Ultralight motors?

[Richard Lamb]

I'm looking for a 35-50 hp 2 stroke suitable for a legal 103.7
ultralight. Anybody here know of a Rotax 477 or 503 - or a suitable
substitute that is not being used by some other fool?


Now I know that "friends don't let friends fly 2 strokes", but with
the (bleepin') catch-22 in the spot pilot rules, that about all that's
left to me.

Richard

[Scott]

Hows about a 1/2 VW? I think Len Milholland's 1/2 does about 30-35 HP.
Not sure what the finished weight is though...

Scott


Richard Lamb wrote:
> I'm looking for a 35-50 hp 2 stroke suitable for a legal 103.7
> ultralight. Anybody here know of a Rotax 477 or 503 - or a suitable
> substitute that is not being used by some other fool?
>
>
> Now I know that "friends don't let friends fly 2 strokes", but with
> the (bleepin') catch-22 in the spot pilot rules, that about all that's
> left to me.
>
> Richard
>

[Mike Gaskins]

I'm not sure if the weihgt is similar, but Hummel also makes a 1/2 VW
engine but in all of their planes it puts it over US ultralight
weights. IIRC (and I might not), the difference between the equivalent
2-stroke Rotax was around 25 pounds. If you start out with a light
enough design to begin with it might make it.

One major plus with the 1/2 VW is the fuel consumption. From what I've
heard it's down around 1.3GPH. That's some pretty cheap flying ;).

[Richard Lamb]

Weight is always an issue. But it's not the only one.

Leonard's approach keeps the block intact (not cut in half), so it
will be a little heavier than needed. It is sturdier, tho.

The real down side to ANY 1/2 VW setup is the vibration.
It's a low frequency - high amplitude shake that is not ok on an
extremely light airframe.

I also have doubts about the 30-35 HP specification.
VW engines are fin area limited. While they can make the claimed
power - for a short time - once the heat limit is reached, the power
MUST be reduced to avoid overheating and failures.
I'd believe 20 to MAYBE 25 hp continuous.

Lastly, there he RPM issue. In order to make power, the engine
has to be spun up. That requires a VERY short propeller, and
LESS than 50% prop effeciency.

My most recent parasol (I hate to say my LAST parasol, but...)
has a Great Plains 2180 VW on it. It also has a 60 inch long
Tennessee Props propeller. The long prop limits max rpm to
less than 3000 static. That's well below the RPM needed for max
HP, but it's still high enough on the torque curev to pull ok.

The long prop increases prop effeceincy to the point that overall
performance is actually quite good.

With all the accessories, that engine weighs in ar 208 lbs (!).

So, all things considered, I think a two-stroke would be the proper
choice for a true ultralight.

254 pounds is a damned difficult limit.


Richard

(Pardon, please, my spelling errors. Posting via Yahoo has it's
limits too)

[Montblack]

("Richard Lamb" wrote)
[snips]
> Weight is always an issue. But it's not the only one.
>
> I also have doubts about the 30-35 HP specification.
> VW engines are fin area limited. While they can make the claimed
> power - for a short time - once the heat limit is reached, the power
> MUST be reduced to avoid overheating and failures.
> I'd believe 20 to MAYBE 25 hp continuous.

> So, all things considered, I think a two-stroke would be the proper
> choice for a true ultralight.
>
> 254 pounds is a damned difficult limit.


http://www.aero-works.net/store/detail.aspx?ID=87
Horsepower 16.5 HP, Weight 7.85 lbs., Length 7.3 inches, Width 12.5 inches,
Propeller sizes 28 x 10, 32 x 12 ........$1,495.95

Two of these gives you 33 hp at 16 lbs.

What the heck ...a Tri-Motor. 50 hp for 24 lbs. <g>

Original CriCri had two 9 hp engines and it still managed 100+ mph.

http://www.flight.cz/cricri/english/cri-cri-technical-description.php
"Nowadays, builders are using engines Valmet, JPX, Limbach, 3W, Rotax,
Zenoah, Hirth, and I am glad to see, that are recommended also Czech ZDZ
Model."

(For people [like me] who enjoy Googling for more information - engines)


Montblack
CriCri list at Yahoo

[[email protected]]

Montblack wrote:
>
>
> http://www.aero-works.net/store/detail.aspx?ID=87
> Horsepower 16.5 HP, Weight 7.85 lbs., Length 7.3 inches, Width 12.5 inches,
> Propeller sizes 28 x 10, 32 x 12 ........$1,495.95
>

What's the TBO on that engine, one hour or two?

--

FF

[Jim Carriere]

wrote:

> Montblack wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.aero-works.net/store/detail.aspx?ID=87
>>Horsepower 16.5 HP, Weight 7.85 lbs., Length 7.3 inches, Width 12.5 inches,
>>Propeller sizes 28 x 10, 32 x 12 ........$1,495.95
>>
>
>
> What's the TBO on that engine, one hour or two?

If you care for it properly and run it often instead of letting it
sit for long periods, then it should exceed TBO :)

[Morgans]

> wrote

> What's the TBO on that engine, one hour or two?

I have seen little engines of that type that are surprisedly well built.
Details such as roller bearing on the crankshaft, and needle bearings on the
rod large end. Nickel coated iron sleeve, and ringed piston. They will run
many hours without attention, if kept cool and well lubricated.

The biggest issue I see with those engines is the fact that it is not a
mixture controllable carb. I suppose you could rig up something to adjust
the needle settings.

How about a 1 person B-17? Or a lay down B-29, with the pilot looking out
the nose?

Oh, I've got it! A B-36! Add some of those model jet engines! 6 turnin'
and 4 burnin'!

<BFG>
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2005 14:08:00 -0700, "Richard Lamb" >
> wrote:
>
> :I'm looking for a 35-50 hp 2 stroke suitable for a legal 103.7
> :ultralight. Anybody here know of a Rotax 477 or 503 - or a suitable
> :substitute that is not being used by some other fool?
>
> Take a look at these, especially the weight...
>
> http://www.zanzotteraengines.com/498ai.htm
>
> http://www.ultralightnews.com/sunfun2001/zanzottera.htm

Zonzonetta says they are buidling for the UAV market, it is
far from clear that they would knowingly sell for a manned
aircraft.

That said, has anyone ever seen price information for one of these?

--

FF

[Richard Lamb]

No pricing shown on their web page.
And the gearbox info was a little thin.
But that 498 does look like a potential winner.



Richard

[[email protected]]

Richard Lamb wrote:
> No pricing shown on their web page.
> And the gearbox info was a little thin.
> But that 498 does look like a potential winner.
>

Their claimed HP/weight ratios are pretty extreme, they
are claiming better than 1 HP /pound for their larger
engines. They also say they are using some fairly
exotic materials.

Perhpas that is why the don't bother listing
prices--If you have to ask, you can't afford one.

Still, it can't hurt to ask...

--

FF

[Richard Riley]

The bad news is that the 498 isn't available in the US. And it's not
available for UL use, and there isn't a PSRU

The good news is that they do have a US distributor

http://www.compactradialengines.com/engines.html

[W P Dixon]

Hmmmm,
I like the 85 HP three cylinder..110 lbs isn't bad. probably more money
than I can afford for it. The little radials are really cool!!!

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The bad news is that the 498 isn't available in the US. And it's not
> available for UL use, and there isn't a PSRU
>
> The good news is that they do have a US distributor
>
> http://www.compactradialengines.com/engines.html
>

[Richard Lamb]

110 pounds for engine dry weight is WAY too heavy, Pat.

Not that it's to heavy for an 85 hp engine (it's not bad at all)

BUT..
FAR103.7 dictates an empty wet (for the entire airplane) as 254 pounds.
So 110 pounds for the engine is completely out of the question.

I've thought about building another Texas Parasol - as light as
possible - with a
Rotax 503 for power - but it's looks like about 300 pounds is the best
I could
expect.

Nice airplane, but I don't think the Friendly Aviation Agency would buy
the idea
that the extra weight is purely a safety feature (a good solid
structure weighs more
than a fiberglass seat bolted to an aluminum tube keel "fuselage"
- but it provides much better pilot protection in case of an accidental
contact with
the ground, etc)

Well, put like that, maybe????


Richard

[Richard Lamb]

110 pounds for engine dry weight is WAY too heavy, Pat.

Not that it's to heavy for an 85 hp engine (it's not bad at all)

BUT..
FAR103.7 dictates an empty wet (for the entire airplane) as 254 pounds.
So 110 pounds for the engine is completely out of the question.

I've thought about building another Texas Parasol - as light as
possible - with a
Rotax 503 for power - but it's looks like about 300 pounds is the best
I could
expect.

Nice airplane, but I don't think the Friendly Aviation Agency would buy
the idea
that the extra weight is purely a safety feature (a good solid
structure weighs more
than a fiberglass seat bolted to an aluminum tube keel "fuselage"
- but it provides much better pilot protection in case of an accidental
contact with
the ground, etc)

Well, put like that, maybe????


Richard

[dje]

http://www.hirth-engines.de/english/

http://www.recpower.com/f23.htm


David



"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm looking for a 35-50 hp 2 stroke suitable for a legal 103.7
> ultralight. Anybody here know of a Rotax 477 or 503 - or a suitable
> substitute that is not being used by some other fool?
>
>
> Now I know that "friends don't let friends fly 2 strokes", but with
> the (bleepin') catch-22 in the spot pilot rules, that about all that's
> left to me.
>
> Richard
>

[Richard Lamb]

Thanks, David.

I'll pass the link to that 3202 to Jim Bede.
Sure looks like what he wanted for the BD-5 ;^)

Richard

[Anthony W]

dje wrote:
> http://www.hirth-engines.de/english/
>
> http://www.recpower.com/f23.htm
>
>
> David
>

That opposed 4 is rather impressive if it delivers what it promises, 102
HP and only 92.4 pounds. I hate to ask what one of those costs...

Tony

[Richard Lamb]

Yepper!
But what ever it costs, it;s going to be less (a LOT less) than a
Lycoming...


Richard

[[email protected]]

Richard Lamb wrote:
> 110 pounds for engine dry weight is WAY too heavy, Pat.
>
> Not that it's to heavy for an 85 hp engine (it's not bad at all)
>
> BUT..
> FAR103.7 dictates an empty wet (for the entire airplane) as 254 pounds.
> So 110 pounds for the engine is completely out of the question.
>
> I've thought about building another Texas Parasol - as light as
> possible - with a
> Rotax 503 for power - but it's looks like about 300 pounds is the best
> I could
> expect.
>

That sounds odd, I have a set of plans on CD that claim the
Texas Parasol can be built as an ultralight.

;-)



--

FF

[UltraJohn]

Anthony W wrote:

> dje wrote:
>> http://www.hirth-engines.de/english/
>>
>> http://www.recpower.com/f23.htm
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>
> That opposed 4 is rather impressive if it delivers what it promises, 102
> HP and only 92.4 pounds. I hate to ask what one of those costs...
>
> Tony


Free Air Electric Start G40 Gear Box $7985.00
Add approximately $2000 for fuel injection

But really do you want to spend that much money and still have to mess with
mixing fuel and oil? These engines do not have automix oil/fuel.
I guess it would be ok for casually around the patch flying but what 103
legal ultralite really needs 100 hp?
John

[UltraJohn]

wrote:

>
> Richard Lamb wrote:
>> 110 pounds for engine dry weight is WAY too heavy, Pat.
>>
>> Not that it's to heavy for an 85 hp engine (it's not bad at all)
>>
>> BUT..
>> FAR103.7 dictates an empty wet (for the entire airplane) as 254 pounds.
>> So 110 pounds for the engine is completely out of the question.
>>
>> I've thought about building another Texas Parasol - as light as
>> possible - with a
>> Rotax 503 for power - but it's looks like about 300 pounds is the best
>> I could
>> expect.
>>
>
> That sounds odd, I have a set of plans on CD that claim the
> Texas Parasol can be built as an ultralight.
>
> ;-)
>
>
>

Yes I noticed the grin so I guess you know there was a LOT of claims out
there that were no where near right!
John

[[email protected]]

UltraJohn wrote:
> Anthony W wrote:
>
> > dje wrote:
> >> http://www.hirth-engines.de/english/
> >>
> >> http://www.recpower.com/f23.htm
> >>
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >
> > That opposed 4 is rather impressive if it delivers what it promises, 102
> > HP and only 92.4 pounds. I hate to ask what one of those costs...
> >
> > Tony
>
>
> Free Air Electric Start G40 Gear Box $7985.00
> Add approximately $2000 for fuel injection
>
> But really do you want to spend that much money and still have to mess with
> mixing fuel and oil? These engines do not have automix oil/fuel.
> I guess it would be ok for casually around the patch flying but what 103
> legal ultralite really needs 100 hp?
>

An ultralight gyrocopter perhaps.

Otherwise, for an UL, something with a lot of drag.

But there isn't any regulation that prohibits using a 2
stroke on a light sportplane or experimental is there?
Mixing gas and oil may well be worth the minor hassle
to many pilots given the weight savings. Could that
engine be used on an aerobatic plane?

--

FF

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>Anthony W wrote:
>
>> dje wrote:
>>> http://www.hirth-engines.de/english/
>>>
>>> http://www.recpower.com/f23.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>
>> That opposed 4 is rather impressive if it delivers what it promises,
> 102
>> HP and only 92.4 pounds. I hate to ask what one of those costs...
>>
>> Tony
>
>
>Free Air Electric Start G40 Gear Box $7985.00
>Add approximately $2000 for fuel injection
>
>But really do you want to spend that much money and still have to mess
> with
>mixing fuel and oil? These engines do not have automix oil/fuel.
>I guess it would be ok for casually around the patch flying but what 1
>03
>legal ultralite really needs 100 hp?
>John
>

You can get oil injection on them so you don't have to mix oil.

[Anthony W]

UltraJohn wrote:
> Anthony W wrote:
>
>
>>dje wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.hirth-engines.de/english/
>>>
>>>http://www.recpower.com/f23.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>David
>>>
>>
>>That opposed 4 is rather impressive if it delivers what it promises, 102
>>HP and only 92.4 pounds. I hate to ask what one of those costs...
>>
>>Tony
>
>
>
> Free Air Electric Start G40 Gear Box $7985.00
> Add approximately $2000 for fuel injection
>
> But really do you want to spend that much money and still have to mess with
> mixing fuel and oil? These engines do not have automix oil/fuel.
> I guess it would be ok for casually around the patch flying but what 103
> legal ultralite really needs 100 hp?
> John
>

I was thinking about one for a sport plane. Where did you get the price
info? I'd like to know how much the forced fan cooling system adds to
the price.

Oil injection would be nice but for that power to weight ratio, I could
live without it.

Tony

[UltraJohn]

Anthony W wrote:

> UltraJohn wrote:
>> Anthony W wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dje wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.hirth-engines.de/english/
>>>>
>>>>http://www.recpower.com/f23.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>>
>>>
>>>That opposed 4 is rather impressive if it delivers what it promises, 102
>>>HP and only 92.4 pounds. I hate to ask what one of those costs...
>>>
>>>Tony
>>
>>
>>
>> Free Air Electric Start G40 Gear Box $7985.00
>> Add approximately $2000 for fuel injection
>>
>> But really do you want to spend that much money and still have to mess
>> with mixing fuel and oil? These engines do not have automix oil/fuel.
>> I guess it would be ok for casually around the patch flying but what 103
>> legal ultralite really needs 100 hp?
>> John
>>
>
> I was thinking about one for a sport plane. Where did you get the price
> info? I'd like to know how much the forced fan cooling system adds to
> the price.
>
> Oil injection would be nice but for that power to weight ratio, I could
> live without it.
>
> Tony
$800 additional for forced air!

http://www.recpower.com/f302c11.htm

[UltraJohn]

wrote:

>
> UltraJohn wrote:
>> Anthony W wrote:
>>
>> > dje wrote:
>> >> http://www.hirth-engines.de/english/
>> >>
>> >> http://www.recpower.com/f23.htm
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> David
>> >>
>> >
>> > That opposed 4 is rather impressive if it delivers what it promises,
>> > 102
>> > HP and only 92.4 pounds. I hate to ask what one of those costs...
>> >
>> > Tony
>>
>>
>> Free Air Electric Start G40 Gear Box $7985.00
>> Add approximately $2000 for fuel injection
>>
>> But really do you want to spend that much money and still have to mess
>> with mixing fuel and oil? These engines do not have automix oil/fuel.
>> I guess it would be ok for casually around the patch flying but what 103
>> legal ultralite really needs 100 hp?
>>
>
> An ultralight gyrocopter perhaps.
>
> Otherwise, for an UL, something with a lot of drag.
>
> But there isn't any regulation that prohibits using a 2
> stroke on a light sportplane or experimental is there?
> Mixing gas and oil may well be worth the minor hassle
> to many pilots given the weight savings. Could that
> engine be used on an aerobatic plane?
>
I'd think you could especially with the fuel injected model. Still IMHO
there are too many other options out there to have to mess with mixing oil.
Even if I built just for the short haul eventually (like in 4+ years when
I retire!) I'd like to mousy (SP) around the country a bit and not have to
lug that 2 stroke oil around !
John

[UltraJohn]

sleepy6 wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>Anthony W wrote:
>>
>>> dje wrote:
>>>> http://www.hirth-engines.de/english/
>>>>
>>>> http://www.recpower.com/f23.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>
>>> That opposed 4 is rather impressive if it delivers what it promises,
>> 102
>>> HP and only 92.4 pounds. I hate to ask what one of those costs...
>>>
>>> Tony
>>
>>
>>Free Air Electric Start G40 Gear Box $7985.00
>>Add approximately $2000 for fuel injection
>>
>>But really do you want to spend that much money and still have to mess
>> with
>>mixing fuel and oil? These engines do not have automix oil/fuel.
>>I guess it would be ok for casually around the patch flying but what 1
>>03
>>legal ultralite really needs 100 hp?
>>John
>>
>
> You can get oil injection on them so you don't have to mix oil.
Maybe, but their web page listed no such option. and all of them listed the
required mix ration for the oil/fuel.
Oh and it's listed as 105lbs plus add another 24lbs for the gearbox and
another 8.5 for the forced air! It starts adding up. Also if you do find
another model that has oil injection you'll need to add more weight for the
oil tank and yes the oil also it uses a ;-) (at least my old Kawasaki 500
did, but it sure could move!).
John

[Morgans]

"UltraJohn" > wrote

> I'd think you could especially with the fuel injected model. Still IMHO
> there are too many other options out there to have to mess with mixing
oil.
> Even if I built just for the short haul eventually (like in 4+ years when
> I retire!) I'd like to mousy (SP) around the country a bit and not have to
> lug that 2 stroke oil around !

To me, the big turn-off of mixing oil is not the hassle of mixing, but the
fact that once the oil is mixed, it starts to degrade, very quickly.

What would you do to avoid this? Use all of your gas on every flight?
Sounds like a good way to run out, so using it all would not be an option.
Drain it after every flight, and find an alternate way to use it? Tough way
to go, doing that.

Perhaps this is not a big issue, when practical experience has been applied,
but I know the condition does exist.
--
Jim in NC

[Anthony W]

Morgans wrote:

>
>>Even if I built just for the short haul eventually (like in 4+ years when
>>I retire!) I'd like to mousy (SP) around the country a bit and not have to
>>lug that 2 stroke oil around !
>
>
> To me, the big turn-off of mixing oil is not the hassle of mixing, but the
> fact that once the oil is mixed, it starts to degrade, very quickly.
>
> What would you do to avoid this? Use all of your gas on every flight?
> Sounds like a good way to run out, so using it all would not be an option.
> Drain it after every flight, and find an alternate way to use it? Tough way
> to go, doing that.
>
> Perhaps this is not a big issue, when practical experience has been applied,
> but I know the condition does exist.

The only reason that gas and oil separates is that it is either caster
based oil or high alcohol content fuel. From my motorcycle racing days
I don't trust synthetic oil but it will stay mixed with alcohol.
Shaking up the tank will remix all but caster based oils. Use avgas and
mineral based 2 stroke oil and they shouldn't separate for the working
life of stored fuel.

Tony

[Anthony W]

UltraJohn wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>But there isn't any regulation that prohibits using a 2
>>stroke on a light sportplane or experimental is there?
>>Mixing gas and oil may well be worth the minor hassle
>>to many pilots given the weight savings. Could that
>>engine be used on an aerobatic plane?
>>
>
> I'd think you could especially with the fuel injected model. Still IMHO
> there are too many other options out there to have to mess with mixing oil.
> Even if I built just for the short haul eventually (like in 4+ years when
> I retire!) I'd like to mousy (SP) around the country a bit and not have to
> lug that 2 stroke oil around !
> John

One quart of oil will do for 4 or 5 fill ups depending on the size of
your tank. One thing that I find peculiar is that Hirth doesn't list
any expansion chamber exhaust systems. A good expansion chamber can
easily double the HP and one more mildly tuned would add another 25% no
problem.

Not that I can afford one of these at the moment but if I could, I'd be
working on a way to stuff one of these in an old BMW motorcycle chassis.
;o) Talk about go like stink...

Tony

[Anthony W]

Morgans wrote:
> "Anthony W" > wrote
>
>
>>Not that I can afford one of these at the moment but if I could, I'd be
>>working on a way to stuff one of these in an old BMW motorcycle chassis.
>> ;o) Talk about go like stink...
>
>
> That would be a real trick, since the BMW motorcycles use the engine case as
> part of the frame.

Only the new ones do. I've seen a 1600cc VW bug engine in an older BMW.

Tony

[Morgans]

"Anthony W" > wrote

> Use avgas and
> mineral based 2 stroke oil and they shouldn't separate for the working
> life of stored fuel.

That is not what I recall. I think it was the two stroke ultralight group
that gave me that information, but I don't remember for sure where it was.
It seemed quite definite.

I don't think it was a separation problem, but rather the performance of the
oil suffering, or the octane level lowering, or something. I think it was
the Rotax opinion that said you should always use freshly mixed gas, or risk
ruining the engine.

Anyone have a clue what I am remembering? I didn't commit to total recall,
because I will never fly behind a 2 stroke. I would rather not fly, if that
is the only choice.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Anthony W" > wrote

> Not that I can afford one of these at the moment but if I could, I'd be
> working on a way to stuff one of these in an old BMW motorcycle chassis.
> ;o) Talk about go like stink...

That would be a real trick, since the BMW motorcycles use the engine case as
part of the frame.
--
Jim in NC

[Richard Lamb]

Hmm, I thought it said "Tips for building UltraLight"?

>Yes I noticed the grin so I guess you know there was a LOT of claims out
>there that were no where near right!
>John

Ok, mea culpa a little bit too.

While on the subject, didja notice how many "Sport Legal" airplanes
there were
before the specs were even decided?


"A man believes what he wants, and disregards the rest."
Paul
Simon

[UltraJohn]

> One quart of oil will do for 4 or 5 fill ups depending on the size of
> your tank. One thing that I find peculiar is that Hirth doesn't list
> any expansion chamber exhaust systems. A good expansion chamber can
> easily double the HP and one more mildly tuned would add another 25% no
> problem.
>
> Tony

Expansion chamber exhaust get their power increases over a very narrow
range. Generally designed on a motorcycle to give max power at near max
rpm. This is not what you want in an airplane where you plan on cruising at
75% power (then again if your working on a race airplane. . .).
I think they said 40 or 50 to one so that makes 1 quart per 10 to 12 gallons
so probably 1/2 to 2 quarts per fill up depending on tank (5 gal UL to 25
gallon regular plane (had to resist saying "real plane")).
John

[UltraJohn]

Richard Lamb wrote:

> Hmm, I thought it said "Tips for building UltraLight"?
>
>>Yes I noticed the grin so I guess you know there was a LOT of claims out
>>there that were no where near right!
>>John
>
> Ok, mea culpa a little bit too.
>
> While on the subject, didja notice how many "Sport Legal" airplanes
> there were
> before the specs were even decided?
>
>
> "A man believes what he wants, and disregards the rest."
> Paul
> Simon

Yes but at least with the "sport legal" they could control max speed with
prop changes and set the gross weight at whatever the regs stated. So at
least they had the capability of having a "sport legal" when the standards
did come out ( and some did ie 601XL for starters).
John

[Anthony W]

UltraJohn wrote:
>
>
>>One quart of oil will do for 4 or 5 fill ups depending on the size of
>>your tank. One thing that I find peculiar is that Hirth doesn't list
>>any expansion chamber exhaust systems. A good expansion chamber can
>>easily double the HP and one more mildly tuned would add another 25% no
>>problem.
>>
>>Tony
>
>
> Expansion chamber exhaust get their power increases over a very narrow
> range. Generally designed on a motorcycle to give max power at near max
> rpm. This is not what you want in an airplane where you plan on cruising at
> 75% power (then again if your working on a race airplane. . .).
> I think they said 40 or 50 to one so that makes 1 quart per 10 to 12 gallons
> so probably 1/2 to 2 quarts per fill up depending on tank (5 gal UL to 25
> gallon regular plane (had to resist saying "real plane")).
> John

It depends on the design of the pipe. I used to build expansion
chambers and you can either design them for max out put on one end of
the scale or a broad power-band. The street pipes I used to build were
somewhere in the middle leaning toward broad power-band. It would be
easy to pick up 20% over straight exhaust pipes on a well made engine
like the Hirth or Rotax within the normal operating RPM.

I think one of the Hirth 4's with fan cooling might have been able to
keep mini-500's in the air but this is pure speculation.

If you ever find a copy, read the Two Stroke Tuners Handbook by Gordon
Jennings. He could be a real butthole at times but he knew his stuff.
I loaned my copy out and never got it back. It took me 20 years to
track down another copy...

BTW, bike engines need a broader power-band than airplane engines. A
bike engine has to make usable power from 3k to red-line. I don't know
for sure but don't most aircraft engines run within a 2k RPM range in
flight?

Tony

[Morgans]

"Anthony W" > wrote

> Only the new ones do. I've seen a 1600cc VW bug engine in an older BMW.

Must have been real old. I know the '75 60R did not have a real frame.
--
Jim in NC

[Anthony W]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:48:49 GMT, Anthony W >
> wrote:
>
> :If you ever find a copy, read the Two Stroke Tuners Handbook by Gordon
> :Jennings. He could be a real butthole at times but he knew his stuff.
> :I loaned my copy out and never got it back. It took me 20 years to
> :track down another copy...
>
> Ain't the internet wonderful? It took me 20 seconds to find it here -
> http://tinyurl.com/e2wwh
>
> but the cheapest copy is $96!! Someone needs to put this one back
> into print!
>
> There's a copy on Ebay at http://tinyurl.com/exsup, $15 right now.

One of the customers to my motorcycle parts biz eMailed me a copy in PDF
format. If you're real nice, I'll eMail it to you one file at a time.
I was thinking of adding it to my website but I don't want yo get into
problems with royalties.

Tony

[Anthony W]

I had been watching for a copy of it on eBay for over 3 years. I'm
surprised you found one so quickly.

Two stroke cycle engines can be a marvel of simplicity or frustratingly
complex and sometimes both at the same time. Most of my 2 stroke
experience is motorcycle and snowmobile related. For street bikes the
EPA killed them and it’s a real shame. There really wasn’t that much
pollution from all bikes much less a few 2 strokes on the road.

I don’t have any experience with fuel injected 2 strokes but I’ll bet
it’s an improvement. Like I said before I don’t have the money for such
a project or I’d have a Hirth 4 on order to put in a bike.

I'm 6'5" and I could never seriously consider an ultralight. I don't
know what engine will be in my first plane but only cost will take one
of these out of the running.

Tony

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 03:07:09 GMT, Anthony W >
> wrote:
>
> :
> :One of the customers to my motorcycle parts biz eMailed me a copy in PDF
> :format. If you're real nice, I'll eMail it to you one file at a time.
> :I was thinking of adding it to my website but I don't want yo get into
> :problems with royalties.
>
> Tony, thank you very much. I don't know much about 2 strokes but I'm
> flying behind one some now (a little Zenoah) and I should learn more.
>
> Please email them to rtriley (at) gmail.com
>
> Mostly, I was just interested by how easy it was to find these days.
> I had the same experience a while back with a song I'd heard on the
> radio in the 1970's. "Midnight Flight" by the Good Brothers. I could
> never find it in the US back then (they were a Canadian band). Last
> year I thought to look it up - and within about 3 minutes I'd bought a
> copy of the album on Ebay for $5.

[[email protected]]

Anthony W wrote:
> I had been watching for a copy of it on eBay for over 3 years. I'm
> surprised you found one so quickly.
>
> Two stroke cycle engines can be a marvel of simplicity or frustratingly
> complex and sometimes both at the same time. Most of my 2 stroke
> experience is motorcycle and snowmobile related. For street bikes the
> EPA killed them and it's a real shame. There really wasn't that much
> pollution from all bikes much less a few 2 strokes on the road.
>
> I don't have any experience with fuel injected 2 strokes but I'll bet
> it's an improvement. Like I said before I don't have the money for such
> a project or I'd have a Hirth 4 on order to put in a bike.

I think fuel injected two strokes are being used for outboard motors
(marine use) now, so they may (soon?) be acceptable in other
aplications too. I think they do not require mixing the oil
into the fuel.

>
> I'm 6'5" and I could never seriously consider an ultralight. I don't
> know what engine will be in my first plane but only cost will take one
> of these out of the running.

IIRC Steve Woods who designed the SkyPup ultralight is 6'4" and fit
in the cockpit nicely. The pup has a design weight of 195 lbs dry
using the Cayuna 215 engine but with design gross of 400 lbs you
need to be a skinny 6'5" to not exceed that.

There is a very active Yahoo CLUB (not group):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Skypup-club

--

FF

[Anthony W]

wrote:
> Anthony W wrote:

>>I'm 6'5" and I could never seriously consider an ultralight. I don't
>>know what engine will be in my first plane but only cost will take one
>>of these out of the running.
>
>
> IIRC Steve Woods who designed the SkyPup ultralight is 6'4" and fit
> in the cockpit nicely. The pup has a design weight of 195 lbs dry
> using the Cayuna 215 engine but with design gross of 400 lbs you
> need to be a skinny 6'5" to not exceed that.
>
> There is a very active Yahoo CLUB (not group):
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Skypup-club

Thanks but I'm not a skinny 6'5". I was 6'7"+ before my last bike crash
but that's another story, anyway I'm rather stocky. The last time I was
skinny, I was 248 pounds and my doctor was conserned that I had lost to
much weight.

Tony

[Richard Lamb]

I couldn't fing the thread that someone use to tease me about
the weight limit going to 330 lbs, so I'll just jump in here and
blame Jim (;^) (evil troll!)

>I wanted to give you all a e-mail I recieved from EAA. I was asking
>them some questions in regards to weight and if there was a any changes coming to
>the part 103 rule in regards to weight.
>
>Thank you for the e-mail. The 254 pounds empty weight includes the
>engine and everything else needed for flight less fuel and oil. There is no
>active project in the FAA to add weight for Part 103 ultralights. I would plan on the
>weight remaining 254 pounds.
>
>Timm Bogenhagen
>EAA Aviation Services
>Ultralight Programs Manager
>920-426-6527

>www.eaa.org/ultralights

[Richard Lamb]

I have about decided the same thing, John.

So I'm now looking at a 24 foot sloop with a pair of
crew dogs (kittens actually) in bikinis. Well, mostly in... :))

I gotta tell ya, I'm liking this a lot.

Richard

[Morgans]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> I couldn't fing the thread that someone use to tease me about
> the weight limit going to 330 lbs, so I'll just jump in here and
> blame Jim (;^) (evil troll!)

Man, talk about being hit on the blind side!

Go pick on Juan, or someone who deserves it! <G>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Anthony W" > wrote

> Thanks but I'm not a skinny 6'5". I was 6'7"+ before my last bike crash
> but that's another story, anyway I'm rather stocky. The last time I was
> skinny, I was 248 pounds and my doctor was conserned that I had lost to
> much weight.

I hate to burst your bubble, but that would be considered moderately to
severely over weight. You need a new doctor.
--
Jim in NC

[Anthony W]

Morgans wrote:
> "Anthony W" > wrote
>
>
>>Thanks but I'm not a skinny 6'5". I was 6'7"+ before my last bike crash
>>but that's another story, anyway I'm rather stocky. The last time I was
>>skinny, I was 248 pounds and my doctor was conserned that I had lost to
>>much weight.
>
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, but that would be considered moderately to
> severely over weight. You need a new doctor.

Both you and my college health professor that said I sould weigh under
180, are both full of ****. I had a hydrostatic weighing just to proove
that wrong. My lean body mass is 219 pounds. Add the 10 percent
recomended body fat and the's 240.9 so the doctor that told me he was
concerned I may have lost too much weight was just a little bit off.

The sad part was after a year of body building I only picked up a little
over a pound of muscle on my next hydrostatic weighing.

Tony

[Richard Lamb]

HeeHeeHeeHee!!!
Yeah, I noticed Juan was back.

So. Juan, did you evere get that BD-5 flying?