Recoil starters on small 2-stroke engines

[[email protected]]

Many of the small 2-stroke engines appear to have the recoil
starter positioned so that as one faced the engine the starter
is on the right and the prop on the left. With this configuration
when right-handed person uses their right hand to start the
engine the rest of their body is between the starter and the
prop. This seems to be sub-optimal for safety. Would it
not be better to have the recoil handle on the other side of
the engine so that when pulling the cord the right arm is the
part of the body closest to the prop with the rest of the body
farther away?

Is it possible in general to reposition (rotate) recoil starters
during installation so as to have a choice in the matter?

Also, many volksplanes are routine hand-propped. Is there
any reason why the small 2-cycle engines could not be hand
propped?

[Jean-Paul Roy]

Just install the engine inverted and you have your proper position.
Challengers are like that.

Just an opinion

J.P.
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Many of the small 2-stroke engines appear to have the recoil
> starter positioned so that as one faced the engine the starter
> is on the right and the prop on the left. With this configuration
> when right-handed person uses their right hand to start the
> engine the rest of their body is between the starter and the
> prop. This seems to be sub-optimal for safety. Would it
> not be better to have the recoil handle on the other side of
> the engine so that when pulling the cord the right arm is the
> part of the body closest to the prop with the rest of the body
> farther away?
>
> Is it possible in general to reposition (rotate) recoil starters
> during installation so as to have a choice in the matter?
>
> Also, many volksplanes are routine hand-propped. Is there
> any reason why the small 2-cycle engines could not be hand
> propped?
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:34:48 -0500, "Jean-Paul Roy"
> wrote:

>Just install the engine inverted and you have your proper position.
>Challengers are like that.
>
>Just an opinion
>
>J.P.
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Many of the small 2-stroke engines appear to have the recoil
>> starter positioned so that as one faced the engine the starter
>> is on the right and the prop on the left. With this configuration
>> when right-handed person uses their right hand to start the
>> engine the rest of their body is between the starter and the
>> prop. This seems to be sub-optimal for safety. Would it
>> not be better to have the recoil handle on the other side of
>> the engine so that when pulling the cord the right arm is the
>> part of the body closest to the prop with the rest of the body
>> farther away?
>>
>> Is it possible in general to reposition (rotate) recoil starters
>> during installation so as to have a choice in the matter?
>>

Many small 2 stroke engine starters can be rotated. The other solution
is a cable guide or pulley, and a longer rip-cord.
>> Also, many volksplanes are routine hand-propped. Is there
>> any reason why the small 2-cycle engines could not be hand
>> propped?
>>
>>
>
>

[Denny]

Body armor?

denny

[Mark Smith]

wrote:
>
> Many of the small 2-stroke engines appear to have the recoil
> starter positioned so that as one faced the engine the starter
> is on the right and the prop on the left. With this configuration
> when right-handed person uses their right hand to start the
> engine the rest of their body is between the starter and the
> prop. This seems to be sub-optimal for safety. Would it
> not be better to have the recoil handle on the other side of
> the engine so that when pulling the cord the right arm is the
> part of the body closest to the prop with the rest of the body
> farther away?
>
> Is it possible in general to reposition (rotate) recoil starters
> during installation so as to have a choice in the matter?
>
> Also, many volksplanes are routine hand-propped. Is there
> any reason why the small 2-cycle engines could not be hand
> propped?

Most engines such as the popular Rotax, have the starter bolted on with
many optional positions for the handle.

There are even optional starters for the 532.582/618 that require less
effort than the standard starter.

No reason to get in the prop.

Also, rerouting the starter rope via some smooth ball beraing pullies of
sufficient diamter helps with starting from the seat.

Hand proping is also done but as a last resort when the battery is dead.
They do start easily when hand propped, but it takes a healthy pull on a
blade, then staying out of the way.

Some pushers with tails make getting away from the prop a physical
excercise too.

Benn there, so that, safely !
--


Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620

[Darrel Toepfer]

Mark Smith wrote:
<snip>
> Hand proping is also done but as a last resort when the battery is dead.
> They do start easily when hand propped, but it takes a healthy pull on a
> blade, then staying out of the way.

Through a Rotax gear reduction?

[Mark Smith]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
>
> Mark Smith wrote:
> <snip>
> > Hand proping is also done but as a last resort when the battery is dead.
> > They do start easily when hand propped, but it takes a healthy pull on a
> > blade, then staying out of the way.
>
> Through a Rotax gear reduction?


Yes, a B box with 2.58 gears on several MXL II styled planes and also my
GT 500 with the C box and 3.47 gears

You might be thinking of the E box with the roller clutch and electric
starter built in
--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351
http://www.trikite.com

[Darrel Toepfer]

Mark Smith wrote:

> You might be thinking of the E box with the roller clutch and electric
> starter built in

Must be, thanks... When I was flying this, the owner mentioned against
ever handpropping it:

http://bbs.whodat.net/n6663k/engine.jpg

[[email protected]]

Mark Smith wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Hand proping is also done but as a last resort when the battery is
dead.
> They do start easily when hand propped, but it takes a healthy pull
on a
> blade, then staying out of the way.
>
> Some pushers with tails make getting away from the prop a physical
> excercise too.
>


Thanks, and thnaks to the rest who responded as well.

Supposedly with the adoption of the Light Sport Aircraft regs the FAA
will soon begin stricter enforcement of the FAR 103 weight limits.
'Fat' ultralights will have to get an airworthiness certificate
as Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, or be converted to lawn
ornaments. So I was thinking about how to get as large an engine
as possible, like maybe a Zenoah G-50 on something like a Sadler
Vampire while keeping it under 254 lbs.

A 'sneaky' way to get a few more lbs might be to install the
lightest BRS possible and then take the maximum weight allowance
for a BRS.

Of course since I don't HAVE a Sadler Vampire, the question is
purely academic.

In the case of tractor mounted engines there is also the issue
of keeping the CG from being too far forward.

--

FF

[Mark Smith]

wrote:
>
> Mark Smith wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Hand proping is also done but as a last resort when the battery is
> dead.
> > They do start easily when hand propped, but it takes a healthy pull
> on a
> > blade, then staying out of the way.
> >
> > Some pushers with tails make getting away from the prop a physical
> > excercise too.
> >
>
> Thanks, and thnaks to the rest who responded as well.
>
> Supposedly with the adoption of the Light Sport Aircraft regs the FAA
> will soon begin stricter enforcement of the FAR 103 weight limits.


where are they going to get the hundreds of new inspectors to do this
effort,


> 'Fat' ultralights will have to get an airworthiness certificate
> as Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, or be converted to lawn
> ornaments.

actually, homebuilt is still available for us, no lawn ornaments. that
statement was made by an FnAA employee who got canned from the sprot
pile it program, she is no longer around,

So I was thinking about how to get as large an engine
> as possible, like maybe a Zenoah G-50 on something like a Sadler
> Vampire while keeping it under 254 lbs.
>
> A 'sneaky' way to get a few more lbs might be to install the
> lightest BRS possible and then take the maximum weight allowance
> for a BRS.

I have some hand deployed chutes that will easily weigh less than any
BRS, cannister, rocket, etc,

and they count the saem,

actually, some BRS's weigh more than the allowance with mounting, so
hurt your empty weight,

also, getting the smallest one may be false safety as it may be too
small for the gross, depending on the pile it weight


>
> Of course since I don't HAVE a Sadler Vampire, the question is
> purely academic.
>
> In the case of tractor mounted engines there is also the issue
> of keeping the CG from being too far forward.
>
> --
>
> FF

--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351
http://www.trikite.com

[[email protected]]

Mark Smith wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Mark Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Hand proping is also done but as a last resort when the battery
is
> > dead.
> > > They do start easily when hand propped, but it takes a healthy
pull
> > on a
> > > blade, then staying out of the way.
> > >
> > > Some pushers with tails make getting away from the prop a
physical
> > > excercise too.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks, and thnaks to the rest who responded as well.
> >
> > Supposedly with the adoption of the Light Sport Aircraft regs the
FAA
> > will soon begin stricter enforcement of the FAR 103 weight limits.
>
>
> where are they going to get the hundreds of new inspectors to do this
> effort,
>
>
> > 'Fat' ultralights will have to get an airworthiness certificate
> > as Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, or be converted to lawn
> > ornaments.
>
> actually, homebuilt is still available for us, no lawn ornaments.
that
> statement was made by an FnAA employee who got canned from the sprot
> pile it program, she is no longer around,

I heard it from an EAA guy who recently gave us a very informative
talk on the new LSA regs. He said that 'lawn ornament' was becoming
popular jargon at the FAA.

Don't non-FAR 103 compliant homebuilts require an airworthiness
certificate? (That is what I wrote.) Won't homebuilts now be
Experimental Light Sport Aircraft?, Is that the part I got wrong?

What if the 'homebuilt' was a factory built 'Fat' ultralight?

I heard it from an EAA guy who recently gave us a very informative
talk on the new LSA regs.

>
> So I was thinking about how to get as large an engine
> > as possible, like maybe a Zenoah G-50 on something like a Sadler
> > Vampire while keeping it under 254 lbs.
> >
> > A 'sneaky' way to get a few more lbs might be to install the
> > lightest BRS possible and then take the maximum weight allowance
> > for a BRS.
>
> ... getting the smallest one may be false safety as it may be too
> small for the gross, depending on the pile it weight

E.g. lightest possible should be read lightest that is adequate for
gross weight. Was your spell checker that substituted 'pile it'
for a typoed 'pilot'? Actually a propos considering the context....

--

FF

[Morgans]

"Mark Smith" > wrote
>
> Hand proping is also done but as a last resort when the battery is dead.
> They do start easily when hand propped, but it takes a healthy pull on a
> blade, then staying out of the way.

Does the fact that the two strokes have a gearbox, make the hand propping
harder? My guess is yes.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Wendell]

wrote:
> popular jargon at the FAA.
>
> Don't non-FAR 103 compliant homebuilts require an airworthiness
> certificate? (That is what I wrote.) Won't homebuilts now be
> Experimental Light Sport Aircraft?, Is that the part I got wrong?
>
> What if the 'homebuilt' was a factory built 'Fat' ultralight?
>

If the aircraft meets the 51% rule, it can be registered as an amateur
built experimental. A factory built, 'fat' ultralight must be, legally,
registered as an ELSA.

[Mark Smith]

wrote:
>
> Mark Smith wrote:
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Hand proping is also done but as a last resort when the battery
> is
> > > dead.
> > > > They do start easily when hand propped, but it takes a healthy
> pull
> > > on a
> > > > blade, then staying out of the way.
> > > >
> > > > Some pushers with tails make getting away from the prop a
> physical
> > > > excercise too.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, and thnaks to the rest who responded as well.
> > >
> > > Supposedly with the adoption of the Light Sport Aircraft regs the
> FAA
> > > will soon begin stricter enforcement of the FAR 103 weight limits.
> >
> >
> > where are they going to get the hundreds of new inspectors to do this
> > effort,
> >
> >
> > > 'Fat' ultralights will have to get an airworthiness certificate
> > > as Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, or be converted to lawn
> > > ornaments.
> >
> > actually, homebuilt is still available for us, no lawn ornaments.
> that
> > statement was made by an FnAA employee who got canned from the sprot
> > pile it program, she is no longer around,
>
> I heard it from an EAA guy who recently gave us a very informative
> talk on the new LSA regs. He said that 'lawn ornament' was becoming
> popular jargon at the FAA.
>
> Don't non-FAR 103 compliant homebuilts require an airworthiness
> certificate? (That is what I wrote.) Won't homebuilts now be
> Experimental Light Sport Aircraft?, Is that the part I got wrong?
>
> What if the 'homebuilt' was a factory built 'Fat' ultralight?
>
> I heard it from an EAA guy who recently gave us a very informative
> talk on the new LSA regs.

most don't know much about the regs as much of the so called regs
haven't been written/approved, and are being changed as special interest
groups complain,

this whole rule was written by those who don't fly much about planes
they don't fly at all,,,,,,,


>
> >
> > So I was thinking about how to get as large an engine
> > > as possible, like maybe a Zenoah G-50 on something like a Sadler
> > > Vampire while keeping it under 254 lbs.
> > >
> > > A 'sneaky' way to get a few more lbs might be to install the
> > > lightest BRS possible and then take the maximum weight allowance
> > > for a BRS.
> >
> > ... getting the smallest one may be false safety as it may be too
> > small for the gross, depending on the pile it weight
>
> E.g. lightest possible should be read lightest that is adequate for
> gross weight. Was your spell checker that substituted 'pile it'
> for a typoed 'pilot'? Actually a propos considering the context....
>
> --
>
> FF


typin in the dark with two fingers makes appropriate typos come and go,

if i like one, it stays,

experimental homebuilt is separate from sprot pile it, the full typo
just for you

any ultralight may be disassembled, rebuilt, and N numbered as a
homebuilt,

that is what should have happened to stay legal for the past twenty
years or more,

with sprot, several new classifications are available, but all require
special inspectors, many hours of schooling to inspect your own plane,
many many more to actually work on it

none of this required with ex homebuilt,


--


Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620

[Mark Smith]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Mark Smith" > wrote
> >
> > Hand proping is also done but as a last resort when the battery is dead.
> > They do start easily when hand propped, but it takes a healthy pull on a
> > blade, then staying out of the way.
>
> Does the fact that the two strokes have a gearbox, make the hand propping
> harder? My guess is yes.
> --
> Jim in NC


actually, since the engines are much smaller than the typical GA tractor
motor, and the gearbox gives you a speeup in the process, I feel they
are as easy plus or minus a bit either way,

if things are right, prime, throttle opening, general condition, first
pull starts are more the norm than not,

same goes for hand propping
--


Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620

[[email protected]]

Mark Smith wrote:
>
>
> any ultralight may be disassembled, rebuilt, and N numbered as a
> homebuilt,
>
> that is what should have happened to stay legal for the past twenty
> years or more,

That was my thinking too. But supposedly after a couple of years the
FAA will not allow 'Fat' ultralights to be re-certified. Two
obvious questions being how would the FAA know what the homebuilder
started with when he started (re) building it. How would, (and
why would) the FAA distinguish between a rebuilt 'Fat" UL and
a scratch-built knock off of a 'Fat' UL? Voluntary compliance
I would suppose.

--

FF

[Mark Smith]

wrote:
>
> Mark Smith wrote:
> >
> >
> > any ultralight may be disassembled, rebuilt, and N numbered as a
> > homebuilt,
> >
> > that is what should have happened to stay legal for the past twenty
> > years or more,
>
> That was my thinking too. But supposedly after a couple of years the
> FAA will not allow 'Fat' ultralights to be re-certified. Two
> obvious questions being how would the FAA know what the homebuilder
> started with when he started (re) building it. How would, (and
> why would) the FAA distinguish between a rebuilt 'Fat" UL and
> a scratch-built knock off of a 'Fat' UL? Voluntary compliance
> I would suppose.
>
> --
>
> FF


what they would like,, as a punishment for past violations of 103 that
went unpunished,,,,,,,
maybe is that we all lose a lot of money when the 'time is up' for
registering under the severly flawed sprot pile it plane rules,,,,,,,


but I like you, feel that there is NO WAY to stop anyone from
constructing a plane using any parts from where ever, fat ul or the
kitchen door, and calling it a plane, asking for and getting an N
number,

If stephenson can get a business going using the stupid rules he helped
write more power to him,

bigtime Pols and their near criminal partners do it every day using
government funds, etc

I could just as easily start a business where I buy and sell the 'lawn
ornaments' and sell them back for the purchase price and a buck, they
then have a clear title to the newly purchased kit, with the papertrail
totally OK for the homebuilt rule paperwork,,,,,,,,,

Pols write laws and leave loopholes all the time, then squeak inbetween
them charging you and I lots of money to get out of a jam,

no reason we can't do the same,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,





--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351
http://www.trikite.com

[Mark Smith]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
>
> Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > You might be thinking of the E box with the roller clutch and electric
> > starter built in
>
> Must be, thanks... When I was flying this, the owner mentioned against
> ever handpropping it:
>
> http://bbs.whodat.net/n6663k/engine.jpg


That pic s of the C box, not the E

so the starter is on the front end of the engine, not visible in the
picture,

I hand proped this exact combo many times,,,,,,,,,,,,,some for showing
how to do it, a couple because the battery was dead.
--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351
http://www.trikite.com