stunthanger.com
Speed,Combat,Scale,Racing => Carrier => Topic started by: Bob Reeves on October 14, 2011, 07:21:00 AM
-
Lets just say if I were inclined to build a carrier airplane for either Class in order to play with the big boys what engine(s) should I be on the look out for? Anything really hot being produced by OS, Super Tigre etc. these days or do I need to go to eBay?
-
Bob,
We're sorta looking for the same info---Dale Gleeson has an OS .61 rear induction/rear exhaust in Classifieds I would buy if I had some loose change :(
I am going to the Batron Rouge contest this weekend and hope to meet a Carrier knowledgable flyer there whose brain I want to pick; maybe I will learn something helpful---if so, I will pass it along.
There are usually 60ish engines on E---, but not so many .40 sizes that would be powerful enough for Class I (Nelson .40 power).
Jim
-
Just a thought, but if you looked for a pair of 40 and 45/46/50/55 "siblings", you could build one airplane and change classes by changing engines and lines (.015 for class I, .018 for class II). When I was just getting started in the scale classes in the early 90's, I used the OS 40 and 46SF. They weren't the fastest, but they were reliable and ran great. 50% nitro didn't bother them one bit. Plus, OS made a reverse crank that fit both engines. You could probably find good deals on SF's on the bay. The more recent FX series may be a bit more powerful, but I'm personally not a big fan of remote needles. If you want the grunt of a 60, John Vlna was selling a Webra 61 rear intake in the classifieds. I also had lots of good luck with one of those. Come to Dallas in a week and we can talk more about it!
Bill
-
The OS 61fx is a pretty descent engine. I think it was around a 90 or so mph high in a sterling guardian I had a couple years ago. It was pretty reliable, idled good and had good transition too. From what I have seen the webra 61 seems to be one of the best choices for overall performance. I have had good luck as far as consistency goes with rossi 40s except the new gold head ones. The rossi's aren't the ultimate in performance but they are usually pretty cheap on ebay. Going along with what Bill said about using "sister" engines I used a rossi 45 in my corsair at the nats this year and got 3rd. The 40 and 45 are the same mounting pattern.
-
I was thinking about using the Rossi 60 pictured below with the Black head, but not sure if it is suited for carrier. I know the Rossi 60 RR makes them haul. I have the other Rossi pictured with the 60, but not sure what it is. It is a bit smaller than the 60. Any ideas? It is not marked anywhere.
Lee TGD
-
The engine with the silver head looks like a 40. If you wanted to be sure, you could measure the bore and stroke, then either look for published spec's or do the math yourself. They were the engine to beat in RC quickie 500 before the Nelson came along. I don't recall seeing them used in carrier. I had a Rossi 61 similar to the one in the picture in an MO-1. It ran well and would go about 16 flat on suction. I found it to have so much torque it made the airplane hard to fly slow. I switched to an MVVS 61 front intake with a factory reverse crank. After it was 'massaged' a bit, it would go in the mid-upper 16's, but the low speed handling was so vastly improved the slower high speed was more than made up for. If you don't plan to hang and are looking for more of the nostalgia type flight, it may be fine.
-
<snip> Come to Dallas in a week and we can talk more about it!
Bill
Planning on it, Tom Martin and I are driving down on Saturday AM, going to Mikes to see what goodies we might need and spend the night. I'll have my two FJ-4's for 15 and Sportsman and Tom is trying to get together a Buster he inherited with a 3 line system to fly in Sportsman.
-
Not to worry if it's not ready. I have a plane he (or anybody else) is welcome to fly.
Bill
-
Some info on Rossi engines, mught be of interest:
http://www.rossienginesusa.us/SGME/RossiEnginesUSA/Rossi_Instructions.pdf
also, this:
http://rossienginesusa.us/SGME/RossiEnginesUSA/DIM_TBL.pdf
Jim
-
Bob,
We're sorta looking for the same info---Dale Gleeson has an OS .61 rear induction/rear exhaust in Classifieds I would buy if I had some loose change :(
I am going to the Batron Rouge contest this weekend and hope to meet a Carrier knowledgable flyer there whose brain I want to pick; maybe I will learn something helpful---if so, I will pass it along.
There are usually 60ish engines on E---, but not so many .40 sizes that would be powerful enough for Class I (Nelson .40 power).
Jim
Spoke with Dale a little on the OS 61 but haven't committed completely yet, still not really sure what I want. Hoping I can gather more info at Dallas this weekend. Be nice to have a current production engine that you could get parts for. I know from my experiments with a reverse Saito 62 being able to run reversed is a real advantage and finding reverse cranks might be difficult. Decisions... Decisions... Decisions...
-
Bob,
Same here, "analysis paralysis"!
Jim
-
While there is nothing wrong with reverse cranks, you can win without them. I point to Pete Mazur, who has more wins than anyone of the last 20 years. I believe I am correct in saying that Pete uses normal rotation . (Am I Pete?)
There is also a bigger prop selection for normal rotation.
A plane that is built, flying and reliable is the important thing.
-
While there is nothing wrong with reverse cranks, you can win without them. I point to Pete Mazur, who has more wins than anyone of the last 20 years. I believe I am correct in saying that Pete uses normal rotation . (Am I Pete?)
Yup, I only use reverse rotation on some electrics that use large props and therefore have abnormally large torque for that reason. For glow powered airplanes, I restrict myself to normal rotation and am happy with that. Another person that won a fair bit over the last 30 years or so was Bill Melton. He also never used reverse rotation. He tried it once using a normal rotation and a reverse rotation engine in the same airplane. he found he lost quite a bit of time with the reverse rotation. It could be that loss was because he had not learned to set the airplane up for reverse rotation as opposed to normal rotation, but he never sorted that out for sure. He just didn't use reverse rotation. So, while some people swear by reverse rotation, others of us have not found it necessary and have enjoyed some success anyway.
Pete
-
Reverse rotation is nice, but isn't a necessary requirement. That's why someone needs to buy that NIB Webra Speed 40 I'm trying to sell...:) check the Classifieds.
dale gleason