Bob,

Can't remember who but a couple years ago someone posted his expierence with one on one of the forums. I seem to remember his opinion wasn't very good. Seem to remember it actually failed (as in broke) after a short pieriod of running.

Hi Bob,
I have  the RCV-60 that I have been trying out on a test stand. It weighs just over 20 oz.so I am going finish building a very short nose test plane. Health problems have kept me out of work and away from flying for the last couple of years but I am slowly recovering so maybe I can get back to testing the RCV soon.

I got the RCV to experiment with my theories on using big props with 10"-11" pitch turning apx. 4,500 rpm.  The lower rpm should reduce the gyroscopic inertia, and precession problems associated wih big props but it probably won't help "P" effect issues.  

On the test stand it ran over 7 minutes on 2 oz of 15% nitro 20% oil fuel which suprised me. If this fuel economy holds in the air then that is a reduction of weight in the front end of 2.5 oz that could help offset engine weight compared, to say, a Saito 62.

This beast can swing some pretty big stock props and even bigger modified props with that gear reduction.

If my stunt experiment fails it will make a good scale engine. Either way it is a well made, fairly smooth running engine. I enjoy this kind of testing and trying different things.

Note, I have used the behind the prop starting capability using a starter with the socket bolt acessory available from RCV and I have also started it with a starter and a conventional spinner cone. Either way once it starts to get broken-in  the RCV seems to be a reliable starting engine.  I would recommend anyone wanting to get an RCV to also get a remote glow plug rig like Sullivan makes because of the location of the glow plug in the engine.
It would simplify your life.  RCV suggests you use an OS F 4-stroke plug.

I believe Randy Smith tried out the RCV 60 and I don't think it met his expectations to fulfill the "mission" of a stunt engine that he wanted.
I think he wrote something about it not having enough power.

I am coming at the testing from my own perspective so I will have to see if I can make it work the way I want.  If not I have a good scale engine.
Seems like my buddy Dale Campbell is always adding weight to the nose of his scale planes so if I use it for scale the engine weight won't matter.

                                                          Pat Robinson

Hi, Pat - I flew the "conventional"  RCV .60 for a season without any problems.

I loaned the plane to a friend and he won expert profile stunt at a very big contest.

We will use the inline version for precision scale only - on a Waco cabin biplane.

Bob Z.

 

   This is the first I have heard of this engine, so I googled it. Correst me if I am wrong here, but I looked at the cut away of the .60 SP Inline. You have a main drive shaft with a bevel gear on the rear, it drives a second bevel gear on a perpendicular secondary drive shaft. This connects to the connecting rod driving the piston forward inside the main drive shaft. All of this is running on bearings. Correct? This thing is an engineering nightmare, it's awesome. This is the .90SP, I do have the correct engine I hope???

      "Billy G"   

Thanks Pat --- I thought I was seeing things. I gotta get one just to play with. Bob Z. what do you think, the RCV 120 SP in the "SDR" It says that it will swing a 15.5 - 12 --4 blade

  "Billy G"