stunthanger.com

Engine basics => Engine set up tips => Topic started by: Gordon Tarbell on January 02, 2011, 12:12:22 PM

Title: PA 51SE
Post by: Gordon Tarbell on January 02, 2011, 12:12:22 PM
Do the SE PA engines share the same case. If so can a 51SE be enlarged (bored and or stroked) to a 61 or 65 SE?
Title: Re: PA 51SE
Post by: RandySmith on January 02, 2011, 01:49:21 PM
Do the SE PA engines share the same case. If so can a 51SE be enlarged (bored and or stroked) to a 61 or 65 SE?

It would need a differant Rod, Piston, sleeve, head, crankshaft, pin, venturie, backplate , and the case modified and machined

Randy
Title: Re: PA 51SE
Post by: Tim Wescott on January 02, 2011, 03:45:50 PM
It would need a differant Rod, Piston, sleeve, head, crankshaft, pin, venturie, backplate , and the case modified and machined

You left out the "but other than that, everything else can stay the same".

Everything else, presumably, being a prop drive, washer, nut, and some case screws...
Title: Re: PA 51SE
Post by: Bill Little on January 02, 2011, 04:17:56 PM
Like Randy said....  LOL!!

BUT!  If anyone has a PA .51 (preferably SE, but RE would do in a pinch)  for sale or trade and don't want the first born son, or a vacation villa in the Virgin Islands for it, please let me know.
;D

Big Bear
Title: Re: PA 51SE
Post by: Brett Buck on January 02, 2011, 04:27:16 PM
Do the SE PA engines share the same case. If so can a 51SE be enlarged (bored and or stroked) to a 61 or 65 SE?

     Randy answered the original question, but I wouldn't spend a lot of effort getting a larger engine. The 51 is more than sufficiently large for just about any rational airplane you can comfortably fly on 70 foot lines.

  David's 51 setup still hold the record for static thrust of the engines we have tested. Granted it was piped, and also granted that static thrust means very little as far as the in-flight performance goes, but you aren't giving up that much.

    Brett
Title: Re: PA 51SE
Post by: Steve Helmick on January 02, 2011, 05:50:52 PM
I'm really happy with the power of my PA .51 (on pipe), but do wish the SV-11 weighed 61 oz instead of 71 oz. The plane doesn't seem to need more power, but the wing stalls a bit if I hit some of the corners too hard.  I should try reducing the elevator travel a little bit. Hmmmm, add that to the list of experiments to try... #^ Steve

Title: Re: PA 51SE
Post by: Gordon Tarbell on January 03, 2011, 06:00:08 AM
Since it is a SE running through a tube muffler, I thought that maybe the extra displacement might offset the lack of running on a pipe. I will go back to my corner for now and be quiet.
Title: Re: PA 51SE
Post by: proparc on January 03, 2011, 06:10:24 PM
Randy,
You should have just said, that he would have absolutely no problems exchanging the glow plug washer. LL~
Title: Re: PA 51SE
Post by: Bill Little on January 03, 2011, 06:21:23 PM
Since it is a SE running through a tube muffler, I thought that maybe the extra displacement might offset the lack of running on a pipe. I will go back to my corner for now and be quiet.

HI Gordon,

"Stunt" pipes are no longer really tuned to "gain more 'power' " (like in speed or other "power" events), just to act more as a governor and allow the engine to "turn on and off" at the right times.  Using the .40s, in the beginning, I understood that the pipe was used to add power as well as govern the run.  The PA .51SE makes as much power with the muffler as the PA .51RE does with a pipe, is my understanding.  I am actually using a PA .51RE with a PA "Can muffler" and was told to expect the same power as with a pipe.  And to run it the same way. 

Big Bear
Title: Re: PA 51SE
Post by: Balsa Butcher on January 03, 2011, 10:08:21 PM
Gordon, that 51SE would be a great match for the SV-11 ARC you got for X-mas. Get-er dun!  8)
Title: Re: PA 51SE
Post by: Bill Little on January 03, 2011, 10:26:59 PM
Gordon, that 51SE would be a great match for the SV-11 ARC you got for X-mas. Get-er dun!  8)

I totally agree!