New form of Gas ignition
11-04-2010, 09:13 PM
#53
Thread Starter
RE: New form of Gas ignition
ORIGINAL: Super08
Library number, I didn't know people knew what that was anymore.
Library number, I didn't know people knew what that was anymore.
11-04-2010, 11:39 PM
#55
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Oshkosh,
WI
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New form of Gas ignition
Oh its not just you old people that prefer reading 
. The sad thing is, about 3% of what is known about IC engine design is on the internet, and about 40% is even available to the public in one form or another. Yet what source do the majority of people go to and think of as "gospel" now? The books from Blair, Heywood, Smith, Blintzl, Heisler and the like are all good starting points. Jennings published a book many years ago with the title of "two stroke tuners handbook" or something like that. It would actually be very useful for the majority of 2 stroke guys here if you dont have it. Unfortunately while the information is sound, it is a little out of date and while not wrong, may be incomplete. In all honesty though, most of our model engines are using 1960 technology, and it works just fine.
. The sad thing is, about 3% of what is known about IC engine design is on the internet, and about 40% is even available to the public in one form or another. Yet what source do the majority of people go to and think of as "gospel" now? The books from Blair, Heywood, Smith, Blintzl, Heisler and the like are all good starting points. Jennings published a book many years ago with the title of "two stroke tuners handbook" or something like that. It would actually be very useful for the majority of 2 stroke guys here if you dont have it. Unfortunately while the information is sound, it is a little out of date and while not wrong, may be incomplete. In all honesty though, most of our model engines are using 1960 technology, and it works just fine.
11-05-2010, 07:29 AM
#58
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Oshkosh,
WI
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New form of Gas ignition
I didnt say 1960's engines, I said 1960's technology. 1960's engines were made with 1940's or 1950's technology. I didnt say it was a bad thing either, no use re-inventing the wheel.
11-05-2010, 07:51 AM
#59
RE: New form of Gas ignition
In 1960 to have a needle bearing rod was real high class.
The reeds were shim stock and a pyramid reed block was a aftermarket special
Only a few chain saws had a chrome plated cylinder
Points were the norm
30W motor oil for lube
The reeds were shim stock and a pyramid reed block was a aftermarket special
Only a few chain saws had a chrome plated cylinder
Points were the norm
30W motor oil for lube
11-05-2010, 08:06 AM
#60
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Oshkosh,
WI
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New form of Gas ignition
Hmmm,
Our engines were full roller bearing in 1945, Stainless steel reeds are still popular and in most production engines, but we had composite reeds in the 50's. composite bore engines go back to the 1940's, it just was not cost effective then. Points, well at least they are reliable and can be diagnosed easily, something to be said for that. 30W???? yeah it was cheap, but remember mand of the synthetics were out there, just not known to the general public. SO what do you consider a technologys age to be, when a research lab makes it work, or when you can buy it at wal-mart?
Our engines were full roller bearing in 1945, Stainless steel reeds are still popular and in most production engines, but we had composite reeds in the 50's. composite bore engines go back to the 1940's, it just was not cost effective then. Points, well at least they are reliable and can be diagnosed easily, something to be said for that
. 30W???? yeah it was cheap, but remember mand of the synthetics were out there, just not known to the general public. SO what do you consider a technologys age to be, when a research lab makes it work, or when you can buy it at wal-mart?
11-05-2010, 08:30 AM
#62
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Oshkosh,
WI
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New form of Gas ignition
Hmmm that must be the issue then, I dont work at wal-mart! Usually by the time something finally gets to that stage, its out of date in the engineering world. At least until the time when you reach the point of diminishing returns durring development, then things get kind of stale. The small 2-stroke is at that point, there is just not that much left with current materials technlology, and the cost is not worth it.
Usually by the time something finally gets to that stage, its out of date in the engineering world. At least until the time when you reach the point of diminishing returns durring development, then things get kind of stale. The small 2-stroke is at that point, there is just not that much left with current materials technlology, and the cost is not worth it.
11-05-2010, 09:41 AM
#63
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: New form of Gas ignition
Have to agree with makoman on this one.
Our little engines are not anywhere close to high tech, with most of them being made up of "left over" prats from chain saws and weed eaters. Only a couple companies make cranks specific to their own use. All the others adapt one that was intended for an industrial purpose. Most of the cylinders are deplorable in manufacture. Ports can be a couple millimeters different between any pair, with most not even closely matched inside any single cylinder. The plating process, except for a couple, is cheapest of the cheap using a process that has been around fo 50 years or more. Only one or two makers uses a true, aviation quality hard chroming process.
The better engines, MVVS at the top of the list, still only go just a little bit further than what has gone before. At least MVVS did enough R&D to come up with ports and port timing that set them far enough ahed of the rest where others now copy them. Their induction path is miles ahead of the rest, which is why they can make effective use of larger carbs than anyone else in the same size classes. The other "best" engines only provide higher levels of machine work, but even some of them can't maintain bore sizing and alignment good enough to do away with glueing bearings into their engines. The rest of the engines made, like most that are used by people in this engine forum, hardly qualify as being any higher quality that the cheapest weed eater engines made. As for their design technology, it hasn't really changed in decades. Only the mass has been reduced, making it appear they are different from what has gone before. Certaily the casting process has not improved. And most are buying engines using the worst casting process available. One that has been around since before I started working with two strokes, and that was a long time ago.
Higer technology engines have been around for a very long time, and they have been available to anyone that was willing to afford them. As is so often illustrated in this forum, that's a problem. People only wanted the cheapest they could find. They found exactly that which they wanted but they have been too uneducated to recognize what they have been leaving on the table in doing so. Because of "common practices" they have never learned how short their engines are in performance compared to the truly great engines. The truly great engines are in use, and have been for a great many years, all over the world. You still see people today making claims that metal reeds are the hottest thing in town. Others jump on the composite bandwagon thinking carbon reeds are now the latest and greatest widget.
Our modeling engines are at least 40 years behind where they could be but NOBDY in the hobby is willing to spend what is necessary for a truly good engine. If they were they would not be crying about not having EFI. They would have already had it. Direct and throttle body injection is being, and has been, in use on engines in our size classes for some time. Superior cylinder and porting technology has been in place even longer, with port and dimensional tolerances down to .00002", but they cost a lot more. Superior plating is readily availble as well, but it costs more. Piston rings in our engines are a joke. You could find the same technology in a 1955 GM 265 v-8. Combustion chamber design for a real modern engine is close to 70 years ahead of what's used in our model engines. Only one commercially available model engine stands ahead of the pack in this area, and even that one is behind what "modern" engine possess.
So yes, our model products are woefully antiquated, but most don't have a clue. They are too busy competing in a race to the bottom to see the light.
Our little engines are not anywhere close to high tech, with most of them being made up of "left over" prats from chain saws and weed eaters. Only a couple companies make cranks specific to their own use. All the others adapt one that was intended for an industrial purpose. Most of the cylinders are deplorable in manufacture. Ports can be a couple millimeters different between any pair, with most not even closely matched inside any single cylinder. The plating process, except for a couple, is cheapest of the cheap using a process that has been around fo 50 years or more. Only one or two makers uses a true, aviation quality hard chroming process.
The better engines, MVVS at the top of the list, still only go just a little bit further than what has gone before. At least MVVS did enough R&D to come up with ports and port timing that set them far enough ahed of the rest where others now copy them. Their induction path is miles ahead of the rest, which is why they can make effective use of larger carbs than anyone else in the same size classes. The other "best" engines only provide higher levels of machine work, but even some of them can't maintain bore sizing and alignment good enough to do away with glueing bearings into their engines. The rest of the engines made, like most that are used by people in this engine forum, hardly qualify as being any higher quality that the cheapest weed eater engines made. As for their design technology, it hasn't really changed in decades. Only the mass has been reduced, making it appear they are different from what has gone before. Certaily the casting process has not improved. And most are buying engines using the worst casting process available. One that has been around since before I started working with two strokes, and that was a long time ago.
Higer technology engines have been around for a very long time, and they have been available to anyone that was willing to afford them. As is so often illustrated in this forum, that's a problem. People only wanted the cheapest they could find. They found exactly that which they wanted but they have been too uneducated to recognize what they have been leaving on the table in doing so. Because of "common practices" they have never learned how short their engines are in performance compared to the truly great engines. The truly great engines are in use, and have been for a great many years, all over the world. You still see people today making claims that metal reeds are the hottest thing in town. Others jump on the composite bandwagon thinking carbon reeds are now the latest and greatest widget.
Our modeling engines are at least 40 years behind where they could be but NOBDY in the hobby is willing to spend what is necessary for a truly good engine. If they were they would not be crying about not having EFI. They would have already had it. Direct and throttle body injection is being, and has been, in use on engines in our size classes for some time. Superior cylinder and porting technology has been in place even longer, with port and dimensional tolerances down to .00002", but they cost a lot more. Superior plating is readily availble as well, but it costs more. Piston rings in our engines are a joke. You could find the same technology in a 1955 GM 265 v-8. Combustion chamber design for a real modern engine is close to 70 years ahead of what's used in our model engines. Only one commercially available model engine stands ahead of the pack in this area, and even that one is behind what "modern" engine possess.
So yes, our model products are woefully antiquated, but most don't have a clue. They are too busy competing in a race to the bottom to see the light.
11-05-2010, 11:23 AM
#65
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Oshkosh,
WI
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New form of Gas ignition
ORIGINAL: JNorton
On the other hand. I'm not paying $1,000 to $1,500 for a 50cc toy motor that I use for my own pleasure less than 50 hours a year.
Simple.
John
On the other hand. I'm not paying $1,000 to $1,500 for a 50cc toy motor that I use for my own pleasure less than 50 hours a year.
Simple.
John
11-05-2010, 01:01 PM
#67
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Oshkosh,
WI
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New form of Gas ignition
ORIGINAL: JNorton
Some people have Covette ZR1's too. My point was for the average guy - state of the art really offers no advantages. There is a cost to benefit ratio. This is my hobby not my livelyhood.
John
Some people have Covette ZR1's too.
My point was for the average guy - state of the art really offers no advantages. There is a cost to benefit ratio. This is my hobby not my livelyhood.John
Which is why 1960 technology is fine for toy engines. Cheap, proven and performs well enough for the task at hand. Welcome to wal-mart
11-05-2010, 02:19 PM
#68
Thread Starter
RE: New form of Gas ignition
Somehow just because you are on a computer some people thinkyou can afford anything. Like my computer is10 years old!!!!!!!!!!!!! Capt,n
Being kinda poor is not a thing to be ashamed of.
..just it isa inconvenience!
Being kinda poor is not a thing to be ashamed of.
..just it isa inconvenience!
11-05-2010, 03:11 PM
#69
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Oshkosh,
WI
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New form of Gas ignition
Well luckily for all of us poor guys, old technology is cheap and we can then afford our hobbies. Based on the wages of the average unskilled worker, a Brown Junior engine in 1936 would cost about $900 today. We have it pretty easy when it comes to hobby cost.......
11-05-2010, 05:09 PM
#70
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: New form of Gas ignition
The issue is in perception.
People want "modern" performance and technology, but are not aware of what modern really is. They see the introduction of a "new" product and become excited with the prospect of a better engine with more power. What they don't understand is that most of what is being introduced, under any of the new names, is pretty much the same thing the last 10 companies dumped on the market. Only a couple of lies in the advertising and minor cosmetic differences separate one from the other. Oops, I forgot that a few companies actually take their new products to an even lower level than the company next door by shorting on materials and machining tolerances. There's not a one of them that understands how to time an engine so we can figure all of them to be equal on that count. In reality I don't think even the manufacturers know what they have since most all of them use the customer base as their functional R&D department. Some of the stuff on the market would achieve elevated status if they were renamed as fishing weights.
So people get irritated when their Wal Mart engine doesn't perform up to DA, 3w, MVVS, BME, Mintor, or ZDZ standards. They forgot they bought hamburger when they wanted steak. The bought old hamburger at that. The really small gas engines being released have been availble in the cheap and small yard tools for a good many years. The "manufacturers" are just shaving some outer mass from them to make them look different and weigh a little less. The only reason they haven't been on the market before now is because nobody wanted them. There wasn't a market for 60" wingspan planes using a gas engine. There really still isn't but the eastern manufactueres haven't figured that out yet. Most of the buyers of the small gas engines are what I'll call "limited" hobbyists. They involvement is on a smaller scale, therefore their purchasing frequency is very low.
People want "modern" performance and technology, but are not aware of what modern really is. They see the introduction of a "new" product and become excited with the prospect of a better engine with more power. What they don't understand is that most of what is being introduced, under any of the new names, is pretty much the same thing the last 10 companies dumped on the market. Only a couple of lies in the advertising and minor cosmetic differences separate one from the other. Oops, I forgot that a few companies actually take their new products to an even lower level than the company next door by shorting on materials and machining tolerances. There's not a one of them that understands how to time an engine so we can figure all of them to be equal on that count. In reality I don't think even the manufacturers know what they have since most all of them use the customer base as their functional R&D department. Some of the stuff on the market would achieve elevated status if they were renamed as fishing weights.
So people get irritated when their Wal Mart engine doesn't perform up to DA, 3w, MVVS, BME, Mintor, or ZDZ standards. They forgot they bought hamburger when they wanted steak. The bought old hamburger at that. The really small gas engines being released have been availble in the cheap and small yard tools for a good many years. The "manufacturers" are just shaving some outer mass from them to make them look different and weigh a little less. The only reason they haven't been on the market before now is because nobody wanted them. There wasn't a market for 60" wingspan planes using a gas engine. There really still isn't but the eastern manufactueres haven't figured that out yet. Most of the buyers of the small gas engines are what I'll call "limited" hobbyists. They involvement is on a smaller scale, therefore their purchasing frequency is very low.
11-05-2010, 10:33 PM
#71
Thread Starter
RE: New form of Gas ignition
I am positive in the .90 size & down Glow engines will always be aroundand far out-number the small gasengines.I know this is a gas engine forum & the people that do gas engines may think different. The fact is ,Glow engines are so easy to install and are very power-full with no spark noise issues and the separation of ignition is a super good reason to run Glow. They back bounce start super easy also. Some people complain and call them slimmers. Well that can be pretty much controlled with the right exhaust or tunned pipe.
I like gas engines too...mainly because I have worked on them all my life. But I sure enjoy my favorite glow airplane & my electric airplane a Eflite Cap 232 that will really keep you on your toes. The cost of the batteries is kinda high to replace & charge slow. The use of A123 batteries works good as Dick Hansen could tell you. In short ,I think small gas is a big fad , mostly for the ones that like gas in the first place. Have a good nite. Capt,n
I like gas engines too...mainly because I have worked on them all my life. But I sure enjoy my favorite glow airplane & my electric airplane a Eflite Cap 232 that will really keep you on your toes. The cost of the batteries is kinda high to replace & charge slow. The use of A123 batteries works good as Dick Hansen could tell you. In short ,I think small gas is a big fad , mostly for the ones that like gas in the first place. Have a good nite. Capt,n
11-06-2010, 05:22 AM
#73
RE: New form of Gas ignition
It is going to be an interesting spring when everyone who has bought and installed these small gas engines (DLE-20 and smaller) starts to fly them. We have heard of installations on lot's of different airframes from war birds to biplanes. It will be really interesting to hear the success stories as well those that did not fare so well.
John
John
11-06-2010, 11:21 AM
#74
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: New form of Gas ignition
The successes will be found with those that did their homework. The ones that calculated wing area and weights compared to a glow installation. They will have also considered the differences in power between similar sized glow and gas and made provisions for a larger gas that would have been used with glow while keeping weight comparisons equal, or very close to that. Those that purchased engines based on historical reliability verification instead of the lowest price.
Then you have the set up factors that lead to success. The CG verifications, with understandings that manufacturers typically use very forward CG positions to make the plane as stable as possible for the beginner, which also generates much higher landing speeds and requires greater turning and loop radii at speeds, generating severe snapping tendencies. Of course we can't fortget the correct installation of electrical components and security of hardware to minimize the affects of vibration with a gas engine, or correct sizing of ignition batteries and the installation of the spark plug cap.
After the above we can start looking at the quality of the several ignition systems on the market. Some definately aren't as good as others. Engine timing will be an issue since the Chinese have yet to figure out how to reference a hall sensor or magnet on the hub with piston position. Quite a few users find this to be a baffling experience. Everything is absolutely predictable. The same questions about issues repeat themselves 100 fold every new flying season. The most often asked question will be, like always, what's the best prop for....?
Then you have the set up factors that lead to success. The CG verifications, with understandings that manufacturers typically use very forward CG positions to make the plane as stable as possible for the beginner, which also generates much higher landing speeds and requires greater turning and loop radii at speeds, generating severe snapping tendencies. Of course we can't fortget the correct installation of electrical components and security of hardware to minimize the affects of vibration with a gas engine, or correct sizing of ignition batteries and the installation of the spark plug cap.
After the above we can start looking at the quality of the several ignition systems on the market. Some definately aren't as good as others. Engine timing will be an issue since the Chinese have yet to figure out how to reference a hall sensor or magnet on the hub with piston position. Quite a few users find this to be a baffling experience. Everything is absolutely predictable. The same questions about issues repeat themselves 100 fold every new flying season. The most often asked question will be, like always, what's the best prop for....?
11-06-2010, 11:42 AM
#75
Thread Starter
RE: New form of Gas ignition
Tom...I am doing "nurse" duties for my wife so I will make it short...Looks like we are both in total agrement. Have a great Day Capt,n Also I agree with John Norton ...very interesting things will happen!