (Ed. Note: This series appeared in the November
and December 1963 issues).Hopefully, these two have left a legacy that we
can all use. When a reduction gear is applied to the engine, the effective
power is multiplied by the gear ratio.I haven=99t tried to extrapolat
e the formula to two stroke engines because I have very little experience w
ith them. I can=99t tell what the effective power is of the little 70
horse drone engine that one sees buzzing away on a Bensen Gyrocopter for i
nstance.Yours truly - Bertran Copp, Monmouth, OregonQ.=C2-=C2-Dear Mary
- In the September 1995 EXPERIMENTER, Jim Delaney of Coralville,=C2-Iowa
asks whether a Continental A-65, a 65 hp Rotax and a 65 hp Volkswagen all
produce the same
thrust. Assuming the same airplane and properly matched propeller/engine/a
irplane combination for best cruise, the answer is yes, theoretically. Prop
eller efficiency differences will produce the only variation in performance
. This usually amounts to only 2 or 3%. Thus, horsepower is a valid method
of comparison for correctly matched propellers because thrust is directly r
elated to horsepower.Often static thrust is erroneously thought to be an in
dicator of flight performance. A propeller designed for maximum static thru
st will severely limit cruise speed. This type of design is only suitable f
or helicopter rotors. It is an over-simplification if applied to airplanes.
Proper propeller design involves matching thrust to drag and finding the b
est cruise to climb tradeoff. Putting it all together involves difficult an
d tedious calculations. I am a consulting aeronautical engineer and author
of a computer program called "prop optimizer" that matches propeller
to engine and airplane automatically.Many design studies I have done indic
ate that there is an optimum propeller size and rpm for any engine/airplane
combination. Airplanes, even of one design, can vary considerably in drag
due to manufacturing differences. Therefore, if best performance is desired
, the propeller should be individually matched for each airplane. Specific
questions may be directed to me at 916/622-1886.Sincerely - Don Bates, Plac
erville, CaliforniaQ.=C2-=C2-Dear Engine Q&A - I would like to know if
there is a four-stroke engine out there in the=C2-65 hp range that would
work on my new S-12XL, other than the Rotax 912 - one that doesn=99t
require a second mortgage to purchase.The RANS S-12XL is an excellent aircr
aft, I believe. The engine to use on it has stumped me. The only two engine
s that I know of that might work are the new Yamaha four-stroke engine, whi
ch is unavailable at this time, and the Moto Guzzi, which is unproven on a
pusher
aircraft. What is your opinion? Who answers these questions? What about a
Subaru?Sincerely - Don Herwander, Everett, WashingtonA.=C2-=C2-Dear Don
- We=99ll toss your questions out for our readers and see if, per ch
ance,=C2-another S-12 owner is powering his aircraft with an alternate en
gine.Thanks for writing! - MaryQ.=C2-=C2-Dear Don - May I congratulate
you on your column in the EXPERIMENTER as I feel=C2-it is a very importan
t part of that magazine providing the type of information that we all want
regarding the Subaru engine.In the May edition, regarding the tip speed of
propellers, was the decimal point in the wrong place? Should it have been .
00436 and not .000436?I am building a Pober Pixie lookalike under our 95/10
category and will be powering it with a Subaru EA 81 imported from Japan w
ith approximately 34,000 miles on it. (It appears to be in very good condit
ion.)I will be using one of the carburetors that you recommend, but is ther
e any reason we can=99t
use the one that is on it - a Hitachi DCM 306-1 downdraft.With respect to
the engine, I will be leaving it exactly as is with direct drive and a 52 x
26 propeller. However, I will need a thrust bearing and propeller extensio
n. Could you please advise me where I can obtain these.I also believe with
this combination I should get in the vicinity of 70 hp. Is this correct?Tha
nking you once again for all your help in the past and looking forward to m
eeting you maybe one day at Oshkosh if we can make it again. (We were over
there in 1982 - a wonderful show.)Kindest regards - Joe Anderson, Queenslan
d, AustraliaA.=C2-=C2-Dear Joe - It=99s nice to receive a letter
all the way from Australia. Your Pober Pixie=C2-lookalike is going to be
a good looking aircraft. There=99s so many different aircraft to choo
se from, it=99s hard to select one you would really like.Regarding th
e Hitachi carburetor, it will work fine. The venturis are small and functio
nal, but at this
application, you=99ll want to use a larger venturi-type carburetor t
o give you more power, like the Ford Pinto carburetor I=99ve mentione
d before. If you look at them both together, you=99ll use the differe
nce. You=99ll need more air to give more perforrmance because you
=99re running the engine at a higher rpm. The engine has to breathe.Rega
rding the thrust bearing, I don=99t think you=99ll need one. On
the 52 x 26 you should get about 3600 rpm at about 60 or more hp because t
he engine doesn=99t get into the power curve, but you should get 325
- 330 lbs. of thrust.What kind of prop adapter are you using. If you don
=99t have one, you need to get one that you can drill a hole in the cent
er and tap the crank shaft to make a good secure connection.The comment on
tip speed on prop was made by Ed Sterba and I can=99t answer that (Ed
. Note: Yes, you=99re right, the figure should have been .00436 - we
apologize for this error and any confusion this has caused
our readers. The correct formula, then, is: Tip Speed = .00436 x diamete
r x rpm (with the tip speed in ft./sec. and the diameter in inches.)I hope
I=99ve helped in some way. Feel free to write any time.Yours truly -
DonQ.=C2-=C2-Greetings, Don - I=99ve found your work very informa
tive and wonder if I could avail myself=C2-of some of your information se
rvices, while keeping same as short as possible.I=99ve always been im
pressed with the formula for torque, rather than horsepower. In endeavoring
to keep a Subaru conversion as simple as possible the thought occurred to
me to try drive direct and with half rpms. I=99ve often thought about
a blower but with enough input, like a unit from an emission system, to ke
ep a plenum full of intake air. Possibly a special cam shape may help in im
proving induction while exhausting more fully.I realize this sounds extreme
, but it appears the engine has enough flywheel weight to ensure smooth run
ning at low rpms. And, with the
extant oil pump, has any thought been given to oil cooling? I would imagin
e any number of highly developed oil coolers might be available cheaply off
of unused large airplane engines.Any thought or information in this very c
onceptual stage will be greatly appreciated. By the same token, if you have
any special interests, I=99d appreciate knowing them.All the best -
Norman Benedict, Santa Maria, CaliforniaA.=C2-=C2-Dear Norman - Nice re
ceiving your letter and the interest in Subaru powerplant conversions. If y
ou use the EA-81 for small aircraft, straight drive, a 54 x 26 prop would g
ive you 325 lbs. of thrust in the pusher type. You didn=99t mention t
he aircraft you wanted to use. I have no idea what horsepower you want, so
we=99ll cover all the bases.EA-81 - 72 hp (ideal for small aircraft).
With drive would give around 450-475 lbs. of thrust with a 2.2:1 ratio. We
ight with redrive 180 lbs.Legacy - 130 hp, straight drive would give you 45
0-475 lbs. of
thrust. With redrive, 550-570 lbs. of thrust with a 2.1:1 ratio. The weigh
t of the Legacy with drive would range from 180-210 lbs.Oil coolers have be
en used on Subarus and are easy to hook up. There are discharge fittings on
oil pumps that you can use.I hope I=99ve helped you. - DonQ.=C2-
=C2-Dear Don - I have read with great interest the various responses to l
etters in the=C2-EXPERIMENTER concerning the use of Subaru engines in hom
ebuilt aircraft, and you obviously have an extensive knowledge of these pow
erplants.In the November 1994 issue of EXPERIMENTER there was a table publi
shed which defined general engine specifications, which I must assume was f
rom official Subaru sources.When I study the table, I find that the highest
horsepower developed by an EA-81 OHC engines in naturally aspirated forms
do not achieve close to the advertised 98/100 hp advertised by all the majo
r Subaru engine convertors for the EA-81.Any ideas how this massive discrep
ancy occurs
other than a communal dose of advertising licence?I have already ordered a
converted EA-81 engine (SHO) version from what I judge as a professional e
ngineer to be the premium quality source, but I will most certainly be very
pleasantly surprised if the actual power output is in excess of 100 rather
than the advertised 118 hp. Your article appeared two months after I had p
laced my order after much deliberation on the relative merits of the Subaru
versus the Rotax 912 or 914.Incidentally, there would appear to be equal o
ptimism regarding fuel consumption of Rotax engines. A study of the genuine
Rotax fuel flow charts will quickly reveal that one would have to lean the
mixture to unburnable ratios to achieve the popular quoted figures. It was
quite refreshing to read a report in the latest issue of KITPLANES of a fl
ight test of the 914 in the Pelican which quoted realistic fuel consumption
figures which do match the fuel burn rates shown on the Rotax
charts for this engine.Any comments would be most welcome.Yours sincerely
- Fred H. Tayler, Hoffman Estates, ILA.=C2-=C2-Dear Fred - Was nice rec
eiving your letter and very interesting. The EA-81 engines=C2-that they a
dvertise with higher horsepower is accomplished by different cams, shaving
heads and polishing intake and exhaust ports,and sometimes increasing the s
ize of pistons. That=99s how they accomplish the claimed horsepower.T
he fuel consumption of the Rotax engine probably involves an in-cockpit adj
ustment for the carburetor to lean out for better fuel consumption. You can
also do that with the Subaru.I feel that the EA-81 stock works very well w
ithout adding cams, etc. I feel if it works, don=99t mess with it.I h
ope I=99ve answered your questions.
Yours truly - Don=C2-=C2-
__________=C2-engine q&a=C2-__________
=C2-Members Home Page=C2-|=C2-EAA Home Page=C2-|=C2-Chapters=C2
-|=C2-Government=C2-|=C2-Homebuilders
Member Benefits=C2-|=C2-EAA Flight Planner=C2-|=C2-Aviation Advisor
s=C2-|=C2-Magazine Search
Aircraft Facts=C2-|=C2-Update your Profile=C2-|=C2-e-HOT LINE=C2-
|=C2-EAA Airport & Destination Guide
Contact Us=C2-|=C2-AirVenture=C2-|=C2-
- DjD
--- On Tue, 1/8/13, GeoB <gab16(at)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
From: GeoB <gab16(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: 4A084 power?
Thanks for your reply Shack!
I hate it when someone asks a question then argues with someone who answers
him! This isn't my intent here. Since this is a public forum and we have a
public conversation here I am citing some information that I have collecte
d from good sources, simply to keep the lurkers from making wrong decisions
..
> Too heavy for FS I.
I have been wondering about this. Reason I was considering it is that the F
S has a reasonably good gross weight (which I forget), and with not all tha
t many structural changes it became a 2-place. The wings are not as strong
as the 2-place but they are about the same sq footage. That being said, I h
ave no clue if it is *really* too heavy.
My 503 weighs about 98 lbs. The 084 weighs 127 lbs complete with prop in=C2
- a typical setup.
The 084 would be operated direct-drive. At the slow speeds of the FS-I, I t
hink the advantage goes to the 503 with the gear reduction unit.
> =C2- Who said 50 hp?=C2- Gov't rated at 10 hp,; it=C2- may actually
be 20 hp
> From a military manual:
Bore: 3"
Stroke: 3"
Displacement: 84.8 cu in
Rated continuous net hp: 20 (at) 3600 rpm
Max hp 33.3 (at) 3600 rpm
Max torque (at) 2000 rpm; 60.3
This is to 5000 ft.
Note that we free up some serious hp when we remove the huge cooling fan.
Also, remember I said that the 084 cab 'built' to about 50 hp. This is with
out raising the low compression ratio. 084 experts (true experts) suggest t
hat one NOT raise the CR because it would lead to over-heating. One expert
markets an EFI setup for this engine. Over-all he seems to be a conservativ
e can-do person, very believable. His engine is close to 50 hp based on the
size/pitch of prop he spins with it. Most of us interested in the 084 acce
pt that it produces 42-44 hp stock, w/o the fan. About 1/2 hp/cu inch.
> It is 48 c,i., doubt it can produce over 1 hp per=C2- cube.
we are looking at the 084, 84 cu inches. I think you are remembering the sm
aller 2-cylinder, the 2A042 (42 cu inches)
=C2-
> I had one; fun to play with.=C2- Don't waste your time .
Now I am not sure if you had the 042 or the 084. There is a video on Youtub
e with a fella flying around just fine with the 042 on a Minimax. I have se
en videos of several planes flying with the 084 but none of them were Fires
tar-I's. IIRC I have an old pic of a Kolb with an 084 but I can't seem to d
ig up more info on it. I already have three 084's. Haven't had a chance to
crank them up yet. I am planning to build a big workshop but it will be mon
ths before that happens.
=C2-
> You already have the best engine for FS I.
That is gratifying to hear. I like thinking about these swaps but will prob
ably just learn to like a ring-ding.
> Should be good for 500 hrs.
Mine hasn't been run for 5-7 years. I expect I will have to tear it down an
d replace seals, from what I have heard. TT = 38 hours.
Have you seen the 4A032? Cute lil 4-banger! About 70 lbs. I doubt it would
ever be of use for flight but maybe on a Kart! I see that a class of kartin
g using the Honda 390 or clone is getting popular. At 13 hp it really scoot
s. How much nicer to have a 4-banger with cute lil zoomies sticking up! I a
m guessing that it will put out ~14 hp.
GeoB
--------
GeoB
"Members of Congress should be compelled to wear uniforms like NASCAR
drivers, so we could identify their corporate sponsors"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391791#391791
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Time: 11:27:16 AM PST US
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: 4A084 power?
I had a 4ao32 and a 4a084. I put a belt drive on the 32 and ran it on a
mobile test cart [prop driven]
Anemic at best. Would make a very good engine for a very large RC plane.
Also put the 84 on the cart, direct drive. Better, but still weak. I got
rid of all the cooling tin, the cooling fan, and the shielding on the
spark plug wires. I think weight was less than 120 something. We tried
several different carbs; none helped much.
Sure, the 84 is flying on some planes, but I doubt any are flying out of a
short field. Climb rate will be poor compared to a 503.[Even if it were
50 hp.]
If I were to put one on a plane, it would probably be on a lightly built
Minimax. Beef up the nose a little. Paint up the engine real nice. Put on
an efficient wood prop.
Tractor config. is much better at cooling than pusher.[without adding any
cowling].
I had a nice FS II w/ 503, just recently sold it. Getting older and
dumber meant it was time to get out.
Have fun with the 84, just don't expect too much.
Shack
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
Time: 11:36:02 AM PST US
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: 4A084 power?
Using this formula, the 4ao84 would issue about 178 lb. thrust. My 503
gave 375 lb. thrust [static].
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
In a message dated 1/8/2013 12:35:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
dan42101(at)yahoo.com writes:
To get the effective prop swinging horsepower for small direct drive
four-cycle engines, divide the cubic inches by two. That makes an O-200
Continental a 100 horse engine. The hopelessly weak Corvair rated at 150 h
p in a
car has 145 cubic inches like the 65 hp Lycoming, and that=99s about
all it can
do. The 750 cubic Hisso engine is rated at 150 horses but has an effective
propeller power of 375 hp. That=99s why it can turn an eight-foot pr
opeller
and fly a big airplane that a 150 hp Lycoming can barely taxi. The source
of this rule was Hobart Sorrell (now deceased) of Tenino, Washington. His
crafty wits produced the Guppy biplane that flew on a Cushman golf cart
engine.
2) Using the effective power described above, you can multiply times 4-1/4
to get the approximate thrust with typical propeller efficiency of 85%
________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
Time: 02:39:04 PM PST US
From: Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)nctc.com>
Subject: Re: Re: 4A084 power?
The 084 that is flying on a Hi Max is swinging a
62x40 prop at about 4000 rpms...Using a home made
1 to 1.66 redrive ratio... My bud who responded
is the one who built the belted redrive. Not
sure of the thrust? Likely over 200 lbs static...
A friend has a firestar with a 377 and it flies very well...Herb
At 01:35 PM 1/8/2013, you wrote:
> Using this formula, the 4ao84 would issue about
> 178 lb. thrust. My 503 gave 375 lb. thrust [static].
>
> Howard Shackleford
> FS II
> SC
>
> In a message dated 1/8/2013 12:35:07 P.M.
> Eastern Standard Time, dan42101(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
> To get the effective prop swinging horsepower
> for small direct drive four-cycle engines,
> divide the cubic inches by two. That makes an
> O-200 Continental a 100 horse engine. The
> hopelessly weak Corvair rated at 150 hp in a car
> has 145 cubic inches like the 65 hp Lycoming,
> and that=99s about all it can do. The 750 cubic
> Hisso engine is rated at 150 horses but has an
> effective propeller power of 375 hp. That=99s
> why it can turn an eight-foot propeller and fly
> a big airplane that a 150 hp Lycoming can barely
> taxi. The source of this rule was Hobart Sorrell
> (now deceased) of Tenino, Washington. His crafty
> wits produced the Guppy biplane that flew on a Cushman golf cart engine.
>
> 2) Using the effective power described above,
> you can multiply times 4-1/4 to get the
> approximate thrust with typical propeller efficiency of 85%
>
>
________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
Time: 03:27:01 PM PST US
Subject: Re: 4A084 power?
From: "GeoB" <gab16(at)sbcglobal.net>
> a 3600 working RPM you arerestrictedto a small prop
Thanks Rick. This is maybe the biggest draw-back. And with this engine it is a
really big deal to attempt to raise the rpm of torque peak, unless I use EFI..
which will help there given I replace the entire intake manifold. I like doing/planning
engine mods, done that for like 45 years. I have a coupla Generac engines
I plan to modi-fly, I'd rather express myself there.
I wonder about the over-heating issue I have been told about. Sure, more power
generally means more heat. So, if I raise my CR I add to the thermal loading
of the engine, IN THEORY. But since higher CR adds power and efficiency (or just
efficiency which effects power), why couldn't I just back off the throttle
a tad and lower the thermal loading? Should give greater available power for a
short time plus yield better mpg. I think. I am actively soliciting comments
on this idea.
Sure, at full throttle the EFI will produce more heat also but I don't want a setup
that requires full throttle all the time.
GeoB
--------
GeoB
"Members of Congress should be compelled to wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers,
so we could identify their corporate sponsors"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391849#391849
________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
Time: 05:43:06 PM PST US
From: Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: michigan seminar
-=0Amula, our ultralight group is having a safety seminar and annual par
ty kicking off our 25th anniversary. MULA now stands for Michigan ultraligh
t lightsport association. when i put out a post like this our mula web site
receives a real boost in activity. that reflects the real impact of a top
ic, and the activety of a group. =0Ahttp://www.michiganultralight.com/newsl
etter/JAN13/Jan13evers.PDF=0AMalcolm & Jeanne Brubaker =0AMichigan Sport Pi
lot Repair =0Ahttp://michigansportpilotrepair.com/ =0ALSRM-A, PPC, WS=0AGr
eat Sails - Sailmaker =0Afor Ultralight & Light Sport=0A(989)513-3022
|
| | - The Matronics Kolb-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?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
