stunthanger.com

Engine basics => Engine set up tips => Topic started by: Martin Quartim on January 26, 2010, 08:27:33 PM

Title: New MACS Pro Control Line mufflers
Post by: Martin Quartim on January 26, 2010, 08:27:33 PM

Hey y'all take a look at the new C/L mufflers from Macs Pro

http://www.macspro.com/onepiece.asp   browse down, it's down there.

(http://www.macspro.com/images/st51cl.jpg)

The interesting thing is that they have two types:
Super Tiger .51 (82') Control-Line Std. Muffler
Super Tiger .51 (90') Control-Line Speed Muffler

Speed for a .51 !!! they gotta be kidding n~

Martin
Title: Re: New MACS Pro Control Line mufflers
Post by: Steve Helmick on January 27, 2010, 06:41:55 PM
I ran one on my OS .46LA/Humongus, and liked it a lot. Wonder if these would be shorter, for lower rpm range? The standard MACS Mufflers need to rev up a bit... 10k+ for the .46. I'd think mufflers for smaller engines would be for higher rpm, and lower for bigger engines. Fuel economy is one good feature.   y1 Steve
Title: Re: New MACS Pro Control Line mufflers
Post by: Martin Quartim on January 28, 2010, 05:02:29 AM


Steve,

I believe the mufflers are the same length but offered in two different angles, 90 and 82 degrees.

Martin
Title: Re: New MACS Pro Control Line mufflers
Post by: Douglas Ames on January 28, 2010, 06:37:26 AM
What is the weight compared to their Black mufflers? I noticed the outlet is a little bigger on these.
Title: Re: New MACS Pro Control Line mufflers
Post by: Balsa Butcher on January 28, 2010, 08:20:38 AM
If they are the same muffler, just different angles they ought to designate the 82' for profiles and the 90' for built -up fuselages. I just don't thing the 82' would look good on a full fuselage stunter.  8)
Title: Re: New MACS Pro Control Line mufflers
Post by: proparc on January 28, 2010, 07:36:12 PM
Supposedly, years ago, these mufflers had a notorious reputation for breaking at the flange. Have they corrected that problem?
Title: Re: New MACS Pro Control Line mufflers
Post by: Paul Smith on January 29, 2010, 11:20:48 AM
Looks good to me.  Only 1.5 ounces and the price is right.  It should be just right for my Shark.
Title: Re: New MACS Pro Control Line mufflers
Post by: Balsa Butcher on January 29, 2010, 12:00:22 PM
That looks like a template for the 90" version. I don't think the 82" pipe would look as good on your Shark as that one does. I would have some concern though about how close the outlet is to the leading edge of the wing. That was an issue I had when I tried a black version on an OS 46SF I ran for awhile.  8)
Title: Re: New MACS Pro Control Line mufflers
Post by: Paul Smith on January 29, 2010, 03:40:12 PM
That's why I made the template.  It looks "plenty clear" to me.

I might have to add a heat shield, and will probably add some sort of support for the back end of the pipe to relieve the G forces on the flange.  Maybe a silicone tube that does both. 

I have been advised that tongue mufflers tend to make these engines overheat, and (by my observation) they don't really muffle  very much.  So in the interest in minimizing conflict at the field, I've oped for an actual muffler.  It's only $9 more than a tongue, I can cover it.
Title: Re: New MACS Pro Control Line mufflers
Post by: Steve Helmick on January 29, 2010, 07:40:04 PM
I don't see a need for the 82 deg. version. There can be interference between muffler and LG on a profile, or muffler and wing on a full fuselage with upright or inverted engine. On mine, I put a slight kink in the stinger, for just a bit more clearance over the wing on the Hugemongoose.

Basically, the high rpm requirement (i.e., small prop) is somewhat of a disadvantage. I'd opt for a Randy Aero machined tube muffler...$39, I think. You'll want to add a "rubber ducky", and ream out the outlet. I added a 6-32 pressure tap to the one I used on the .46LA/Skylark, and muffler pressure. I like it. I've used the Randy Aero muff on the G.51/Mutant Magnum, but didn't get around to pressurizing it yet. Probably soon, tho. There's +/-'s to it, but I tend to like it.  H^^ Steve