Author Topic: Brodak .40 opinions (Read 5874 times)

andreas johansson · « **on:** July 11, 2007, 11:37:12 AM »

Hi guys!

What are your opinions on the Brodak .40 engine?

Andreas

Jimmy R. Jacobs · « **Reply #1 on:** July 11, 2007, 02:05:42 PM »

Very good engine for the money, just break-in per. Brodak paper work.
Jimmy

steven yampolsky · « **Reply #2 on:** July 11, 2007, 04:18:16 PM »

Quote from: f3cheli on July 11, 2007, 11:37:12 AM

What are your opinions on the Brodak .40 engine?

Superb runner. Takes a long time to break in but when it does, watch out! Mine pulls 48oz classic model with aplomb.

Walter Hicks · « **Reply #3 on:** July 11, 2007, 04:36:55 PM »

EXCELLENT! Break it in per instructions a good plug and tank APC 10.5x4.5 lots of rs and go or run it any way you want I have run various props at 8400 rpm ground launch and people are launching way over 10000 with APC10.5x4.5 Use the correct fuel 10/22 works well and go for it. .

Ralph Wenzel (d) · « **Reply #4 on:** July 11, 2007, 05:22:21 PM »

Pretty much what has already been said by others. Excellent value!

Remember that the B.40 was designed as a drop-in replacement for the OS Max .35-S, and has a bit more power at similar rpm's, and a higher useful rev limit. My best results on a profile Cardinal (44 oz.) were with a Rev-up 12-5 cut to 10½". As the Rev-Ups tended to be a bit shy on pitch, it was very close to a 10½-4½ with paddle blades. PowerMaster GMA 10-22 fuel. It really wanted a full 4 oz. to complete the pattern, with maybe 2 laps to spare. Any more than that and I had omitted a maneuver!

Kim Mortimore · « **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2007, 09:07:05 PM »

Quote from: Steven Yampolsky on July 11, 2007, 04:18:16 PM

Superb runner. Takes a long time to break in but when it does, watch out! Mine pulls 48oz classic model with aplomb.

Steven, does that mean that the engine is.....peachy? groan, sorry, I know, I couldn't resist.

Andreas,
If you're installing the engine inverted, you either need to be good at starting inverted engines, or comfortable with turning the plane upside down to start it. I never succeeded in mastering the art of starting a B40 inverted, but I don't claim to be any good at it. Mine is an early version. Not sure if the later, more powerful version is easier to start inverted.

Kim Mortimore

andreas johansson · « **Reply #6 on:** July 12, 2007, 12:45:24 AM »

Hi

Its seems that the B40 is a good runner then. As for starting engines inverted, I normally flip the aircraft around on its back to prime and start the engine.

How long do you usually have to break in the B40? and what is the procedure?

Seems like my 11% Castor 11% Klotz KL-200 and 10% nitro fuel will be a good choice

Andreas

Ralph Wenzel (d) · « **Reply #7 on:** July 12, 2007, 04:37:14 AM »

Your fuel 4blend should work quite well. As far as break-in, I gave my first one about 30 minutes of 2-minute runs on the test stand, mostly in a very fast 5-cycle, pinching the fuel line every 30 seconds or st to briefly greak into a 2-cycle. It was probably ready-to-fly after 10 minutes.

However, after about 8 full flights, it went very rich right at the end. I had to screw the needle valve in about 1-½ turns to restore the takeoff rpm. And yes, the needle valve collar was quite tight. Also fuel economy went way up; from 5-minute flights to almost 7 minutes. I presumed that that was the point at which it was actually broken-in, because needle settings became extremely consistent. In fact, it went for a 5-month period with no needle adjustment at all; just fill it, start it, and fly. Lovely!

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #8 on:** July 12, 2007, 04:59:25 AM »

I have a Brodak 40 in an Oriental ARF. Has always been run on Powermaster GMA 10/22. I tried 5/22 but it didnt like it very much. I have settled on a Zinger 11/5 after trynig several props. It is the happiest with a stock Adamisin/Brodak tongue muffler. Runs nicely and hauls the Oriental ARF at 5.1 lap time, on 59 foot lines and uses 4 3/4 ounces of fuel from a Brodak Magnum tank. Best set up I have had since my G51 in the Magnum. I would say that some have had a problem with the wrist pin and rod but it seems to be the early ones. John Brodak has taken care of the ones I know about very nicely. I just started an Oriental from scratch and I wouldnt think of putting anything else but a B40 in it.
Wayne

Bob Zambelli · « **Reply #9 on:** July 12, 2007, 07:39:01 AM »

I still have the very first Brodak .40 - engine #1. It is John's personal engine and was never sold.

When we were developing the very first ARF (Cardinal #1, which I am still flying), the first flights were with this engine and it performed flawlessly - its debut was at KOI, about 4 years ago.

After the meet, I loaned the plane to a fellow to learn on. It was flown STRAIGHT IN on asphalt and returned to me in two shopping bags.

~^The damage was so severe that I had to grind through the screw on the metal spinner just to get it off.

Other than a small chip on the fins where the tank (never found) impacted, the engine survived PERFECTLY. It hit so hard that the muffler was torn off. Yet, there was not a bit of runout in the crank.

Bottom line, this is not only one fine performing engine but it's incredibly robust.

I don't really understand the phrase "not a top contender" as I truly believe that the Brodak .40, in the right plane, flown by someone like Mike Palko or Dan Banjock, would indeed be a top contender.

Bob Z.

ps - I still have the engine - it is mounted in the prototype ARC Smoothy and does a fine job.

If you're curious about the reconstruction of Cardinal #1, check out the repair article I did for stunt news when I was in pampa.

Bradley Walker · « **Reply #10 on:** July 12, 2007, 11:11:24 AM »

Quote from: Bob Zambelli on July 12, 2007, 07:39:01 AM

I don't really understand the phrase "not a top contender" as I truly believe that the Brodak .40, in the right plane, flown by someone like Mike Palko or Dan Banjock, would indeed be a top contender.

Sure it would, and it will as more of the top pilots discover the Brodak 40.

andreas johansson · « **Reply #11 on:** July 12, 2007, 02:04:53 PM »

Du you run the B40 on muffler pressure?

Andreas

Ralph Wenzel (d) · « **Reply #12 on:** July 13, 2007, 09:53:35 AM »

I always had mine on muffler pressure. But then, I use muffler pressure on almost everything.

I saw Randy Smith's comment about some locations on the muffler actually exhibiting "negative" pressure, and thought about it for a while. My (unlearned) conclusion was, "So what?". As long as it provides the proper "stunt run", what does it matter whether the pressure is positive or negative, as long as it delivers the correct result".

don Burke · « **Reply #13 on:** July 13, 2007, 10:34:00 AM »

If it was really negative, the exhaust would suck fuel out of the tank and blow it out.
Wonder where those short runs came from!

Ralph Wenzel (d) · « **Reply #14 on:** July 13, 2007, 10:27:15 PM »

Quote from: don Burke on July 13, 2007, 10:34:00 AM

If it was really negative, the exhaust would suck fuel out of the tank and blow it out.
Wonder where those short runs came from!

Without wanting to start a debate on this topic, I doubt that whatever negative pressure in the exhaust stack or muffler would have sufficient suction to overcome the fuel draw from the venturi. Moreover, the pressure line goes to the overflow on my (rarely used) hard tanks, which is stuck up in the free space at the top of the tank where there's no fuel.

I generally use a Tettra tank, in which the pressure line has no access to the fuel supply, but actually pressurizes the bladder in the tank shell. And this was the setup to which I referred in my earlier message.

andreas johansson · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2007, 03:36:09 AM »

Well, since everyone who has replied to this thread seems happy with their B40 engines I have now placed an order for a B40 engine and a "Big Art" tongue muffler.

Andreas

Dick Fowler · « **Reply #16 on:** July 14, 2007, 06:01:20 AM »

Quote from: Ralph Wenzel on July 13, 2007, 10:27:15 PM

Without wanting to start a debate on this topic, I doubt that whatever negative pressure in the exhaust stack or muffler would have sufficient suction to overcome the fuel draw from the venturi. Moreover, the pressure line goes to the overflow on my (rarely used) hard tanks, which is stuck up in the free space at the top of the tank where there's no fuel.

I generally use a Tettra tank, in which the pressure line has no access to the fuel supply, but actually pressurizes the bladder in the tank shell. And this was the setup to which I referred in my earlier message.

I agree and would add that if muffler pressure is being used, the only "in" is the muffler pressure line and the only "out" is the fuel pickup. If the muffler pressure line goes "negative" then fuel draw is reduced and the engine would either go extremely lean or just simply starve out.

As far as the Brodak 40 is concerned. Mine took time to break-in but got much better with time on it. I had one on an ARF Cardinal and the power was just OK in my mind. Change the engine to a .40LA and the plane flys much better... the OS Max has more power from what I see.

I think of a Brodak .40 as a Fox .35 on steroids. Small and light, it fits where Fox .35 fits and with much more power. Great for some of the older smaller classic planes. JMHO.

frank carlisle · « **Reply #17 on:** July 14, 2007, 06:15:16 AM »

I'm using two Brodak .40s in my LA HEAT ( which I'll fly tomorrow for the first time). I ran the engines on the bench for about 25 or 30 two ounce runs. I still wasn't happy or sure of them so I flew each of them on a Pathfinder for a few weeks each (maybe 20 flights apiece). Those engines are dead reliable. They run great, start quick and don't miss a beat.
I have about 5 or 6 of them right now.

andreas johansson · « **Reply #18 on:** July 14, 2007, 08:10:13 AM »

This sounds wonderful, why havent I bought one earlier? Now if only Brodak could make a .60 size engine..... it would be nice if Brodak teamed up with Juri Yatsenko (Discovery Retro .60LS)

Frank: Good luck with your LA HEAT tomorrow

Dick: I just hope that the B40 doesnt vibrate like a Fox .35 on steroids...

Andreas

Dick Fowler · « **Reply #19 on:** July 14, 2007, 09:43:54 AM »

"...Dick: I just hope that the B40 doesnt vibrate like a Fox .35 on steroids... " ..

Actually my Foxes don't vibrate.... they are just shivering in fear!

Bill Little · « **Reply #20 on:** July 14, 2007, 01:18:46 PM »

The Brodak 40 is a good stunt engine. It is not an Aero Tiger 36, but it is modern materials and runs very well. Kinda like a hopped up OS 35S, but ABC.

There has been word of Brodak's coming out with a .60 at one time, don't know for sure if it is still inthe works or not............

Jerry Bohn · « **Reply #21 on:** July 14, 2007, 06:07:58 PM »

Andraes, Dont hesitate, order that baby now. I plan to get one when the need for a new classic plane engine is needed.
Get it.
Break it in.
Put it in a plane.
Go fly.
Be happy.
No muss, no fuss, no mods.
Nothing vibrates like a stock Fox, cept my uncle Carl who has Parkinsons.
I'm betting Brodak comes out with a .60. Probably working out the bugs as we post.

andreas johansson · « **Reply #22 on:** July 15, 2007, 02:52:43 AM »

Yeah, I have order it. It normally takes about a week from US to Sweden (if not the Swedish customs gets their hands on the package).

I guess the engine requires a pretty long break-in, so I will run it in bench. I saw a post on this forum with the topic "the worlds ugliest test stand" (and it sure was!), I have to construct something similiar to break-in my B40 engine.

Andreas

Jerry Bohn · « **Reply #23 on:** July 15, 2007, 06:58:55 AM »

Andreas, Enjoy the break-in when it arrives, their only young once.

Leester · « **Reply #24 on:** July 15, 2007, 08:50:35 AM »

The B-40 is no worse to break in than a Fox 35, and how many of those has the average flyer done ? Just goofin off you can have it done in no time at all, ain't no big deal.

Jim Oliver · « **Reply #25 on:** July 15, 2007, 09:41:50 AM »

I consider the break-in for the B40 much easier than the Fox.

For the last Fox I used more than a gallon of 28% castor fuel--along with lots of time. For the B25 and B40, only 18 to 20 runs of two minutes per run, with five minutes or so cool down between runs. Not rocket science.

Jim

phil c · « **Reply #26 on:** July 15, 2007, 04:06:40 PM »

I broke in the one I'm using mainly with three ground runs and then put it in a plane. It was the second one assembled and had a problem with too much head clearance, but it would run a solid 4 stroke from the beginning, even with the smaller muffler outlet. The newer ones are supposed to be even better. Just respect the fact that you are getting kind of a Fox 35 on steroids, not an ST 60 replacement. You'll be very happy if you put it in the right size plane and don't overload it with a big prop.`

andreas johansson · « **Reply #27 on:** July 16, 2007, 02:32:42 AM »

I got a mail from John Brodak and this is the first Brodak engine that has been sold to Sweden

John also wrote that they are working on the Brodak 60 engine

When it arrives I´ll buy my dream-machine, the Brodak Legacy

Andreas

Steve Scott · « **Reply #28 on:** July 17, 2007, 08:15:58 PM »

Quote from: f3cheli on July 12, 2007, 02:04:53 PM

Du you run the B40 on muffler pressure?

Andreas

My B40 with stock muffler has no tap to run on pressure. My son has one in his Primary Force ARF with an APC 10-4 prop, Sig Champion 10/20 with a bit more castor added. We plumbed the tank for uniflow with the tube facing forward.

Just picked up a batch of APC 10.5-4.5 props and a Randy Smith tongue muffler. Haven't flown it with that combo yet.

Marvin Denny · « **Reply #29 on:** July 20, 2007, 01:24:01 PM »

See new thread on brodak 40 revisited.

Bigiron

Author Topic: Brodak .40 opinions (Read 5874 times)

steven yampolsky

Walter Hicks