Author Topic: New engine for planes (Read 5222 times)

DanielGelinas · « **on:** November 22, 2012, 02:22:06 PM »

Hi Guys,

I just purchased baby lightning streak and baby flite streak kits.

Now looking for two new engines for these plane.
I checked out this sight:

http://www.nvengines.com/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=65

and Brodaks site for beam mounting engines.

Unfortunately, I need your experiences in selecting the appropriate engine model, as I have NO experiences in 1/2a except for cox.

Can someone enlighten me on which engine I should get? 049 or 061??

NV have four different engines and Brodask has two??

These planes will not be to compete, just sport flying and maybe some 1/2a fun combat....

Many thanks Guys

-Daniel

Bill Little · « **Reply #1 on:** November 22, 2012, 02:29:43 PM »

Hi Daniel,

My favorite 1/2A engine is the Big Mig .061. It is not a "high performance" engine, but has plenty of power, runs steady and is easy to use. DO break it in as instructed.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

kenneth cook · « **Reply #2 on:** November 22, 2012, 04:13:17 PM »

The Baby Lightning Streak is an awesome plane. In fact, it really is a Flite Streak with different tail feathers. I'm using a Cox Sure Start to power my Lightning Streak. I had the case bushed with a oilite bearing and a few other mods such as 128 TPI needle valve pressed into the backplate and a high performance reed and Merlin plug setup. Totally dead reliable. The NV engine are terrific engines. I have more than enough power using the Cox. A Norvel or NV Big Mig .049 would be plenty of power with much to spare. The Flite Streak and a Big Mig .049 are a great combination. The Big Mig .061's are quite a bit more powerful and would be quite overpowering for these planes. I'm flying the Lightning Streak on 42' Spider Wire lines using the Cox engine above. The modern engines like the Norvel's are quite different than the Cox. These turn a much higher rpm and require smaller lower pitched props. They also don't require as high nitro content to perform as well. I like the nitro and have set mine up to run on higher nitro as mine are exclusively running on combat planes.

I can't agree with the fact that the Big Mig isn't a high performance engine. I use them for combat on bladder with venturi removed 35% nitro and I'm getting 30K out of it consistently which hangs quite nicely with the Cyclons. This is accomplished under $60. My Cyclon is 4 times that cost. I can't comment on the Brodak engines. I did have the first MK1 engine which was reliable but really didn't fit my needs. I believe the newer Brodak MkII is available. I've never seen this engine in use so I can't comment on it. The Cox engines are really inexpensive and parts can be had readily if needed. I'm a Norvel fan and I have had nothing but positive experiences using them. Alex from NV engines is quick to respond to questions and e-mails. I believe his contact info is klondike17@juno.com. Keep in mind, they're are a few choices in regards to the NV engines. Both versions I'm describing were made available in .049 (.08) and .061 (1.0).

The Big Mig was designed as a sport version engine. It was made available in a ABN version which was the rectangular heads that were nickle plated. This engine is also available in the Revlite version which is a ceramic coated aluminum with a cylindrical head design. I like them both, although some claim the earlier work better. I love both versions. The Revlite takes some getting used to on break in and break in is extremely important with these. Reading as stated above and following the instructions to the letter is a must.
The other engine was the AME which is a higher performance faster timed version. These differences are hard to tell apart unless your familiar with these engines.
Each engine has different porting, the AME has 3 large internal ports, the Big Mig has 5 smaller ports. The AME has a short needle valve which is perpendicular to the venturi stack while the Big Mig has a longer extended needle which is swept back about 15 deg. The AME is also available in both ABN and Revlite versions. The AME has a larger venturi intake and therefore is really designed to be run on bladder pressure while the Big Mig runs perfectly fine on suction. The AME has been successfully run on muffler pressure. I don't run the mufflers and I use bladder pressure on all my Norvel engines. The Aero which is a .049 also available through NV is a combat engine which has a shorter length case. This engine has the AME porting as well. At one time, AME was the name of the engine. The name AME is now used as the cylinder porting design. The original engine was known as the AME Zeus. All of these engines share similarities. The combat versions just have shorter cases. Alex would be most helpful if you contacted him.

A Nelson head adapter is available for all of the engines I stated on this post with the exception of the Brodak MkII. Used with a Nelson plug setup, this will put another 1000k+ rpm's on the engines. Here is a vid of my son flying his Big Mig .061 with some serious winds that day. Ken

Andrew Tinsley · « **Reply #3 on:** November 23, 2012, 02:11:10 PM »

Hello,
Ken knows exactly what he is talking about and has the knowledge and experience to get the best out of the Norvel and Cox engines that he flies. Therein may lie a problem, if you don't have experience of the Norvels (and indeed a modified Cox reedy, come to that) you may find yourself in more than a bit of trouble!
If you are familiar with Coxes and can strip them down and sort out leaks and the likes, something like a Black Widow with a Galbreath head and Nelson plug and maybe an odd tweak or two, should do you fine. You won't have to learn a new ball game. If you want some interesting power then a Big Mig of 0.49 or 0.61 will provide just about all you want. If you are a masochist, then The AME versions will give you a real thrill, but they are not easy to run well, until you have gained a bit of experience.
I have no experience with the Brodack engines. The Mk1 is reputed to have a low power output and the Mk2 is much better so I hear. I believe that neither approaches the Norvels for outright power although the Mk2 may be more civilised than any Norvel.
Another option is the AP Wasp, this is a knock off of the Norvels but timed much less aggressively. A Jan Houlesko (Sp?) makes a very good stunt engine. The Piston / liners are very good in my experience, but the rest is typical Chinese quality and very variable. They do make a very good stunt engine. Fuel feed problems being almost non existant compared with the Norvels.

Hope this helps,

Andrew.

DanielGelinas · « **Reply #4 on:** November 23, 2012, 03:57:43 PM »

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm still not decided...
Andrew, are the AP wasps still available? If so, where?
Thanks,
-Dan

Larry Renger · « **Reply #5 on:** November 23, 2012, 09:14:57 PM »

Also, consider scoring a Medallion .049 on e-Bay. Decent power, very stable runs. Galbreath makes a fine thread needle assembly, and a Galbreath head will punch up the power a bit.

Andrew Tinsley · « **Reply #6 on:** November 25, 2012, 12:50:03 PM »

Hello Daniel,
The AP wasps are still very readily available in the UK and the rest of Europe. It seems that the US availability is questionable. I live in the UK, so I am not sure about the US, last time I looked I think that Hobby People (?) still had them.
The only snag with getting one here in UK/Europe is that they cost a lot more than the US, typically £30, Exchange rate is somewhere between $1.50 to $1.60 to the pound so looking at maybe $45-$48 per engine, plus postage which in regular mail is £2 to £3 to the US.
Happy to ship one over to you if you want to go that way!

Regards,

Andrew.

George · « **Reply #7 on:** November 25, 2012, 07:32:47 PM »

Quote from: DanielGelinas on November 23, 2012, 03:57:43 PM

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm still not decided...
Andrew, are the AP wasps still available? If so, where?
Thanks,
-Dan

Dan,
You stated that the engines were to be used for control line planes. The AP Wasps are equipped with a throttle so you will need to wire the throttle open or get a CL venturi. The NV engines are available with a CL venturi. For the planes you mentioned, I would go with the CL versions of the NV .049 Big Mig if you are buying new.

You might be able to acquire a used Tee Dee, Medallion, or Big Mig.

Good luck whichever you choose.

George

bob werle · « **Reply #8 on:** December 19, 2012, 12:03:14 PM »

I have used both the Brodak Mk1 & Mk 2. The Mk2 is a good little stunt or fun fly motor. I had it on a plank wing stunter called White Lightning and it ran fine. Not a bad choice for the price and the mfg sytands behind what he sells.

Andrew Borgogna · « **Reply #9 on:** December 19, 2012, 02:07:16 PM »

Bob
How are you buddy? We miss you at the club meetings, Happy Holidays my friend.

Now, I looked over this thread and nobody said anything about electric. I have been flying a 1/2a Pathfinder for well over a year on electric and it works great. Gas is good, but give electric a try. You may be very suprised at how well it works.
Andy Borgogna

david beazley · « **Reply #10 on:** December 19, 2012, 04:11:50 PM »

Andrew,
what is your set uo on your 1/2A Pathfinder?

Andrew Tinsley · « **Reply #11 on:** December 20, 2012, 06:30:41 AM »

Hello Andrew.
No one mentioned electric, because the request was for a suggested engine. Electric planes are powered by motors, not engines, so it is hardly surprising that no one mentioned electric. OK that was tongue in cheek!
I appreciate that a good small stunter is possible using existing technology. As the technology improves, then they will be a much better bet than glow or diesel powered planes! So your suggestions would be welcome to a lot of people.
I am a physicist and have electrical engineering qualifications to doctorate level. So I am not some old Luddite and I have played with mini electric power for F/F, just to keep my hand in. However if I had to choose, I would go for diesel or glow power anytime, because I love the miniature engineering that these powerplants have. Idiosyncratic, yes they can be, but far more interesting to me, than the boring consistency of electric powered flight. The day electric powered flight takes over completely, is the day I give up remodelling!

Andrew.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #12 on:** December 20, 2012, 07:35:51 AM »

Andrew, if ether wasn't so hard to come by and store, I would be flying more of my diesel engines.

George · « **Reply #13 on:** December 21, 2012, 08:58:13 PM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on December 20, 2012, 07:35:51 AM

Andrew, if ether wasn't so hard to come by and store, I would be flying more of my diesel engines.

Most who mix their own fuel use John Deere Starting Fluid for ether. It has 80% ether.

George

john vlna · « **Reply #14 on:** December 23, 2012, 12:28:09 PM »

Andrew,
Sorry to see you so down on electric power. I've always been a big flyer and I find electrics just great to get the most flights in for the time available. "Boring consistency of electric powered flight"? I'll take it ever time.
John

Andrew Tinsley · « **Reply #15 on:** December 23, 2012, 12:56:28 PM »

Hello John,
I simply don't like electric power. I have tried it on small FF models and have gone back to CO2 motors. Each to his own I really don't care what other people fly. If they like electric, then FINE! I don't have a problem with it at all!
Simply said I will stick to IC power. I think electric is boring and holds no interest for me. But everyone else can fly electric and I will be quite happy!

Andrew.

Andrew Borgogna · « **Reply #16 on:** December 27, 2012, 07:32:25 PM »

David
You wanted to know what I have in the 1/2a Pathfinder.
> Arrowind 2210-25 kv=1560
> APC-E 7x5 Pusher prop
>Cast;e Creations Thunderbird 36amp (over kill but it works)
>KR governor/timer
>3 cell Hobby People 1300mha battery
Hope that helps.
Andy

DanielGelinas · « **Reply #17 on:** January 09, 2013, 09:55:22 AM »

Hi guys,

Just wanted to let you know that I finally purchased two brodak .049 markII engines.

From what I read they are the most user friendly, if not the most powerful.

I'll let you know how it goes once the break-in is completed.

Thanks for all your suggestions!

PS. Unfortunately, I crash way too much for electric.

-Dan

Andrew Tinsley · « **Reply #18 on:** January 09, 2013, 10:16:03 AM »

Hm .....
I have never seen a glow or diesel powered c/l plane catch fire in flight. Last year I did see an electric control line plane catch fire........ Maybe one more reason for me to avoid electric powered flight! With all the R&D going into battery technology, we are going to get a high power density cell soon, that isn't dangerous. NiCd batteries have the potential for serious pollution problems on disposal. LiPo cells are a distinct fire hazard. Any idea what safe battery technology will be appearing in the near future?

Andrew.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #19 on:** January 10, 2013, 07:44:30 AM »

Quote from: Andrew Tinsley on December 23, 2012, 12:56:28 PM

Hello John,
I simply don't like electric power. I have tried it on small FF models and have gone back to CO2 motors. Each to his own I really don't care what other people fly. If they like electric, then FINE! I don't have a problem with it at all!
Simply said I will stick to IC power. I think electric is boring and holds no interest for me. But everyone else can fly electric and I will be quite happy!
Andrew.

1/2A and electric are two different things.
A 1/2A is a piston engine with less than .050 cubic inches of swept volume.
An electic motor can be any size and there is another column for them.
A small electric motor is not a 1/2A.

john vlna · « **Reply #20 on:** January 10, 2013, 08:58:24 AM »

yes, but you can fly small 1/2A planes with small electric motors.

Andrew Tinsley · « **Reply #21 on:** January 11, 2013, 10:11:23 AM »

Yes you can indeed John, but it isn't 1/2A by definition! I think you will find that the majority of people that frequent the 1/2A section here, are people that fly internal combustion engines for preference. I believe Larry Renger is experimenting with electric power for 1/2A planes, but I doubt that he will convert 100% to electric!
I appreciate that you are an electric fan and more power to your elbow, but I doubt you will get many converts here. Most people are flying 1/2A IC out of preference. I have electrical engineering qualifications to doctoral level. So I am certainly not anti electricity! I know all about solid state circuitry that goes into current electric models and could build it from scratch more or less with my eyes closed. Probably because I know most of the stuff inside out, is the reason I am not interested in flying such gear. Internal combustion engines have a charm of their own and are much more complex and difficult to figure than a simple battery driven inverter and a multiphase wound motor!
Don't let me try to put you off electric power, some are interested and some not. That is why aeromodelling is a good hobby, you can do what you like and it doesn't matter what the other guy does!

Dan Bregar · « **Reply #22 on:** January 16, 2013, 05:35:31 PM »

Andrew

"The day electric powered flight takes over completely, is the day I give up remodelling!" Well, not to worry. I figure you got 7 or 8 more years before you'll have to give up remodelling !

Andrew Tinsley · « **Reply #23 on:** January 18, 2013, 02:11:17 AM »

Well that is fine Dan, I should be unable to fly by that time due to health issues! I have plenty of engines and fuel, so I should be OK! I somehow doubt your figures though. There is a very large number of SAM chapteres throughout the world. this makes control line flyers very small beer in terms of numbers. So maybe control line will be all electric in 7 or 8 years, but I can always fly IC control line with SAM and be in good company.

Regards,

Andrew.

Andrew Tinsley · « **Reply #24 on:** January 18, 2013, 07:09:48 AM »

Apologies for the typo above! Just want to set the record straight. I have absolutely no objection to anyone using any sort of powerplant that they wish! I am not interested in pursuing a sterile debate of electric versus IC motive power. As I have said elsewhere, the system used to power current electric planes is very old hat and somewhat crude in execution. I have had my fill when I did development work on chopped DC to power multiphase motors. That must have been at least 30 years ago. So the systems are not new. The ability to programme power was also developed at that time.
So personally, I don't have much interest in old electric technology, because I have been there, got the tee shirt and it doesn't really inspire me. To other people the techniques, as applied to model aircraft are cutting edge and exciting, if you find it that way, then fine, go for it and enjoy yourself. I just find it boring and unexciting, but that is just my take.
What people constantly fail to realise, is that we all play with model aircraft and engines / motors to ENJOY ourselves. There is room in the hobby for all sorts of people with different interests. That is what makes it so good to take part in.
I actually enjoy IC engines, I like the noise, smell and oil. I take them apart when they are sick and try my best to repair them. I am captivated with old US spark ignition engines and spend hours getting them to run at their best. If it actually came to either flying or engine fiddling, it would be a hard choice, I would probably take the latter. There is still a lot to learn about IC engines, different makes with near enough the same timing and port arrangements will run totally different to each other. I could go on, but enough!
The bottom line is go and do what appeals to you, but more importantly ENJOY yourself.

Andrew.

don Burke · « **Reply #25 on:** January 18, 2013, 07:49:35 AM »

Quote from: Andrew Tinsley on January 18, 2013, 07:09:48 AM

Apologies for the typo above! Just want to set the record straight. I have absolutely no objection to anyone using any sort of powerplant that they wish! I am not interested in pursuing a sterile debate of electric versus IC motive power. As I have said elsewhere, the system used to power current electric planes is very old hat and somewhat crude in execution. I have had my fill when I did development work on chopped DC to power multiphase motors. That must have been at least 30 years ago. So the systems are not new. The ability to programme power was also developed at that time.
So personally, I don't have much interest in old electric technology, because I have been there, got the tee shirt and it doesn't really inspire me. To other people the techniques, as applied to model aircraft are cutting edge and exciting, if you find it that way, then fine, go for it and enjoy yourself. I just find it boring and unexciting, but that is just my take.
What people constantly fail to realise, is that we all play with model aircraft and engines / motors to ENJOY ourselves. There is room in the hobby for all sorts of people with different interests. That is what makes it so good to take part in.
I actually enjoy IC engines, I like the noise, smell and oil. I take them apart when they are sick and try my best to repair them. I am captivated with old US spark ignition engines and spend hours getting them to run at their best. If it actually came to either flying or engine fiddling, it would be a hard choice, I would probably take the latter. There is still a lot to learn about IC engines, different makes with near enough the same timing and port arrangements will run totally different to each other. I could go on, but enough!
The bottom line is go and do what appeals to you, but more importantly ENJOY yourself.

Andrew.

I heard while on the soapbox a long time ago, "It's ONLY a hobby!"

Andrew Tinsley · « **Reply #26 on:** January 18, 2013, 10:54:40 AM »

Hi Don,
It is only a hobby, but one you should enjoy! Let people enjoy what they do best in aeromodelling. There is room for everyone and their views.

Andrew.