Orsovolante
Active Member
Sorry for my bad English.
A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to buy a small Fischer biplane with no canvas or motor.
Waiting to have the opportunity to go and get it, I started looking at pictures of other flying planes of the same type, and speculating about a possible engine to install on mine.
The first thing I noticed was that the noise of a 2T on a plane that wanted to bring you back to the 30s was definitely out of tune.
Some have installed 1/2 volswaghe, others have gone so far as to mount one with all the cylinders in place.
Little power in one case, too much weight in the other.
Meanwhile I remember a small 3-cylinder radial engine built in the Czech Republic. The Verner. I verify and initially I am disappointed because the power, 31Kw, seems very little.
Verner however also makes a 5-cylinder 44Kw that would look good on little Fischer's face.
Even if my idea is madness, everyone knows that 4T engines weigh more than the two times, the plane is very small and the margins in which to move are really tight.
But I start with the idea and I begin to verify the weights of an installation with the 582 ... surprise. If I put motor, starter, reducer, radiator etc, I arrive and exceed the 50 Kg.
Verner sends me a photo of his Scarlet 5V on the scale, 51.6 kg ... Then maybe the idea is not so crazy.
Some dimensional checks confirm to me that the engine could be there. It is shorter than the Rotax and I could mount it further back if I had too many kilos.
Immediately the friends with whom I talk about it, raise other objections to me.
They claim that I should fit a propeller that is too large because the 4 stroke runs slower.
But the 582 has the reducer. A couple of accounts and I realize that there is also a myth to debunk. I discover that at the power of 33 Kw, the maximum continuous on the Verner, the revolutions and the maximum torque on the propeller, assuming on the rotax a reducer B, are almost identical.
I repeat the calculations for the maximum power of both, and again the numbers are very similar.
I don't want to discuss which engine is better, I simply know that things that are not true are often taken for granted.
The greater lightness of the 2T engine is not always obvious, as well as the supremacy of the 4T in expressing more torque, it may not be equally true.
Invia commenti
Cronologia
Salvate
Community
A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to buy a small Fischer biplane with no canvas or motor.
Waiting to have the opportunity to go and get it, I started looking at pictures of other flying planes of the same type, and speculating about a possible engine to install on mine.
The first thing I noticed was that the noise of a 2T on a plane that wanted to bring you back to the 30s was definitely out of tune.
Some have installed 1/2 volswaghe, others have gone so far as to mount one with all the cylinders in place.
Little power in one case, too much weight in the other.
Meanwhile I remember a small 3-cylinder radial engine built in the Czech Republic. The Verner. I verify and initially I am disappointed because the power, 31Kw, seems very little.
Verner however also makes a 5-cylinder 44Kw that would look good on little Fischer's face.
Even if my idea is madness, everyone knows that 4T engines weigh more than the two times, the plane is very small and the margins in which to move are really tight.
But I start with the idea and I begin to verify the weights of an installation with the 582 ... surprise. If I put motor, starter, reducer, radiator etc, I arrive and exceed the 50 Kg.
Verner sends me a photo of his Scarlet 5V on the scale, 51.6 kg ... Then maybe the idea is not so crazy.
Some dimensional checks confirm to me that the engine could be there. It is shorter than the Rotax and I could mount it further back if I had too many kilos.
Immediately the friends with whom I talk about it, raise other objections to me.
They claim that I should fit a propeller that is too large because the 4 stroke runs slower.
But the 582 has the reducer. A couple of accounts and I realize that there is also a myth to debunk. I discover that at the power of 33 Kw, the maximum continuous on the Verner, the revolutions and the maximum torque on the propeller, assuming on the rotax a reducer B, are almost identical.
I repeat the calculations for the maximum power of both, and again the numbers are very similar.
I don't want to discuss which engine is better, I simply know that things that are not true are often taken for granted.
The greater lightness of the 2T engine is not always obvious, as well as the supremacy of the 4T in expressing more torque, it may not be equally true.
Invia commenti
Cronologia
Salvate
Community
