HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
 
Thread Tools
Old Jul 15, 2003, 03:00 AM
Ed Cregger
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

It depends. <G>

If you are limited to using over-the-counter engines from our hobby
suppliers, then I would think that the four-stroke engines are a better
choice for fuel economy.

I do not believe that over-the-counter two-strokes will fare as well against
an over-the-counter four-stroke.

If you can have a custom made, direct fuel injection, oil injected
two-stroke cobbled up, then the two-stroke might be a better choice.

The two-stroke model diesel engine has two things going for it in that it is
running a fuel that contains more calories per cc than glow fuel and it is
running a higher compression ratio, which further increases power production
and fuel efficiency.

One advantage in using the largest engine possible is that the radio
components remain essentially the same whether flying a small aircraft or a
large aircraft. Thus, the R/C system becomes a smaller percentage of the
aircraft's gross weight as the size of the model increases (with a limit of
1.2 cubic inches engine displacement in this example). This alone adds to
the airframe's overall efficiency. We won't even get into the better
Reynolds Numbers derived due to the increase in size.

If one could fit an RCS/Moki 1.40 with a very lightweight magneto, one could
have the best of all worlds - for a two-stroke. This two-stroke would sip
less gas/oil mix than a glow four-stroke 1.20 and would provide more power
while doing it at a lower gross weight (includes fuel load).

This is just my opinion.

Ed Cregger



"H.J." <wenonaliar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rMAQa.17061$_K5.15278@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com ...
> Trying to calculate which would fly FARTHER on a given amount of fuel in

the
> .61 to 1.2 cubic inch class engine....
>
> Let's say the plane weighs about X lbs, and it carries Y c.c. of fuel,

Which
> would carry it farther, a 2C or 4C engine?
>
> Consider....
> A 4C has to waste energy on an exhaust stroke.
> A 4C has less power than a 2C of the same displacement.
> A 2C blows a lot of unburned fuel out the exhaust.
> A 2C diesel is supposedly runs longer than a glow engine, but is that at
> reduce power production?
>
> So, if the goal is to get the most range per unit of fuel, is a 2C or 4C
> better?
>
> H.J.
>
>
>
>



Old Jul 15, 2003, 03:00 AM
mike tully
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

In my opinion (not worth much) the two stroke puts much unburned fuel out the
exhaust. This is part of the reason motorcycle manufacturers gave up years ago
on 2 stroke street bikes rather than try to find ways to make them comply with
looming enviromental regulations (unburned hydrocarbons). Same reason you will
start to see them disappear on snowmobiles and watercraft.

In duration per cc of fuel, any methanol engine will be at a distinct
disadvantage to a similar gasoline engine. Gasoline simply has much more
energy per cc.

Back in the eighties, Maynard Hill, multiple FAI world record holder set out to
determine the absolute most efficient set up. The FAI at the time had a model
aircraft engine displacement limit of 10 cc (.61 ci). Mr. Hill published a
paper summarizing these studies with the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics (you may want to look it up). He found that an 10 cc 4 stroke
cycle model airplane engine with electronic ignition running on an exotic blend
including gasoline, isobutane and synthetic oil was the optimum powerplant for
his world record duration and distance pursuits.
Old Jul 15, 2003, 03:01 AM
M Dennett
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

I'd say a two-stroke diesel, or a 4-cycle converted to ignition would be
more optimal with the ultimate range coming from the 4c conversion. IIRC a
transatlantic crossing was accomplished using an Enya(?) 1.20 4C converted
to gasoline.

The two stroke diesel may run at less peak horsepower than the same basic
engine on glow, but runs significantly longer on a given volume of fuel due
to the different fuel air ratio requiements. It will also turn more prop
without baking to death and thus efficiency gains help offset 2C mileage
issues.

For range versus volume of fuel, you want gasoline or diesel fuel (if these
are options for you) versus methanol and especially versus methanol plus
nitromethane. If you were looking to gain the best range on 2 stroke glow,
use a motor that will run on FAI or very low nitro fuel.

Mike D.


"H.J." <wenonaliar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rMAQa.17061$_K5.15278@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com ...
> Trying to calculate which would fly FARTHER on a given amount of fuel in

the
> .61 to 1.2 cubic inch class engine....
>
> Let's say the plane weighs about X lbs, and it carries Y c.c. of fuel,

Which
> would carry it farther, a 2C or 4C engine?
>
> Consider....
> A 4C has to waste energy on an exhaust stroke.
> A 4C has less power than a 2C of the same displacement.
> A 2C blows a lot of unburned fuel out the exhaust.
> A 2C diesel is supposedly runs longer than a glow engine, but is that at
> reduce power production?
>
> So, if the goal is to get the most range per unit of fuel, is a 2C or 4C
> better?
>
> H.J.
>
>
>



Old Jul 15, 2003, 03:01 AM
Grant Edwards
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

In article <aiBQa.1481$Mc.138132@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink .net>, Ed Cregger wrote:

> The two-stroke model diesel engine has two things going for it
> in that it is running a fuel that contains more calories per cc
> than glow fuel [...]


Definitely true, but does diesel have more joules/gram than
glow fuel? I suppose it only matters if amount of fuel is
limited due to tank size or due to takeoff weight...

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I wonder if I ought
at to tell them about my
visi.com PREVIOUS LIFE as a COMPLETE
STRANGER?
Old Jul 15, 2003, 03:01 AM
The Natural Philosopher
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

H.J. wrote:

> Trying to calculate which would fly FARTHER on a given amount of fuel in the
> .61 to 1.2 cubic inch class engine....
>
> Let's say the plane weighs about X lbs, and it carries Y c.c. of fuel, Which
> would carry it farther, a 2C or 4C engine?
>
> Consider....
> A 4C has to waste energy on an exhaust stroke.
> A 4C has less power than a 2C of the same displacement.
> A 2C blows a lot of unburned fuel out the exhaust.
> A 2C diesel is supposedly runs longer than a glow engine, but is that at
> reduce power production?
>
> So, if the goal is to get the most range per unit of fuel, is a 2C or 4C
> better?
>



4C almost always since the exhaust stroke that clears burnt gases is not
the same as the inlet stroke that ingests new ones. All 2 strokes -
except DI diesels - tend to throw unburnt fuel down the exhaust system.


> H.J.
>
>
>
>



Old Jul 15, 2003, 03:01 AM
Arne Reil
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

The only way a 2 cycle can be sure of getting a full charge into the chamber
is to blow some raw fuel out the exhaust before the piston closes the
exhaust port...... i believe some of the newer (big) 2 cycles use an
injection system to squirt the fuel in after the port closes...... and they
are much cleaner, but not down to our level yet.
..
Arne, CT, USA
=========================
"mike tully" <mtullycts@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030714130945.28289.00000330@mb-m06.aol.com...
> In my opinion (not worth much) the two stroke puts much unburned fuel out

the
> exhaust. .



Old Jul 15, 2003, 03:01 AM
The Natural Philosopher
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

Arne Reil wrote:

> The only way a 2 cycle can be sure of getting a full charge into the chamber
> is to blow some raw fuel out the exhaust before the piston closes the
> exhaust port...... i believe some of the newer (big) 2 cycles use an
> injection system to squirt the fuel in after the port closes...... and they
> are much cleaner, but not down to our level yet.



Its called direct injection, and most full size diesels do it. Well most
big ones anyway.


> .
> Arne, CT, USA
> =========================
> "mike tully" <mtullycts@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:20030714130945.28289.00000330@mb-m06.aol.com...
>
>>In my opinion (not worth much) the two stroke puts much unburned fuel out
>>

> the
>
>>exhaust. .
>>

>
>



Old Jul 15, 2003, 03:01 AM
Pé Reivers
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

4-stroke gas engine like Ryobi!, or 4-stroke diesel conversion engine, if
you have the skills.
The mark II gas 1.60 MVVS with the 7mm carb is the most fuel efficient off
the shelf airplane engine for the power I have ever tested, save for the
Honda 4-stroke moped engine.

My idea: Troll ??

--
Rgds,

From Arcen, South-East in the Netherlands
preivers
@
mvvs-nl.com
http://mvvs-nl.com/
www.prme.nl


"H.J." <wenonaliar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rMAQa.17061$_K5.15278@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com ...
> Trying to calculate which would fly FARTHER on a given amount of fuel in

the
> .61 to 1.2 cubic inch class engine....
>
> Let's say the plane weighs about X lbs, and it carries Y c.c. of fuel,

Which
> would carry it farther, a 2C or 4C engine?
>
> Consider....
> A 4C has to waste energy on an exhaust stroke.
> A 4C has less power than a 2C of the same displacement.
> A 2C blows a lot of unburned fuel out the exhaust.
> A 2C diesel is supposedly runs longer than a glow engine, but is that at
> reduce power production?
>
> So, if the goal is to get the most range per unit of fuel, is a 2C or 4C
> better?
>
> H.J.
>
>
>



Old Jul 16, 2003, 03:00 AM
Ray Shearer
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

I would use a 1.2 4-stroke, add ignition system, lower compression ratio,
and recalibrate carburator for gas ( or benzene if your careful about
handling cancer agents).

Ray Shearer

"Ed Cregger" <ecregger@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aiBQa.1481$Mc.138132@newsread1.prod.itd.earth link.net...
> It depends. <G>
>
> If you are limited to using over-the-counter engines from our hobby
> suppliers, then I would think that the four-stroke engines are a better
> choice for fuel economy.
>
> I do not believe that over-the-counter two-strokes will fare as well

against
> an over-the-counter four-stroke.
>
> If you can have a custom made, direct fuel injection, oil injected
> two-stroke cobbled up, then the two-stroke might be a better choice.
>
> The two-stroke model diesel engine has two things going for it in that it

is
> running a fuel that contains more calories per cc than glow fuel and it is
> running a higher compression ratio, which further increases power

production
> and fuel efficiency.
>
> One advantage in using the largest engine possible is that the radio
> components remain essentially the same whether flying a small aircraft or

a
> large aircraft. Thus, the R/C system becomes a smaller percentage of the
> aircraft's gross weight as the size of the model increases (with a limit

of
> 1.2 cubic inches engine displacement in this example). This alone adds to
> the airframe's overall efficiency. We won't even get into the better
> Reynolds Numbers derived due to the increase in size.
>
> If one could fit an RCS/Moki 1.40 with a very lightweight magneto, one

could
> have the best of all worlds - for a two-stroke. This two-stroke would sip
> less gas/oil mix than a glow four-stroke 1.20 and would provide more power
> while doing it at a lower gross weight (includes fuel load).
>
> This is just my opinion.
>
> Ed Cregger
>
>
>
> "H.J." <wenonaliar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:rMAQa.17061$_K5.15278@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com ...
> > Trying to calculate which would fly FARTHER on a given amount of fuel in

> the
> > .61 to 1.2 cubic inch class engine....
> >
> > Let's say the plane weighs about X lbs, and it carries Y c.c. of fuel,

> Which
> > would carry it farther, a 2C or 4C engine?
> >
> > Consider....
> > A 4C has to waste energy on an exhaust stroke.
> > A 4C has less power than a 2C of the same displacement.
> > A 2C blows a lot of unburned fuel out the exhaust.
> > A 2C diesel is supposedly runs longer than a glow engine, but is that at
> > reduce power production?
> >
> > So, if the goal is to get the most range per unit of fuel, is a 2C or 4C
> > better?
> >
> > H.J.
> >
> >
> >
> >

>
>



Old Jul 17, 2003, 03:01 AM
Sport_Pilot
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

Speaking of Maynard Hill, isn't he about due to retry that
transatlantic record? Anybody got a link to his site?

mtullycts@aol.comnospam (mike tully) wrote in message news:<20030714130945.28289.00000330@mb-m06.aol.com>...
> In my opinion (not worth much) the two stroke puts much unburned fuel out the
> exhaust. This is part of the reason motorcycle manufacturers gave up years ago
> on 2 stroke street bikes rather than try to find ways to make them comply with
> looming enviromental regulations (unburned hydrocarbons). Same reason you will
> start to see them disappear on snowmobiles and watercraft.
>
> In duration per cc of fuel, any methanol engine will be at a distinct
> disadvantage to a similar gasoline engine. Gasoline simply has much more
> energy per cc.
>
> Back in the eighties, Maynard Hill, multiple FAI world record holder set out to
> determine the absolute most efficient set up. The FAI at the time had a model
> aircraft engine displacement limit of 10 cc (.61 ci). Mr. Hill published a
> paper summarizing these studies with the American Institute of Aeronautics and
> Astronautics (you may want to look it up). He found that an 10 cc 4 stroke
> cycle model airplane engine with electronic ignition running on an exotic blend
> including gasoline, isobutane and synthetic oil was the optimum powerplant for
> his world record duration and distance pursuits.

Old Jul 18, 2003, 03:00 AM
emcook@yahoo.com
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

There is probably to many variables involved.

But from what I've read the 2C Diesel should often win the contest. A
diesel should have both better fuel economy and better torque. But not
necessarily better horsepower.

I think Moki produces a .60 or large engine specifically designed to
run on diesel.

Another option which should yield good results if modified correctly
would be to convert a glow 4 stroke engine to spark ignition and burn
a gas/oil mixture.

Note: RC Diesel engines do not burn diesel fuel, they burn a
Kerosene/Ether/Oil mixture. They are compression engines like diesels.


On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:34:56 -0700, "H.J." <wenonaliar@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Trying to calculate which would fly FARTHER on a given amount of fuel in the
>.61 to 1.2 cubic inch class engine....
>
>Let's say the plane weighs about X lbs, and it carries Y c.c. of fuel, Which
>would carry it farther, a 2C or 4C engine?
>
>Consider....
>A 4C has to waste energy on an exhaust stroke.
>A 4C has less power than a 2C of the same displacement.
>A 2C blows a lot of unburned fuel out the exhaust.
>A 2C diesel is supposedly runs longer than a glow engine, but is that at
>reduce power production?
>
>So, if the goal is to get the most range per unit of fuel, is a 2C or 4C
>better?
>
>H.J.
>
>


Old Jul 18, 2003, 03:00 AM
Doug McLaren
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

In article <68ndhvgpgmfa2d1gi3ncb0b90ncl327lq5@4ax.com>,
<emcook@yahoo.com> wrote:

| Note: RC Diesel engines do not burn diesel fuel, they burn a
| Kerosene/Ether/Oil mixture.

Yes.

| They are compression engines like diesels.

Of course, so are your `standard' R/C 2 and 4 stroke engines

--
Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com
I'm not worried about the bullet with my name on it... just the
thousands out there marked 'Occupant.' --Unknown
Old Jul 18, 2003, 03:00 AM
Bob Cowell
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:06:37 GMT, dougmc@frenzy.com (Doug McLaren) wrote:

>In article <68ndhvgpgmfa2d1gi3ncb0b90ncl327lq5@4ax.com>,
> <emcook@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>| Note: RC Diesel engines do not burn diesel fuel, they burn a
>| Kerosene/Ether/Oil mixture.
>
>Yes.
>
>| They are compression engines like diesels.
>
>Of course, so are your `standard' R/C 2 and 4 stroke engines



Not entirely true. Our "standard" "glow" engines get a LOT of help from the
glow plug, and catalytic action of the platinum acting on the methanol.
If they were true compression ignition engines, the glow plug would not be
required.
Old Jul 18, 2003, 03:00 AM
Doug McLaren
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

In article <c7da05c3b2b7f65627f571ad7718400a@free.teranews.co m>,
Bob Cowell <trash_trap@hotmail.com> wrote:

| >| They are compression engines like diesels.
| >
| >Of course, so are your `standard' R/C 2 and 4 stroke engines
|
| Not entirely true. Our "standard" "glow" engines get a LOT of help
| from the glow plug, and catalytic action of the platinum acting on
| the methanol. If they were true compression ignition engines, the
| glow plug would not be required.

Even `diesel' engines often have glow plugs. My Rabbit Diesel, for
example.

The glow plug just helps it along. Give the engine more compression,
and it wouldn't even be needed.

--
Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com
Happiness is not around the corner. Happiness -is- the corner.
Old Jul 18, 2003, 03:01 AM
emcook@yahoo.com
Guest
n/a Posts
Re: 4-Cycle More Efficient?

Many automotive, industrial diesel glow plugs are often for cold
starting the engine.

My 20 hp diesel Kioti tractor will start just fine in the summer
without heating the glow plugs, but it requires glow plug heat to
crank on a cold winter day.


>
>Even `diesel' engines often have glow plugs. My Rabbit Diesel, for
>example.
>
>The glow plug just helps it along. Give the engine more compression,
>and it wouldn't even be needed.


 


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CP is more efficient? petn7 Electric Heli Talk 0 Aug 05, 2002 06:55 PM
Which is more efficient in duration/thermaling...scale or non-scale Magna Electric Sailplanes 16 May 15, 2002 01:12 PM
Where to get 4 or more channel surface radios? Twmaster Dock Talk 3 May 07, 2002 12:00 AM
Head Speed vs. Pitch, which is more efficient? All__talk Electric Heli Talk 6 May 02, 2002 09:49 PM
SP300 more efficient than SP400 guillaume Sport Planes 1 Jan 17, 2002 08:15 PM