If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
DIY Two-Stroke Engine Construction Methods
Jim Stewart wrote:
durabol wrote: The two main methods for homebuilt construction would be casting vs. machining or some combination of both (probably the best option). Forging probably isn't appropriate for home construction (either the piston or connecting rod). One method I have thought of is to produce a wax model of the engine with molds (to a fairly high tolerance to minimize machining) which is then cast using lost wax casting techniques. I planned to have an integral cylinder head/cylinder/half the crank case (this is for an opposed style engine). The only bolts would be to bolt the two halves together. A completely machined engine would need a large block of aluminium to start with which I'm not sure how practical that would be. Perhaps lost foam casting could be used as a general model of the engine was made in foam and then cast and the resulting casting could be machined. I went back and read your first post to try to get the big picture here. So what I think you are saying is that you want to build an engine that will be roughly equivalent to a Rotax 2-stroke ultralight engine. I think the best advise I could give you is don't. Despite the fact that the Rotax engines are meticulously designed and built, they still fail and have a 300 hour rebuild interval. They have exotic coatings and metallurgy to get the reliability that they have. There's no way you'll even come close to their performance and reliability in you garage. But he wants the performance and reliability in the air, not his garage!!! (sorry, couldn't resist). Now if you want to build an engine, that's fine. If you want to talk about building an engine, that's fine too. I just have to say that you're taking on a project with very, very small prospects of working and a real steep downside if it fails in the air. You could probably make some weight/reliability trades, though -- for one example, use iron cylinder liners and conventional steel rings instead of sooper-dooper nitrited aluminum fancy-pants coatings. And always fly within an easy glide of a landing strip... -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
DIY Two-Stroke Engine Construction Methods
Tim Wescott wrote:
Jim Stewart wrote: durabol wrote: The two main methods for homebuilt construction would be casting vs. machining or some combination of both (probably the best option). Forging probably isn't appropriate for home construction (either the piston or connecting rod). One method I have thought of is to produce a wax model of the engine with molds (to a fairly high tolerance to minimize machining) which is then cast using lost wax casting techniques. I planned to have an integral cylinder head/cylinder/half the crank case (this is for an opposed style engine). The only bolts would be to bolt the two halves together. A completely machined engine would need a large block of aluminium to start with which I'm not sure how practical that would be. Perhaps lost foam casting could be used as a general model of the engine was made in foam and then cast and the resulting casting could be machined. I went back and read your first post to try to get the big picture here. So what I think you are saying is that you want to build an engine that will be roughly equivalent to a Rotax 2-stroke ultralight engine. I think the best advise I could give you is don't. Despite the fact that the Rotax engines are meticulously designed and built, they still fail and have a 300 hour rebuild interval. They have exotic coatings and metallurgy to get the reliability that they have. There's no way you'll even come close to their performance and reliability in you garage. But he wants the performance and reliability in the air, not his garage!!! (sorry, couldn't resist). Good point nonetheless... Now if you want to build an engine, that's fine. If you want to talk about building an engine, that's fine too. I just have to say that you're taking on a project with very, very small prospects of working and a real steep downside if it fails in the air. You could probably make some weight/reliability trades, though -- for one example, use iron cylinder liners and conventional steel rings instead of sooper-dooper nitrited aluminum fancy-pants coatings. And always fly within an easy glide of a landing strip... That's a given. The problem is an engine out on takeoff climb. With an ultralight, it's very difficult to impossible to get the nose down and airspeed up fast enough to avoid a stall. Of course, you can (and should) carry a rocket-deployed chute on your ultralight, but it's bad form to have to depend on one. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
DIY Two-Stroke Engine Construction Methods
Jim Stewart wrote:
Tim Wescott wrote: Jim Stewart wrote: durabol wrote: The two main methods for homebuilt construction would be casting vs. machining or some combination of both (probably the best option). Forging probably isn't appropriate for home construction (either the piston or connecting rod). One method I have thought of is to produce a wax model of the engine with molds (to a fairly high tolerance to minimize machining) which is then cast using lost wax casting techniques. I planned to have an integral cylinder head/cylinder/half the crank case (this is for an opposed style engine). The only bolts would be to bolt the two halves together. A completely machined engine would need a large block of aluminium to start with which I'm not sure how practical that would be. Perhaps lost foam casting could be used as a general model of the engine was made in foam and then cast and the resulting casting could be machined. I went back and read your first post to try to get the big picture here. So what I think you are saying is that you want to build an engine that will be roughly equivalent to a Rotax 2-stroke ultralight engine. I think the best advise I could give you is don't. Despite the fact that the Rotax engines are meticulously designed and built, they still fail and have a 300 hour rebuild interval. They have exotic coatings and metallurgy to get the reliability that they have. There's no way you'll even come close to their performance and reliability in you garage. But he wants the performance and reliability in the air, not his garage!!! (sorry, couldn't resist). Good point nonetheless... Now if you want to build an engine, that's fine. If you want to talk about building an engine, that's fine too. I just have to say that you're taking on a project with very, very small prospects of working and a real steep downside if it fails in the air. You could probably make some weight/reliability trades, though -- for one example, use iron cylinder liners and conventional steel rings instead of sooper-dooper nitrited aluminum fancy-pants coatings. And always fly within an easy glide of a landing strip... That's a given. The problem is an engine out on takeoff climb. With an ultralight, it's very difficult to impossible to get the nose down and airspeed up fast enough to avoid a stall. I did not know this -- I fly models, not ultralights. It's scary to contemplate, though. I would consider a model that can't recover from a sudden engine-out event to be more than a bit of a turd; I wouldn't want to get _close_ to a full scale aircraft with that 'feature'. Surely there are ultralights that don't exhibit this problem! Is it a consequence of the draggy airframe on the usual ultralight? Or are you thinking of the flavor of ultralights where you steer by shifting weight, rather than with a movable elevator? Is there anything you can do to mitigate the risk during takeoff, i.e. can you trade climbing performance for safety by keeping the nose down and flying a bit hotter? Of course, you can (and should) carry a rocket-deployed chute on your ultralight, but it's bad form to have to depend on one. Or an ejection seat... -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
DIY Two-Stroke Engine Construction Methods
Jim Stewart wrote:
durabol wrote: The two main methods for homebuilt construction would be casting vs. machining or some combination of both (probably the best option). Forging probably isn't appropriate for home construction (either the piston or connecting rod). One method I have thought of is to produce a wax model of the engine with molds (to a fairly high tolerance to minimize machining) which is then cast using lost wax casting techniques. I planned to have an integral cylinder head/cylinder/half the crank case (this is for an opposed style engine). The only bolts would be to bolt the two halves together. A completely machined engine would need a large block of aluminium to start with which I'm not sure how practical that would be. Perhaps lost foam casting could be used as a general model of the engine was made in foam and then cast and the resulting casting could be machined. I went back and read your first post to try to get the big picture here. So what I think you are saying is that you want to build an engine that will be roughly equivalent to a Rotax 2-stroke ultralight engine. I think the best advise I could give you is don't. Despite the fact that the Rotax engines are meticulously designed and built, they still fail and have a 300 hour rebuild interval. They have exotic coatings and metallurgy to get the reliability that they have. There's no way you'll even come close to their performance and reliability in you garage. Now if you want to build an engine, that's fine. If you want to talk about building an engine, that's fine too. I just have to say that you're taking on a project with very, very small prospects of working and a real steep downside if it fails in the air. If you're interested in the design of the Rotax engines, you can download the manuals he http://www.rotax-owner.com/index.php...08&I temid=25 The line drawings of the engine, piston and cylinder might be of interest. I should mention at this juncture, that any time you say "never do that, it's too hard for an individual" you're citing a rule that -- if applied recursively -- is telling your audience "never do anything". Raking over all possible difficulties so that someone can take them into account, however, is more than a little bit helpful. -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
DIY Two-Stroke Engine Construction Methods
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
DIY Two-Stroke Engine Construction Methods
In article , TonyW wrote:
On 3/10/2010 7:46 AM, in wrote: it's not so hard, it just costs a bit more. but it adds a lot of grunt. the 750 i have puts out almost 90hp. dragster h2's running exotic fuels have been dynoed at over 400hp!. they need to be rebuilt often, but what drag motor doesn't. the quest for hp is expensive but doable. honda built a tt racer that got 18hp out of 50cc! the 8 speed gearbox got it up to 100mph. read about the mv augusta racers, you wouldn't believe me. Suzuki built but never raced a 3 cylinder 50cc engine that was rated at the highest output per liter on record for use with pump gas. However to get to one liter it would have 60 cylinders... Tony yeah, with enough money and resources, pigs will fly. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
DIY Two-Stroke Engine Construction Methods
Tim Wescott wrote:
Jim Stewart wrote: durabol wrote: The two main methods for homebuilt construction would be casting vs. machining or some combination of both (probably the best option). Forging probably isn't appropriate for home construction (either the piston or connecting rod). One method I have thought of is to produce a wax model of the engine with molds (to a fairly high tolerance to minimize machining) which is then cast using lost wax casting techniques. I planned to have an integral cylinder head/cylinder/half the crank case (this is for an opposed style engine). The only bolts would be to bolt the two halves together. A completely machined engine would need a large block of aluminium to start with which I'm not sure how practical that would be. Perhaps lost foam casting could be used as a general model of the engine was made in foam and then cast and the resulting casting could be machined. I went back and read your first post to try to get the big picture here. So what I think you are saying is that you want to build an engine that will be roughly equivalent to a Rotax 2-stroke ultralight engine. I think the best advise I could give you is don't. Despite the fact that the Rotax engines are meticulously designed and built, they still fail and have a 300 hour rebuild interval. They have exotic coatings and metallurgy to get the reliability that they have. There's no way you'll even come close to their performance and reliability in you garage. Now if you want to build an engine, that's fine. If you want to talk about building an engine, that's fine too. I just have to say that you're taking on a project with very, very small prospects of working and a real steep downside if it fails in the air. If you're interested in the design of the Rotax engines, you can download the manuals he http://www.rotax-owner.com/index.php...08&I temid=25 The line drawings of the engine, piston and cylinder might be of interest. I should mention at this juncture, that any time you say "never do that, it's too hard for an individual" you're citing a rule that -- if applied recursively -- is telling your audience "never do anything". Agreed. Just the same, there are little steps and big stumbles. I would offer much encouragement if the goal was to build and fly a small 2-stroke on a control-line model. Not much at stake and a good prospect for succeeding. The last issue of Model Engine Builder had plans.. http://www.modelenginebuilder.com/elmwood.htm OTOH, I just finished reading the ATSM consensus standards for light sport aircraft engine design. Not gonna happen in a garage. Raking over all possible difficulties so that someone can take them into account, however, is more than a little bit helpful. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
DIY Two-Stroke Engine Construction Methods
Tim Wescott wrote:
And always fly within an easy glide of a landing strip... That's a given. The problem is an engine out on takeoff climb. With an ultralight, it's very difficult to impossible to get the nose down and airspeed up fast enough to avoid a stall. I did not know this -- I fly models, not ultralights. It's scary to contemplate, though. I would consider a model that can't recover from a sudden engine-out event to be more than a bit of a turd; I wouldn't want to get _close_ to a full scale aircraft with that 'feature'. I think all engine-driven aircraft have a window of vulnerability on takeoff. Most general aviation planes can't return to the runway straight ahead and successfully land if they are higher than 200' and can't turn around to return to the field unless they are higher than 500'. Consider that the headwind that you took off into is now a tailwind and you can see how badly your day gets. That's why takeoffs are *always* full throttle and best rate of climb. You spend the least amount of time getting through that zone. Surely there are ultralights that don't exhibit this problem! Don't know. I was told that by someone whose knowledge and experience were much greater than mine. Is it a consequence of the draggy airframe on the usual ultralight? Or are you thinking of the flavor of ultralights where you steer by shifting weight, rather than with a movable elevator? Is there anything you can do to mitigate the risk during takeoff, i.e. can you trade climbing performance for safety by keeping the nose down and flying a bit hotter? Don't know for sure. I think the combination of light weight and high drag bleeds off the airspeed so quickly that you loose elevator authority before you can put it to use. Of course, you can (and should) carry a rocket-deployed chute on your ultralight, but it's bad form to have to depend on one. Or an ejection seat... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
DIY Two-Stroke Engine Construction Methods
"basilisk" wrote Most two strokes are single cylinder that rely on crankcase pumping action to move the fuel/air mixture, if you go to a multiple opposed cylinders, you will have to provide a slave cylinder or roots type blower to move the air. Or you have each pair of cylinders and pistons moving outward and firing at the same time, and have each opposing pair separated from the other opposing pairs. It would still pump like regular single lung 2 strokes, then. A 6 cylinder opposing pair would be an interesting 2 stroke engine. 3 power pulses per revolution, and two pistons firing on each pulse. This concept could mean that each pair could be designed basically identical, and bolted together. You could add as many pairs as you wanted, to get the power output you want. 6, or 8 or 10 cylinders! Cool! A 10 cylinder engine should be as smooth as a turbine engine, but probably with the fuel flow to match! ;-) You could keep the cylinder sizes very small, and the engine very narrow but long. This might be a concept to explore, I think. If you wanted, you could have each pair rotated a little, somewhat like a multi layer radial engine, for cooling mainly. It would probably make it more complex than the benefits would justify. -- Jim in NC |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
DIY Two-Stroke Engine Construction Methods
Tim Wescott wrote:
Jim Stewart wrote: Tim Wescott wrote: And always fly within an easy glide of a landing strip... That's a given. The problem is an engine out on takeoff climb. With an ultralight, it's very difficult to impossible to get the nose down and airspeed up fast enough to avoid a stall. .... Surely there are ultralights that don't exhibit this problem! There a Powered parachutes.[1] Almost certainly other types of ultralights don't exhibit that issue either, too. (Discounting even ultralight airships.) I suspect Jim Stewart's source was generalizing a wee bit too much. [1] http://www.quakerstatepoweredparachu...ne_failure.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DIY Two-Stroke Engine | durabol[_2_] | Home Built | 55 | April 5th 10 05:11 PM |
Methods for altitude changes | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 141 | April 18th 07 12:48 AM |
Small 4 stroke engine? | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 35 | July 2nd 05 07:25 PM |
BSFC vs gas mileage, 2 stroke vs 4 stroke | Jay | Home Built | 10 | August 24th 04 02:26 PM |
engine construction blueprints | Håken | Military Aviation | 0 | April 27th 04 05:23 PM |