Engine Reliability (Was Rules Survey)
Atwood, Mark
atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Wed Feb 9 03:46:57 AKST 2005
Bill,
I could be way off base here, but I think a very large component of the engine reliability question is rooted in expectation. I think if you were to put any of the aforementioned "reliable" engines into a competitive environment, you'll find they're not what you thought them to be. We run our engines hard. We expect...and "Expect" is a key word...we expect peak performance on every flight, and every dead stick is horribly frustrating.
When I'm sport flying with a Moki...while I expect good performance...I haven't tuned it to within an fraction of its absolute peak, nor tried to quiet it below 94db (Much less both at the same time). I'm also not running it hundreds of flights a season, nor do I cringe if I have an occassional dead stick. These engines may indeed hold up well to that... I'm just hesitant to compare them until someone has put them through the paces.
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bill Southwell
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:04 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: *SPAM* [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
I can say "yes" to the lack of experince in pattern engines, I am a
victim of tweaking too hard. My other engines (OS's 2C's) were a bit
more forgiving. I didn't relize it but fell into the "why is it not
turning up like so and so's engine. Not hard to do...heck it was easy!:>)
I guess a lot of my perceptions are based on "other than" pattern
engines and the sucess I have had with them.I had mokis and gas engines
and liked them. My comments are based on the frustrations I have had
with the Webra and all the dead sticks I have seen at pattern meets. A
deadstick with a $150 sport model vs a 2K pattern ship is a lot bigger
deal. I really apreciate you comments and see the picture better. Maybe
the OS 1.60 would be a good choice........
Regards
Bill
David Lockhart wrote:
>Bill,
>
>Granted, purchase price of the pattern mills might be expensive (exception
>being the OS 160 which is infinitely workable) - but -
>
>2). The only pattern engines that require high $$$ fuel are the YS 4Cs.
>3). They may be less tolerant of poor running/tuning technique, but maybe
>it is also a lack of experience with the pattern engines? Any engine can be
>ruined by a bad needle setting.
>4). I've run K&B, OS, and Webra 2Cs - if the engines are not pinging and
>not eating dirt, very little in the way of parts is needed. Granted the
>stock bearings (if not stainless steel) might not last long, but stainless
>steel replacements are good for as much as 500+ flights - which is about
>when I start looking at rod and piston/ring/sleeve - not many people put
>that many flights on in a season on any engine.
>5). The pipes/mufflers/props are about being quiet as much as they are
>about making more power. Sport engines will need the same to be quiet.
>
>On a given weekend at my field, I see far more deadsticks from the sport
>fliers than the pattern guys, and the pattern guys are probably putting up
>more flights. The modern day pattern engine might be expensive initially,
>but considering the power output, low noise, durability (2C), and
>reliability (2C), I think they are doing pretty good.
>
>Dave
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill Southwell" <bnbsouthwell at bellsouth.net>
>To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 12:28 AM
>Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>
>
>
>
>>Hi Jeff,
>> No doubt you can get a 2M under the wt if you use the typical "Pattern
>>Only" ie. expensive and less reliable, for the job. If you put a
>>Gasser or a larger more robust (reliable) Moki 1.8 into the mix it would
>>take a very good builder to make the 11 lb cut off if at all. Its about
>>a wider range of engines to choose from instead of the 3-4 engines
>>that cost a lot in :
>>
>>1. purchase price
>>2. fuel expense ( hi nitro content)
>>3. any mistakes by a nebie in set up or needle settings and its piston
>>and bearing time or worse
>>4. bearings and other parts not lasting a season much less several
>>airplanes
>>5. special pipes and props, pumps needed to reach the power to wt
>>required. all add even more expense
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Jeff Hughes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I guess I'm just not getting it. all balsa 2M planes under 11 pounds
>>>are common and easy to build. My Focus II was about 10lbs. 4 oz with
>>>an OS1.40 and bolly muffler. I'm hearing some of the exotic composite
>>>planes coming in well under ten.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Todd Schmidt <mailto:tschmidt at classicnet.net>
>>> *To:* discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2005 10:14 PM
>>> *Subject:* [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>>>
>>> I really don't see how raising the weight limit to 12 or 12.5
>>> would increase the cost of pattern as long as the size limitations
>>> are in place. As stated by several, the materials used in today's
>>> ships to keep them underweight is driving the cost up.
>>>
>>> *Standard Glass Cloth Composite Construction* ($5-$7 per yard)
>>> You cannot make a 2M fuse strong *AND* light enough to make weight
>>> using this stuff. You can probably come close, but it'll be a
>>> noodle that won't last and *in the long run *will cost simply
>>> because you're plane won't last.
>>>
>>> So, now you see 2M planes made with Kevlar ($44 per yard) and
>>> Carbon ($80 per yard) in order to keep weight down. Not only are
>>> these materials more expensive, they're harder to work with, which
>>> increases labor costs. No wonder ZN and PL kits are so expensive.
>>>
>>> I make my own composite fuselages using a mixture of glass,
>>> Kevlar, carbon and foam much like the ZN and PL kits. The material
>>> cost for one fuselage will run between $200 to $250 and take
>>> approx.12 hours of labor to lay-up. I'd hate to try and make a
>>> living in the US making these things!
>>>
>>> The latest is the TAVS fuselage. Light, Stiff, and *FRAGILE*.
>>> This is a new technology driven by the weight limit IMO. Some are
>>> failing and we the consumer bare the price and inconvenience of
>>> being the R&D for the manufactures.
>>>
>>> Bottom line, the 11 pound weight limit is the same as when our
>>> birds were much smaller. I think we have pushed this envelope to
>>> its limit and it proving to be costly and unsafe. Just my opinion.
>>>
>>> Todd Schmidt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> *From:* Atwood, Mark <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>>> *To:* discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:47 PM
>>> *Subject:* RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>>>
>>> I have to agree 100% with Dave on this one. I'd also like to
>>> add that in addition to raising the cost...it doesn't acheive
>>> the objective. Any and all sports that have limitations of
>>> this type (Sailing comes to mind with complex formulas that
>>> define the class of boat) ALWAYS have one critical limiting
>>> factor. For us it USE to be the engine. We had a weight
>>> restriction...but it was meaningless because you couldn't
>>> approach it with the power options that we had.
>>>
>>> Now, with unlimited engine size...weight, and in some cases
>>> size, has become the constraining factor.
>>>
>>> In all cases...there are always those with the talent and
>>> money to take the rules to the limit. We will always be
>>> chasing them, and trying to acheive what they acheive. It's
>>> great to say that raising the weight limit will allow more
>>> "stock" models to compete... But my bet is that someone
>>> creative and talented will make use of that rule in a way that
>>> others can't easily follow...and will again have competitive
>>> advantage. And as Dave so aptly pointed out...it will cost
>>> the rest of us more money.
>>>
>>> Steve Maxwell has made the best suggestion to date. I for
>>> one have NEVER seen a sportsman pilot denied admission to an
>>> event based on the weight of their plane. Size, yes (we
>>> turned away a few 30% planes for safety reasons) but never
>>> just on weight. In fact...I've never seen ANYONE weight a
>>> plane at any event other than the Nat's finals. So I think
>>> we could EASILY acheive the objective with a simple statement
>>> that alters the current "intent" from one where the CD CAN
>>> change the rule...to one that implies the CD USUALLY changes
>>> the rule.
>>>
>>> I dont recall Steve's language, but it was simple and to the
>>> point so I'll paraphrase... " CD's often/usually alter (or
>>> wave) the weight restriction for the sportsman class...please
>>> contact them for details".
>>>
>>> -Mark
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> *From:* discussion-request at nsrca.org
>>> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]*On Behalf Of
>>> *DaveL322 at comcast.net
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:01 PM
>>> *To:* discussion at nsrca.org
>>> *Subject:* *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>>>
>>> Buddy,
>>>
>>> Deliberately segregating FAI and AMA is counterproductive. We
>>> need all the pattern fliers we can get, and we need a common
>>> target for the limited number of manufacturers and suppliers
>>> we have. I would never suggest AMA pattern rules blindly
>>> follow FAI, but there would have to be a huge benefit to US
>>> pattern before I would advocate moving away from the FAI in
>>> the US.
>>>
>>> FAI pilots in the US have made many contributions to AMA
>>> pattern in the US and I think most pattern pilots in the US
>>> would agree that the FAI pilots are a resource to all of
>>> pattern in the US. Cutting FAI pilots out of AMA pattern
>>> issues is losing a resource. And I think you'd have a hard
>>> time doing it in practice - many pilots bounce back and forth
>>> between FAI and Masters - there is no rule against it as they
>>> are different systems with common elements.
>>>
>>> If there is no valid reason to oppose an increase in the
>>> weight limit, it seems strange to me that the majority has
>>> repeatedly voted to keep the weight limit as is. Anyone who
>>> chooses to look at the history of the "limiting" rules for
>>> pattern (weight, size, displacement) can pretty easily see
>>> what the net result has been anytime the limits have been
>>> increased. For those not familiar with the rules history of
>>> pattern, the most basic of points I am alluding to is cost -
>>> any increase in the limits results in an increase in the cost
>>> of the average pattern plane - not something that is
>>> productive for our event.
>>>
>>> This list and numerous other publications have contained many
>>> ideas, rationales, and discussions opposed to increasing the
>>> weight limit for close to 20 years (that I know of). Perhaps
>>> you could share your thoughts as to why those ideas,
>>> rationales, and discussions are not valid?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Dave Lockhart
>>> DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------- Original message --------------
>>> In a message dated 2/8/2005 8:02:54 AM Central Standard
>>> Time, donramsey at cox-internet.com writes:
>>>
>>> Ok everyone, here's your chance. What would you like
>>> to see changed in the regulations for precision
>>> aerobatics? Up the weight limit, change the box,
>>> score takeoff and landings, etc?
>>>
>>> Email me offline at donramsey at cox-internet.com
>>> <mailto:donramsey at cox-internet.com> with your ideas.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Don
>>> As an after thought it would be interesting for those who
>>> oppose a weight change to state their reasons for opposing
>>> it so the benefits to pattern can be evaluated for each
>>> case. I cannot come up with a valid reason *not *To
>>> change the rule. It would also be interesting to know if
>>> opposition comes from a specific group. Since this change
>>> does not apply to FAI it is my opinion that votes from
>>> those in that group should not be used to sway the vote in
>>> Any NSRCA survey that would effect the submission of an
>>> AMA rules change proposal since these do not apply to FAI
>>> rules changes.
>>> Buddy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>=================================================
>>To access the email archives for this list, go to
>>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
>>To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>>and follow the instructions.
>>
>>
>>
>
>=================================================
>To access the email archives for this list, go to
>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
>To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>and follow the instructions.
>
>
>
>
=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list