Antares 18S Maiden Flight

AT Parowan last June, one supper conversation with three owners of
powered single seaters detailed two propeller problems (manufacturer
took a season to sort out) and one battery failure (expensive) --
unusual, I suppose. But not engine problems, eh?

Ruud wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:12:12 -0600, Shawn
sdotherecurry@bresnannextdotnet wrote:


Andor Holtsmark wrote:


Why are these two stroke engines so notoriously unreliable?


I have been flying with sustainer engines (Solo 2350) for more than 10
years in a Discus bT, Ventus2cT and DuoDiscusT and never had a problem
with it.
Most of the times engine problems are the cause of bad maintenance or
incorrect use of the engine.

"Greg Arnold" wrote in message
news:m76hg.11350$KB.6912@fed1read08...
2cernauta2 wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:12:12 -0600, Shawn
sdotherecurry@bresnannextdotnet wrote:

Why are these two stroke engines so notoriously unreliable?
Thoughts? Experience?

My personal perception of 2strokes as installed on a DG400 and a
DG600M, is of very good to excellent reliability. Never a problem with
the single cylinder 600, a few problems with the 400 (carb needle
valves, HT wires).

aldo cernezzi

I have no first hand experience, but I was under the impression that the
simplicity of the sustainer engines (no starter, etc) means that they are
quite reliable, if only because there is not much that can break.

Small 2-stroke engines which require oil mixed with the fuel will often have
startng problems after long periods of inactivity. The fuel/oil mix forms
gum in the small passages inside the carburator blocking them. I understand
there are spicific 2-stroke oils that reduce but do not eliminate this
problem. The cure is to dismantle the fuel system and clean it with
solvent.

I wouldn't expect a weed eater, snow blower, or lawn mower that has sat with
fuel in it for 6 months or so to start easily. Sustainer engines are no
different.

Bill Daniels

Charles Yeates wrote:
AT Parowan last June, one supper conversation with three owners of
powered single seaters detailed two propeller problems (manufacturer
took a season to sort out) and one battery failure (expensive) --
unusual, I suppose. But not engine problems, eh?

Were these all two stroke engines? And I'm very curious how a battery
failure could be expensive, given the low cost of batteries.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

Bill Daniels wrote:
"Greg Arnold" wrote in message
news:m76hg.11350$KB.6912@fed1read08...

2cernauta2 wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:12:12 -0600, Shawn
sdotherecurry@bresnannextdotnet wrote:


Why are these two stroke engines so notoriously unreliable?
Thoughts? Experience?

My personal perception of 2strokes as installed on a DG400 and a
DG600M, is of very good to excellent reliability. Never a problem with
the single cylinder 600, a few problems with the 400 (carb needle
valves, HT wires).

aldo cernezzi

I have no first hand experience, but I was under the impression that the
simplicity of the sustainer engines (no starter, etc) means that they are
quite reliable, if only because there is not much that can break.


Small 2-stroke engines which require oil mixed with the fuel will often have
startng problems after long periods of inactivity. The fuel/oil mix forms
gum in the small passages inside the carburator blocking them. I understand
there are spicific 2-stroke oils that reduce but do not eliminate this
problem. The cure is to dismantle the fuel system and clean it with
solvent.

I wouldn't expect a weed eater, snow blower, or lawn mower that has sat with
fuel in it for 6 months or so to start easily. Sustainer engines are no
different.

Guess I picked up on a few out-of-the-norm complaints and assumed they
were typical.
Seems like a preflight run-up of the engine would reveal/mitigate many
starting problems in flight.

BTW, my string trimmer was a pill to start this spring :-p

Shawn

At 11:30 06 June 2006, Ruud wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:12:12 -0600, Shawn
wrote:

Andor Holtsmark wrote:

Why are these two stroke engines so notoriously unreliable?

-I just want to clarify that I did not ask this question.
I asked about how many self sustainers used regularily
hour after hour suffers from engine trouble. I hope
the difference is clear.
I am not trying to imply that this must happen, I am
curious about what the experiences are.

Andor

I was told the engine start battery replacement cost $1,000

Eric Greenwell wrote:


AT Parowan last June, one supper conversation with three owners of
powered single seaters detailed two propeller problems (manufacturer
took a season to sort out) and one battery failure (expensive) --
unusual, I suppose. But not engine problems, eh?


Were these all two stroke engines? And I'm very curious how a battery
failure could be expensive, given the low cost of batteries.

Charles Yeates wrote:


Eric Greenwell wrote:


AT Parowan last June, one supper conversation with three owners of
powered single seaters detailed two propeller problems (manufacturer
took a season to sort out) and one battery failure (expensive) --
unusual, I suppose. But not engine problems, eh?


Were these all two stroke engines? And I'm very curious how a battery
failure could be expensive, given the low cost of batteries.

I was told the engine start battery replacement cost $1,000

Wow! What glider was it? And is that the price of the battery, or is
there a terrific amount of labor involved in changing it?


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

My DG808B self-launcher uses 4 sealed batteries and
they all can be replaced for less than $80 which I
believe is typical. The batteries are cheap enough
that I replace them every two years regardless of condition.
There is no gas powered glider that I know of with
a $1000 battery but perhaps an electric self-launcher
battery could be that expensive.
Reliability and maintenance on any powered glider is
going to be significantly more of an issue than a pure
glider. It isn't like buying a Chevrolet where the
various systems have been refined over a long period
of time. The fuel/electrical systems used today are
pretty crude compared to modern automotive design but
given enough attention and preventive maintenance they
perform pretty well. Routine operation is a very good
idea regardless if it’s a self-launcher or sustainer.
With the exception of one loss of electrical power
mine has never failed to start or in flight after 325
frame and 25 engine hours. In that same period I have
experienced 4 rope breaks on tow so the self-launcher
reliability looks pretty good to me.


At 17:48 06 June 2006, Charles Yeates wrote:
I was told the engine start battery replacement cost
$1,000

Eric Greenwell wrote:


AT Parowan last June, one supper conversation with
three owners of
powered single seaters detailed two propeller problems
(manufacturer
took a season to sort out) and one battery failure
(expensive) --
unusual, I suppose. But not engine problems, eh?


Were these all two stroke engines? And I'm very curious
how a battery
failure could be expensive, given the low cost of
batteries.

Maybe the high figure is what he told his wife??

Gary Evans wrote:
My DG808B self-launcher uses 4 sealed batteries and
they all can be replaced for less than $80 which I
believe is typical. The batteries are cheap enough
that I replace them every two years regardless of condition.
There is no gas powered glider that I know of with
a $1000 battery but perhaps an electric self-launcher
battery could be that expensive.
Reliability and maintenance on any powered glider is
going to be significantly more of an issue than a pure
glider. It isn't like buying a Chevrolet where the
various systems have been refined over a long period
of time. The fuel/electrical systems used today are
pretty crude compared to modern automotive design but
given enough attention and preventive maintenance they
perform pretty well. Routine operation is a very good
idea regardless if it’s a self-launcher or sustainer.
With the exception of one loss of electrical power
mine has never failed to start or in flight after 325
frame and 25 engine hours. In that same period I have
experienced 4 rope breaks on tow so the self-launcher
reliability looks pretty good to me.

At 16:18 06 June 2006, Shawn wrote:

Seems like a preflight run-up of the engine would reveal/mitigate
many
starting problems in flight.


My thought exactly.

There have been some comments here that sustainers
generally are not run up prior to flights (presumably
including flights where use of the engine is a distinct
possibility) AND that periods of inactivity significantly
up the odds of the engine failing to start.

If both of these statements are true it seems that
flying a sustainer-equipped sailplane cross-country
without a preflight engine runup is a bit of a roll
of the dice. It also raises in my mind two somewhat
related questions:

1) Is there a good reason why one shouldn't do a runup
prior to every (cross-country) flight?

2) Do many pilots flying sustainer-equipped sailplanes
presume that the engine is unlikely to start and not
care, do they presume that the engine IS likely to
start (correctly or incorrectly), or do they believe
a preflight runup doesn't help the odds anyway.

Thoughts?

9B