Orwick Engines ???

[Robert Zambelli]

Hi, guys - I could have posted this in the engine section but I thought it'd get more exposure here.
The other day, I came across three brand new Orwicks: a 29 glow, a 29 spark and a 60 (?) spark.
All, as far as I can tell, are original, not repros.

Anyhow, for the longest time, I have been running all my glow engines, including some very old ones, on Brodak 10-23, 50/50 castor/synthetic.

I plan to run in all three for use in OTS. For the ignition versions, I will use my usual blend on 75% gasoline, 20% castor, 4% synthetic and 1% nitrobenzine.
Has anyone run a glow Orwick and if so, what fuel did you use?

Thanks, Bob Z.

[Hoss Cain]

WOW, WOW, WOW!   What a find!  I have a couple but none have ever been started.  Both .60s.

[Jim Kraft]

Bob; I have been running an Orwick 64 for several years. I have run it on both alky and castor, at least 25% on the castor, and on half and half castor and synthetic with alky, and on Coleman stove fuel with either castor or regular Walmart 2 stroke oil. All of them work fine. The engine runs the cleanest on Coleman fuel and the Walmart oil. It is kind of funny, but in the Orwick instruction manual it says to clean out the carbon once in a while by running it wide open with a 9-6 or 10-6 prop. You go first. LOL. I just run a batch of Coleman fuel with that 2 stroke oil and that cleans it out really well. Well; I guess I did not answer your question, but I would run any glow fuel with at least 25 percent mostly castor fuel with not over 10% nitro.

[Don Hutchinson AMA5402]

I am running an Orwick 29 ignition on a Madman and find the Powermaster GMA blend (10/22) seems to run just fine. Since I don't tend to put a lot of running time on this model, I have no concern about wear.
What is the serial number of the 64??

[FLOYD CARTER]

Well, I guess I'm an Orwick nut!  I now have eight Orwick engines.  As for the 29 glo, I mix my own fuel, so that's not much help.  However, I can say that it is 10% nitro and at least 25% oil, a mix of synthetic and castor.

If you give the serial number of your Orwicks, I can tell who made them, and when.

Floyd

[Don Hutchinson AMA5402]

Floyd, I only have 2, a 29 and a 64. The 64 S/N is 4158. Who and when?? The 29 is in a Madman so I can't read the S/N right now. Will post it when I get a chance.

[FLOYD CARTER]

Hi Don   Your Orwick S/N 4158 is the 9-fin model actually built by Henry Orwick most likely 1947.

Serial numbers 4100 to 4600 were built by Henry in 1947-1948.  Your low S/N would indicate 1947.

I own S/N 4115.  Pretty close to yours

Another of my Orwick 64 is S/N 4774, indicating built by H. Orwick around 1954.  Part of the final batch of engines (the very last Orwick engine was made in 1955)

[Don Hutchinson AMA5402]

Thanks, Floyd, that agrees with what I thought. I am going to guess the 4 was for Orwick 64 and the 3 digits following were the actual numbers of the engine. Only about 800 64's actually built by henry? How many others were done by Cunningham?? I won't count the Dunham's and Joe Klaus engines as they were done much later.
Don

[FLOYD CARTER]

Hi Don.  I don't think anyone can say just how many engines were made by Cunningham.  Even after Orwick "fired" Cunningham, their factory continued making them, often under the "Cunningham" name.

[Jim Kraft]

I  also have one of Henry's engines in the 4000 series. Since it is in my Taurus right now I cannot see the serial #. All I know is that thing has gobs of power. I was flying my Taurus yesterday, and I left my normal 65' lines at home so had to fly it on 63' lines. Even with the timer only up half way it pulled all 64 ounces very fast with gobs of line tension everywhere. It is one strong engine for sure. The Owicks also have 3% nickel in the cast piston which seems to make them very tough. I have flown mine quite a bit without showing any signs of wear. Henry knew what he was doing. I cannot imagine what it was like for guys like JC Yates to fly a Dragon or Madman with one using a 12-7 prop cut to 11-1/2. Even on 70' lines it had to fly very fast. Bill Tift said those weighed in at around 56 ounces. No wonder they flew fast. I just don't know how they kept the wings on. I wish I had the guts to try it just to feel what it was like, but I don't think my reflexes are quite that good. Long live the green motors.

[Bill Little]

Hi Don   Your Orwick S/N 4158 is the 9-fin model actually built by Henry Orwick most likely 1947.

Serial numbers 4100 to 4600 were built by Henry in 1947-1948.  Your low S/N would indicate 1947.

I own S/N 4115.  Pretty close to yours

Another of my Orwick 64 is S/N 4774, indicating built by H. Orwick around 1954.  Part of the final batch of engines (the very last Orwick engine was made in 1955)

Hi Floyd,

my .64 gas serial number is # 64 1441.  What year was this?

Thanks,
Bill

[Jim Kraft]

Bill, According to my info from Bill Tift, it is a Cunningham built 64. There is a picture of #641397 in my book. Thanks to Don Hutchinson for letting me have all the info on the Orwicks.

[Bill Little]

Bill, According to my info from Bill Tift, it is a Cunningham built 64. There is a picture of #641397 in my book. Thanks to Don Hutchinson for letting me have all the info on the Orwicks.

Thanks, Jim!  I guess that doesn't make much difference.  Does it say what year it was?

I'll get some stuff mailed out soon.

Brother Bill

[Jim Kraft]

Hey Bill;
  Not sure when it was built but just a guess on my part would be after Cunningham and Orwick split up. I just checked mine and it is #4483 which is toward the end of the first run of 400 Orwick built engines. My instruction manual says that these all had 10 to 1 compression. Pretty high by old spark motor comparison.
    Robert; We did not mean to steal your thread and hope you don't mind as we are having to much fun.

[FLOYD CARTER]

To further steal the thread....

I don't want to give the impression that Cunningham-built Orwick engines were inferior.  The ones that I have owned have been first class!  Some people believe that Orwick-built engines were smoother due to his lighter piston.  It would be very hard to tell any difference.

Floyd

[Jim Kraft]

That is very true Floyd. According to Bill Tift Henry did over see the Cunningham engines being built in the beginning, and I believe those most likely had the brazed in wristpin bosses. And, like you say they were all good engines. Henry was a bit of a perfectionest. Anyone that has taken one of his engines apart and looked at the mirror finish on the rod can see that. How he brazed in those bosses is still a mystery to me. But it is beautiful work never the less. The Orwick built engines also had a meehanite main bearing pressed in. I am about to take a look at a Cunningham built Orwick so I will get a first hand look at the differences if any when I take it apart to clean it up.

Many engines get a bad rap because of the way they were missused and abused. People that have no idea of what they are doing try to improve on the original design of the engine and ruin it trying to "hop it up".

[Robert Zambelli]

Hi, Guys - thanks for all the fine information.
Here are some photos.
1) Glow 29, S/N 698
2) Spark 29, S/N 2224
3) Spark 64, S/N R64025 (Repro?)

The Glow 29 has integrally cast exhaust and intake ports, while the two spark engines have bolt-on exhaust ports and screw-in intakes.
"ORWICK" is stamped on the exhaust port of the 64 and the mounting lugs of the glow 29.
"ORWICK" is cast ont the bypasses of both 29s but not on the 64.

          Bob Z.

[Jim Kraft]

Hi Robert;
The R 64,000 series was built by Joe Klause and McCollum and called the K&M Orwick. Those were very well built motors also. They originally came in a hand crafted wood display case. These were made around 1984 and were sold for $250.00. The timer and head should have K&M stamped on them.
        The 2,000 series spark 29 was made by Orwick from 1948 to 1950.
  The G series glow 29 engines were made from 1950 to 1955, and the latest ones had an aluminum prop driver. I would say yours is of the earlier production as it still has the steel prop drive with the cam.

[FLOYD CARTER]

I agree with what Jim has posted. 
The early 29 glo engines made use of parts for the ignition version.  The prop drive washer was steel on these, but the cam wasn't yet ground!  I have a couple of glo 29 engines with a round steel cam.  I have considered installing points and grinding the cam myself.  However, they run so well on glo I might leave well enough alone.

Floyd

[Jim Kraft]

Hey Floyd;
If I remember right the 29 and 64 do take the same timer so you already have a few of those if you wanted to run it on ignition. You could probably use the cam off of a 64 also. Or like you say grind the one thats on there.