Author Topic: LA 65 (Read 4240 times)

Dennis Moritz · « **on:** February 01, 2007, 12:17:41 AM »

Anyone tried these yet? A few daring souls in my club are planning to try these in the Strega. Making up the venturi's and what not.

Leester · « **Reply #1 on:** February 01, 2007, 05:10:51 AM »

James Griffin had been running one in a converted Fazer, HEAVY but ran good.

Ralph Wenzel (d) · « **Reply #2 on:** February 01, 2007, 05:37:32 AM »

Heavy? Wow. I just checked specs, and the LA.65 is 18.9 oz. - heavier than a Saito .72, even!

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #3 on:** February 01, 2007, 10:29:25 AM »

What's the weight with a tongue muffler?

rob biddle · « **Reply #4 on:** February 01, 2007, 02:59:18 PM »

If I recall correctly, I'm sure that they are reasonably expensive as well as heavy,

Does anyone know how the price of the LA .65 compares to other "useable" .60+ size engines?

I don't know if an ST.51 or MVVS .49 would be quite enough for the strega, but at around $200 (Aust) they are an excellent "stepping stone" into .60 size models.

Cheers, Rob.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #5 on:** February 01, 2007, 03:01:03 PM »

Gosh, I would think an ST 51 would be plenty of power for a Strega.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #6 on:** February 01, 2007, 03:13:49 PM »

Randy, the consensus I thought was the ST 51 just didnt quite have it because of the thick wing on the Strega. What do you think?
Wayne Buran

peabody · « **Reply #7 on:** February 01, 2007, 03:55:47 PM »

I believe that the thick, draggy wing, and the fact that the ARC/ARFs seem a bit porky would cause problems for an ST .51.....

Leester · « **Reply #8 on:** February 01, 2007, 04:29:18 PM »

In Windy's Strega DVD's He says nothing less than a 60.

rustler · « **Reply #9 on:** February 02, 2007, 03:29:49 AM »

If you really want to go down this road the Thunder Tiger GP 60 (or 61?) is virtually a copy of the LA, as good or better quality, and noticeably cheaper. And just as heavy.

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #10 on:** February 02, 2007, 06:17:27 AM »

Looking at Tower the LA65 is $109 in full RC trim, meaning no venturi or CL needle. Weight is posted as eighteen plus ounces with the muffler. The ST51 is listed at a weight 12.9 ounces without muffler. Considering the weight of those noise suppression boat anchors, real weight of the LA might be down around fifteen and one half ounces or less. Why would a plain bearing engine be that porky? In any case, has anyone tried to make these cheap sixties work in stunt? I imagine the LA65 would have the power to handle a Strega. If the ST51 is out or marginal (might do fine, dunno) there's nothing else in the $110 range. Nothing we can buy new. Four strokes would cost double. Until now Arfs were in the 40 range, ST51 tops. Inexpensive power choices? What's out there, if anything. The 40 to 46 sized ships typical in Intermediate and Advanced can power up with cheap power. What to do with the Strega?

Glen Wearden · « **Reply #11 on:** February 02, 2007, 08:02:26 AM »

The Tower 61 weighs about the same as the LA65(if I'm not mistaken, the weight for the LA65 listed in the Tower Hobbies site is w/o muffler; it seems like I saw that comment somewhere), is more powerful, is a ball bearing ABC engine, and costs $20 less. I have a Tower 46 for RC, and except for the finicky carb, it's a solid engine. Just a thought. Glen

peabody · « **Reply #12 on:** February 02, 2007, 08:29:24 AM »

Dennis.....a bit of clever chopping and you could make a Strega a twinkie!

Jim Oliver · « **Reply #13 on:** February 02, 2007, 08:37:58 AM »

Not to hi-jack the thread, but one of the local guys is going to try a Webra 61 Blackhead on his Strega ARF.
This Webra is is a baffle piston/single ring RC engine, it weight about 1/2 oz. more than a Fox 59, both weighed without mufflers. The Webra will be equiped with CL venturi and chip muff.

Acording to the guy that is making the muffler/venturi, the timing of the Webra is 148*, whatever that means.

We will report on results as soon as it is all together.

Jim

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #14 on:** February 02, 2007, 09:00:43 AM »

Peabody. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? Twinkie? How 'bout a whole chocolate cake. As usual you're making me laugh. But wuz up. (Besides my weight.)

Steve Fitton · « **Reply #15 on:** February 02, 2007, 03:02:24 PM »

One of the guys in our club just built a plane using an LA-65. When it stops snowing, we should have a flight report.....

Steve

peabody · « **Reply #16 on:** February 02, 2007, 04:38:51 PM »

Dennis.....a little work and a Windy video and you could have a Strega powered by TWO of those awful FP .40s that you favor

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #17 on:** February 03, 2007, 09:47:33 AM »

I love my FP40s, true, have enough of them to set up a few four engine birds. Guess the guestion is why fly a Strega, if your engine's a jury rig. Could be argued a flyer's better off doing a Vector 40 and choosing any number of cheap and suitable engines. In the past that definitely made sense. Scratch building or kit building a Strega meant lots of time and dedication. The Arf Strega is an entirely different situation, due to price, and ease of assembly/building. If an effective RC to CL conversion of existing inexpensive 60s can be devised that should put more Stregas in the air. Aren't we in the same situations with the sixties now that we were in with the forties, a few years back.

That was Jack Weston's Gieseke Nobler at Middlesex whuppin everyone in Advanced with an awful fp40. Not to worry, looks like he's moving on to electric. (Am I having a serious discussion with Peabody? I know I'll pay for this.)

\

peabody · « **Reply #18 on:** February 03, 2007, 10:54:24 AM »

I think it was more than an engine the got Jack the win.....aside from the funny way that he holds the handle, he's a good flyer....

I know that a Vector, even an ARF (heavier) with a good .40 is quite capable.....even in Expert...

Bill Little · « **Reply #19 on:** February 03, 2007, 01:32:12 PM »

I really believe that the hold up on the Brodak .60 might be an issue. Seems that the Brodak .60 and the Brodak ARF/ARC Strega might have been meant to be together?? A set up all from the same source would be my guess as to John's marketing strategy.

peabody · « **Reply #20 on:** February 03, 2007, 06:47:59 PM »

John is having enough trouble getting the communist to produce enough 40's...

I was hoping for an exact clone of a tiger 60....

Bill Little · « **Reply #21 on:** February 03, 2007, 07:51:28 PM »

Quote from: peabody on February 03, 2007, 06:47:59 PM

(snip)
I was hoping for an exact clone of a tiger 60....

Tom Dixon tried that with the first series DS 60BB, which was supposed to be identical to a Large James version. Windy was very excited with his initial reviews on tape.

peabody · « **Reply #22 on:** February 03, 2007, 08:33:33 PM »

Bill...I meant even to the point of interchangable parts....

Bill Little · « **Reply #23 on:** February 03, 2007, 09:43:21 PM »

Quote from: peabody on February 03, 2007, 08:33:33 PM

Bill...I meant even to the point of interchangable parts....

Don't wish for much, do ya, Rich??

But, you know it could be done without much problem. Why it hasn't is anyone's guess!

Rod Claus · « **Reply #24 on:** February 05, 2007, 11:23:25 AM »

I have recently bought a K&B 61 from MECOA. Thyt are all set up for C/L and are only $90. I put it on my digital scale and it weights 13 oz. without muffler.It also runs and needles very nice on the test stand.I used an APC 12-6 and it tachs about 9200 in wet 2 cycle.The only thing you will have to do is make a smaller venturi as it is .342 and sucks a lot of fuel. Steve Helmick is making me another venturi at about .290 ,so we'll see how that goes.

Rod Claus

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #25 on:** February 05, 2007, 08:11:07 PM »

I hope you like your K&B, Rod. But I really like my early Double Star .60bb...ABC...I bought from SSW Classifides... from Hawk Hawkson, benched only. It likes a 12.5 x 6 APC and 10-22 GMA, and I've always used a T-bolt 4sickle plug. Beeps in/out of 2 stroke about 3 times per loop. Can't say I understand it, but it definitely wants to 4 cycle, no hint of runaway. May have the new velocity stack made by Thursday night's meeting.

Steve

Willis Swindell · « **Reply #26 on:** February 06, 2007, 08:57:38 AM »

I have worked with the new K&B 61 gold head and it wants to run too cold with all castor fuel. That ‘s why Brodak had the regular head on the K&B 61 that he sold. I have the Brodak K&B 61 in my Strega but haven’t finished covering it . first picture
Willis

PS
Here is a picture of Jim Welches LA 65, four and a half oz. lighter after shaving down the engine a little and a tongue muffler second picture

Randy Powell · « **Reply #27 on:** February 08, 2007, 04:50:13 PM »

Used to do that with ST 60s. Just cut the head down and lose most of an ounce.

Gordon Tarbell · « **Reply #28 on:** February 08, 2007, 06:10:52 PM »

What is the difference between the gold and regular head? Combustion chamber shape or?

Willis Swindell · « **Reply #29 on:** February 08, 2007, 06:33:52 PM »

The internals are the same in the gold head and the regular K&B. The gold head has a screw on retainer for the head button and runs colder. While testing these engines several years ago using fox super fuel the gold head would hardly run and kept cutting off but the regular head one would run great. I did not know that the gold head is still being manufactured until I found one in my Local hobby shop. I bought it and plain to see if it will run with some fifty fifty fuel like you have to run the AAC engines with.
Willis

Martin Quartim · « **Reply #30 on:** February 16, 2007, 10:07:28 PM »

You guys should take a close look at the Tower 75 weighs the same as the OS 65LA and it is cheaper.

From what I know most of the weight on the 65LA is on the crank.

With a 30 discount going on at TowerHobbies you can get two of the 75 plus a few things and endup with one 75 for as little as $ 80 each.

If the KB Gold head run cold why not shave the fins for proper heat transfer and loose some weight?

Martin

Willis Swindell · « **Reply #31 on:** February 21, 2007, 09:14:46 AM »

A short report on the LA 65 One flight because of the wind. JIm Welch’s 830 sq. in. 80 oz no name as of yet plane with 65 ft. lines .312 venturi 6 oz. tank 10% 50 50 fuel 12 x 5 three blade prop and a tongue muffler are the specks. The engine has more then enough power and has a good four two break The first thing for Jim to do is make up a set of 70 ft. lines to slow it down and use all that power. The 6 oz. tank is going to be close, we didn’t time it or do a stunt pattern. I hope He will get a chance too fly this Sunday and get some time and rpm figures.
Willis

PS
Good idea about cutting off the fins

jim welch · « **Reply #32 on:** February 21, 2007, 09:27:32 PM »

Martin you're right about the crank weight! It's unbelievable how heavy it is.I cut the case fins ,head fins,motor mounts,bracing,muffler mounting lugs,front drive,and o ringed the back plate.The liner and crank are the culprits on the LA65.The muffler went in the trash accounting for quite a few ounces all told.I also glass beaded that terrible blue off all of it, figured it would help cooling.Used all the high tech machine tools we all possess...dremel tool,1 inch ribbon sander,grinder,and anything else that costs $9.00 at harbor freight store that will remove metal. LOL Willis got 70 foot lines and a different prop for sunday and as soon as I get my arm back in my shoulder I'm ready to let her rip. Jim Welch

Martin Quartim · « **Reply #33 on:** February 23, 2007, 08:34:43 PM »

Quote from: jim welch on February 21, 2007, 09:27:32 PM

Martin you're right about the crank weight! It's unbelievable how heavy it is.I cut the case fins ,head fins,motor mounts,bracing,muffler mounting lugs,front drive,and o ringed the back plate.The liner and crank are the culprits on the LA65.The muffler went in the trash accounting for quite a few ounces all told.I also glass beaded that terrible blue off all of it, figured it would help cooling.Used all the high tech machine tools we all possess...dremel tool,1 inch ribbon sander,grinder,and anything else that costs $9.00 at harbor freight store that will remove metal. LOL Willis got 70 foot lines and a different prop for sunday and as soon as I get my arm back in my shoulder I'm ready to let her rip. Jim Welch

Hi Jim,

Wow! that is some work! but you didn't tell us how far down you got that engine lite

Martin

Steve Fitton · « **Reply #34 on:** February 23, 2007, 08:57:45 PM »

Quote from: Willis Swindell on February 21, 2007, 09:14:46 AM

A short report on the LA 65 One flight because of the wind. JIm Welch’s 830 sq. in. 80 oz no name as of yet plane with 65 ft. lines .312 venturi 6 oz. tank 10% 50 50 fuel 12 x 5 three blade prop and a tongue muffler are the specks. The engine has more then enough power and has a good four two break The first thing for Jim to do is make up a set of 70 ft. lines to slow it down and use all that power. The 6 oz. tank is going to be close, we didn’t time it or do a stunt pattern. I hope He will get a chance too fly this Sunday and get some time and rpm figures.
Willis
PS
Good idea about cutting off the fins

You Dogs! When did you guys sneak out and fly?

?

Steve

jim welch · « **Reply #35 on:** February 23, 2007, 10:01:16 PM »

Martin I think it's around 15 ounces but gotta pull it out and weigh it.The airplane I built is 830 squares 80 ozs but I had it ready to fly so quick didn't take time to reweigh it yet but I will tomorrow.The airplane came out a little heavier than I planned buts it's carbon,kevlar,and glass with a fully planked wing and the la pulls the snot outa the thing.I gotta slow it down a bit with lines and prop choice and it should be a nice bird......Steve...you know i'm a very impatient builder, stared at the plane for 4 days after finishing and snuck out to the park with willis to satisfy my curiousity about the LA 65 and the new bird.I'm really pleased with the first adventure and hope the weather gets better to do some more wringing on this thing...Jim Welch P.S from saturday 441grams on the motor all I have is a gram scale on the beam. jims

Bill Little · « **Reply #36 on:** February 25, 2007, 05:38:28 PM »

Quote from: jim welch on February 23, 2007, 10:01:16 PM

Martin I think it's around 15 ounces but gotta pull it out and weigh it.The airplane I built is 830 squares 80 ozs but I had it ready to fly so quick didn't take time to reweigh it yet but I will tomorrow.The airplane came out a little heavier than I planned buts it's carbon,kevlar,and glass with a fully planked wing and the la pulls the snot outa the thing.I gotta slow it down a bit with lines and prop choice and it should be a nice bird......Steve...you know i'm a very impatient builder, stared at the plane for 4 days after finishing and snuck out to the park with willis to satisfy my curiousity about the LA 65 and the new bird.I'm really pleased with the first adventure and hope the weather gets better to do some more wringing on this thing...Jim Welch P.S from saturday 441grams on the motor all I have is a gram scale on the beam. jims

Hi Jim,

441 is slightly under 15 oz, *I think*. Don't have my cacckylaccky handy, and too lazy to do the real math! LOL!!

You gonna bring the "Monstermobile" to Huntersville in June?? Maybe I can mend the fences with MSSRS. Tate, Swindell, and Fitton by then......

Hope to see you there!
Bill <><

jim welch · « **Reply #37 on:** February 25, 2007, 08:34:53 PM »

Bill..I think it's about 15 and a half or so, don't have a thingamabob handy either LOL. If I can learn the stunt thing between now and then huntersville for sure.Understand your in N.C. we go down to Norwood/Albermarle all the time, got family there.look forward to meeting some of the good people from this site.That name ya called my plane sounds interesting! thanks jim

Bill Little · « **Reply #38 on:** February 25, 2007, 08:40:46 PM »

Quote from: jim welch on February 25, 2007, 08:34:53 PM

Bill..I think it's about 15 and a half or so, don't have a thingamabob handy either LOL. If I can learn the stunt thing between now and then huntersville for sure.Understand your in N.C. we go down to Norwood/Albermarle all the time, got family there.look forward to meeting some of the good people from this site.That name ya called my plane sounds interesting! thanks jim

Hi Jim,

Very familiar with the Norwood/Albemarle area, I'm about an hour from there, but had to go through there a lot years ago. I still go through there when going to Huntersville from here.

As an aside, we spent the first night of our Honeymoon in the Heart of Albemarle Motel , many moons ago!

Bring that Monstermobile on down!

Bill <><

Martin Quartim · « **Reply #39 on:** February 28, 2007, 09:19:42 PM »

Dennis,

The other engines that are economic and on the same weight or less of the OS 65LA are the Magnum XLS61, XLS91, and the Tower 75

Seems the trend today is use the bigest engine you have to keep the plane flying slow and steady.

I couldn't find the manuals for the XLS 61 but this is the link for the Magnum XLS 91 manual
http://media.hobbypeople.net/manual/210806.pdf

The Magnum XLS91 weighs the same as the 65LA, 18.9oz w/o mufler. The XLS 61 weighs less, 22.5Oz w/mullfer (I couldn't find the weight withou it) so I guess it weighs about 16.6Oz w/o the muffler.

If one of these engines turn out to be like the Magnum 36 it would be a great and unexpensive choice for the Strega ARF.

Martin

Leester · « **Reply #40 on:** March 01, 2007, 01:41:08 AM »

And the XLS61 is 89.99

phil c · « **Reply #41 on:** March 01, 2007, 06:30:58 AM »

If you're going to go the big, inexpensive engine route, don't bother with the LA. There are a bunch of 91's out there with similar weight that should run the same. Just check out the port timings for the most stuntable timing.

Of the engines I've checked, the ST 51 has the best timing, almost the same as a Fox 35. It should turn a prop almost as big as a 65 but weighs 5 oz. less. A bargain.

The Magnum 53 is an ounce heavier and has the port timings very similar to the Magnum 36.

Too bad they stopped at .91. OS is now selling a 1.20 on the same case size as their 91!