News:



  • April 23, 2024, 10:01:09 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Fuel consumption  (Read 2984 times)

Offline Gary Dowler

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1017
Fuel consumption
« on: September 27, 2017, 12:36:29 AM »
Thunder Tiger 46 schnurle engine in my biplane. Most fuel guzzling engine I've ever had. I can lean it out some, but even running a bit rich should it drink 1oz per minute? At 3/4 throttle??  10pct nitro 20% lube fuel.
Profanity is the crutch of the illiterate mind

Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3674
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2017, 01:04:35 AM »
With a rich setting it sounds feasible but maybe a little high.

Randy Cuberly
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

Offline Perry Rose

  • Go vote, it's so easy dead people do it all the time.
  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1662
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2017, 05:13:29 AM »
Venting fuel from an uncapped vent or a leak in the tank and plumbing?
I may be wrong but I doubt it.
I wouldn't take her to a dog fight even if she had a chance to win.
The worst part of growing old is remembering when you were young.

Offline Don Jenkins

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 382
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2017, 06:48:25 AM »
The fuel has an affect on "run time".  Synthetic lubricants will burn and be more efficient, castor doesn't burn and comes out the exhaust.  I experimented with fuels with a Stalker .61 on the test stand.  I got consistent 4.5 minutes runs on 6 ounces of 10/20 (half castor/half synthetic) and I got consistent 8.5 minute runs on 6 ounces of 5/18 (all synthetic lube).  I also added 4 ounces of castor to the all synthetic fuel and got 8 minute runs.

Don

Offline Don Jenkins

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 382
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2017, 07:06:40 AM »
delete

Exactly my point, thanks for restating my post: Fuels affect run time!

Don

Offline Allan Perret

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1892
  • Proverbs
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2017, 08:12:38 AM »
Don: when you did that test, did you adjust needle to get same RPM  ?
Allan Perret
AMA 302406
Slidell, Louisiana

Offline Gerald Arana

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2017, 09:19:47 AM »
Thunder Tiger 46 schnurle engine in my biplane. Most fuel guzzling engine I've ever had. I can lean it out some, but even running a bit rich should it drink 1oz per minute? At 3/4 throttle??  10pct nitro 20% lube fuel.

What muffler/venturi size?

Personally, I'd try an OS 762 (small outlet) and an FP 25 venturi with an OS NVA.

And an 11 X4 wood prop. That's my two cents worth. And it is worth what you paid for it!  LL~ LL~ LL~

Jerry

Offline Gary Dowler

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1017
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2017, 12:39:48 PM »
Engine is stock Thunder Tiger with R/C carb. Most of the flight is at something like 2/3 - 3/4 throttle. Prop is a 11/7.  Muffler is factory expansion unit.  No leakage at all around front seal or anyplace else.   Fuel used is Byron fuels product, 10% nitro, 20% oil (half syn/half castor).  No fuel venting, uniflow tank with overflow vent capped.
Going to pull it and put it on the stand and burn some fuel doing some test with some of these suggestions.

Gary
Profanity is the crutch of the illiterate mind

Online Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6862
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2017, 03:20:47 PM »
   If you are using an R/C throttle, even with the throttle closed down you have probably a 25% larger opening that if it was a venturi, because you have no needle valve spray bar to take up space. The throttle barrel lets air leak around it also. I have a LA.40 on a throttle in my Dusty profile scale/stunt model, and have a four ounce tank on it. With a venturi installed, I have more than enough for the pattern, about 6.5 minutes or so. With the throttle installed and flying scale presentation, I can use almost the whole tank for the take off, ten laps, a few maneuvers, touch and go, landing, taxi a lap and shut down and the flight takes about 4 minutes or so. So the culprit is the carburetor itself, just letting soooo much air in that you have to adjust the needle open accordingly to get the run you want. Just cut back on nitro and/or install a larger tank.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Online Paul Smith

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2017, 08:44:32 PM »
Mufflers make engines use less fuel.  Do you have a muffler.  If so, more restriction will make it more economical.

Your problem (if it is a problem & not just a condition) can be solved by changing to an OS product.  They are very fuel efficient.  Just like an electric car, you can get you money back in fuel saving if you live really long.
Paul Smith

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9935
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2017, 07:17:07 PM »
More prop load increases fuel consumption. On the other hand, if you're currently running a Master Airscrew 11-7, that's probably around 5" pitch, because they aren't accurately pitched for some reason...probably marketing. Best used for stirring paint.  I'd probably try a 12-5 APC on that TT .46.   :)  Steve
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Offline Gary Dowler

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1017
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2017, 08:52:40 PM »
Well, ran a static test to measure fuel consumption. Apparently in the air it gets thirsty because on the ground with the 11-7 (Top Flight wood prop) it ran 12:26 on 7oz of 10/20. That was keeping it around 3/4 throttle mimicking how it flies best.  This makes about 9200rpm. 10,100 rpm was max.

Repeated the experiment with a nylon Master Airscrew 11-4 prop.  All conditions were the same. Run time shortened to 10:45, but rpm's picked up substantially. 3/4 throttle now was a bit over 10,000rpm and max rpm was now around 13,500!

Can I conclude that fuel consumption increase was a result of the higher rpm achieved despite similar throttle settings?   

Haven't had a chance to get airborne with the new prop yet. Also bought a 10-8 & 10-7 to try.
Profanity is the crutch of the illiterate mind

Offline Target

  • C/L Addict
  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1692
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2017, 09:59:12 AM »
Here is s dumb question-
Is the tank empty after you land from flying? Maybe you have fuel left in the tank unused?
Regards,
Chris
AMA 5956

Offline Gary Dowler

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1017
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2017, 02:55:08 PM »
Here is s dumb question-
Is the tank empty after you land from flying? Maybe you have fuel left in the tank unused?
I have never put more than 5 oz in the tank on any flight, and none of those have exceeded 5-5 1/2 minutes before it ran out. Last flight I deliberately landed early after 4.5 min so it was still under power and had perhaps 1/2 oz that I could extract afterwards.
Profanity is the crutch of the illiterate mind

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13736
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2017, 03:13:21 PM »
Can I conclude that fuel consumption increase was a result of the higher rpm achieved despite similar throttle settings?   

Haven't had a chance to get airborne with the new prop yet. Also bought a 10-8 & 10-7 to try.

   Possibly, but why in the world are you using such high-pitch props? Get a real stunt prop like an APC 12.25-3.75 and let it rev up. 

    Part of our problem with determining why your fuel consumption might be different is that most of us have no experience running the engine with the carburetor. It should be able to work OK and 3/4 throttle appears to be pretty reasonable but the reference is to what we normally get with the suppled CL venturi.

     Brett

Offline Gary Dowler

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1017
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #15 on: October 08, 2017, 03:42:40 AM »
Started with the 11/7 because I had no experience with engines bigger than a 35 and that's what I was recommended to get. Now I'm told that's too much prop for this 1.6hp schedule ported engine.  Hence my recent test wit the 11/4, and then I got the 10/8 and 10/7 to try. I run a 10/5 on my 35 powered bird, and it has half the power of this 46.
Just trying to learn. Problem is that so many have conflicting advice, it's hard to discern what I really need to do. Next flight will be with the 11/4.
Profanity is the crutch of the illiterate mind

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13736
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2017, 07:31:05 AM »
Started with the 11/7 because I had no experience with engines bigger than a 35 and that's what I was recommended to get. Now I'm told that's too much prop for this 1.6hp schedule ported engine.  Hence my recent test wit the 11/4, and then I got the 10/8 and 10/7 to try. I run a 10/5 on my 35 powered bird, and it has half the power of this 46.
Just trying to learn. Problem is that so many have conflicting advice, it's hard to discern what I really need to do. Next flight will be with the 11/4.

        I am not sure who you are hearing this sort of stuff from, but you should stop listening post-haste. A stunt engine in the year 2017 runs 3.5-4" of pitch. In the air, the 8"(!) pitch prop will want to run about 7500 RPM which turns your 1.6 hp engine into a .25 hp engine - which means it is LESS load than a 4" pitch prop of the same general diameter. It's more drag on the ground but you don't care about what it does on the ground.  It also almost guarantees that you will have either a "runaway" problem (where the engine doesn't really want to run at 7500 rpm because that is close to idle, so it speeds up wildly as soon as you take off) and certainly guarantees that if you close the throttle enough for it to suck fuel at that RPM, you will get dismal performance in the maneuvers.

    Running engines at low revs with 6"+ pitch props went out the window more than 30 years ago and the vast, vast majority of contest wins since about 1988 have been with engines running about 11,000 rpm in flight with ~4" pitch propellors. Many, many people who are not familiar with the event still think we chug around at low revs and attempt to modify/butcher engines to make that possible and that 2-stroking burns up engines (because that's sort of true for a 1958 mode McCoy 35 you got for $3.95 on a bubble pack).  That gives up most of the horsepower possible.

        Leave the carb on the engine, and make it ground-adjustable, get some APC 12.25-3.75s, some APC 11-4.25s. Start with the 11-4.25. Set up the carb as per RC, i.e. set it for high speed, idle, and smooth transitions, all in a slightly richer than peak 2-stroke. Start with a ground RPM of about 10,500 by setting the throttle to a fixed position. You can short-tank it to get a short level flight. Have someone time your laps. If it's slower than 5.2 seconds a lap, speed it up 200-300 rpm, try again, until it is less than 5.2. If it's faster than 5.0, slow it down 200-300 at a time until you get it up to about 5.0. That should get you in the ballpark of a flyable speed.

     Based on the advice you might have gotten to date your advisors might be screaming at you about "burning up the engine". If it's leaving a reasonable smoke trail, you aren't going to burn it up. Once you have a good basic speed, leave the throttle alone, and then adjust the high-speed needle by peaking the engine out on the ground, then backing off until you get a *distinct* drop in speed, but still 2-stroking. Then fly a full flight.

     What you want is for the engine to run along in a  rich 2-stroke in level flight, and then pick up to a medium 2 in the maneuvers. This helps control the speed, so the drag of maneuvering is compensated for by the engine running a little stronger. It's entirely possible to get too much speed-up in the maneuvers. In that case, close the throttle a tiny bit, then lean the engine out a bit, so you are not running quite as rich in level flight. If it goes too lean or "sags" lean in the maneuvers, open the throttle a little and richen up the engine to get the same level flight speed.

   That should get you very close to right. Note that for most CL airplanes, the throttle is not used, but you adjust the "throttle" and the variation using a very similar technique, just by changing the entire (fixed) venturi smaller or larger, playing off the speed VS the needle setting. I can tell you from painful experience that ~50% of the people reading this have never even heard of this in concept, much less used it in practice.

     The only advantage you have with a CL venturi is that it tends to be a bit steadier in holding a setting. Every once in a while the carb will just shift a bit and the speed will change slightly, sometimes multiple times per flight. On 2-stroke engines it's pretty livable, but it makes a lot of difference in 4-stroke engines. The people in France who best managed 4-strokes (the Berringers, Gilbert and Remi) came up with what amount to a very-finely adjusted throttle to do the same adjusting as described above on a flight-to-flight basis since the mixture adjustment is very insensitive on 4-strokes but the fuel consumption is very touchy.

    The "good" CL engines like the 20FP, 25LA, 46LA, happen to come with venturis that are about the right size as long as you use about 4" of pitch, more-or-less. The venturis tend to be much too large if you wanted to run 6-7" of pitch. This is not an accident and it leads people down some unfortunate paths trying to get it to work with inappropriate props.

      If you let us know where you are, we might be able to find someone close by who can help. The internet is a great resource but having someone actually watch can find a whole bunch more things that might help but you wouldn't think to ask about.

   Brett



Offline Gary Dowler

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1017
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2017, 03:17:54 PM »
Brett, thanks for the time you put into that. That was informative and helpful. I have found myself stuck between a 30 year gap from flying in which a lot changed, local fliers who are very helpful but are mostly RC guys and much of their experience doesn't translate well to CL, a mentor who is a legend in the CL world but  has been very inactive for a long time himself and keeps threatening to shut me off if I don't do things exactly as he says, and seeking help from more recently experienced fliers such as yourself and a couple others both on line and in person.
It would be real easy if all I wanted to do was put a plane in the air and go around in circles. But I want to be better than that, I want to know, learn and understand what to do and why. That is where replies like yours , and meeting up with the couple real current CL guys I've met locally, come in! Thanks again.

So am I understanding correctly to stay at or below 4" pitch, let it rev higher, tune to a rich 2cycle , set the throttle adjustment to where max power (no variations in throttle control if it's at the end as opposed to trying to hold it in a particular spot) to run 5-5.2 sec laps (which is where it is now at about 2/3-3/4 throttle. Max it ran 4.18!).  Does that sum it up correctly? 
Profanity is the crutch of the illiterate mind

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12808
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #18 on: October 08, 2017, 08:34:15 PM »
... APC 12.25-3.75s, some APC 11-4.25s ...

Just a point of order -- APC doesn't make an 11x4.25 that I know of.  Just an 11x4, and an 11.5x4.  There's a Thunder Tiger 11x4.5 prop that's measures out to less than 4.5" pitch (I don't know what pitch it is -- I just know from folks that I trust that it's less than stated).  The TT prop is hard to get these days, AFAIK.  So where he says 11x4.25, get an 11.5x4 and an 11x4, and give each one a whirl.

... set the throttle adjustment to where max power (no variations in throttle control if it's at the end as opposed to trying to hold it in a particular spot) to run 5-5.2 sec laps (which is where it is now at about 2/3-3/4 throttle. Max it ran 4.18!).  Does that sum it up correctly? 

You do not want max power.  Take just about any glow-powered stunt ship from the Expert lineup, tune it and prop it for maximum power, and it'll (A) go way too fast (probably 4 second laps or less), and (B) will lean out and "fade" at the high points in maneuvers.  Neither you nor the engine will be happy.

On the 46LA, you want to use the 12.25x3.75 prop on a smaller lighter plane, and the 11x4 prop on a bigger plane (with the smaller prop the engine gets to spin up more, and is happier pulling a load).  I'm assuming the TT is the same.  You need to experiment with your engine and plane combination -- like Brett said, no one here has any mileage with the TT 46, so you're a pioneer.  If you get tired of messing with it, get a 46LA off da Bay and use that.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Gary Dowler

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1017
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2017, 08:53:02 PM »
Just a point of order -- APC doesn't make an 11x4.25 that I know of.  Just an 11x4, and an 11.5x4.  There's a Thunder Tiger 11x4.5 prop that's measures out to less than 4.5" pitch (I don't know what pitch it is -- I just know from folks that I trust that it's less than stated).  The TT prop is hard to get these days, AFAIK.  So where he says 11x4.25, get an 11.5x4 and an 11x4, and give each one a whirl.

You do not want max power.  Take just about any glow-powered stunt ship from the Expert lineup, tune it and prop it for maximum power, and it'll (A) go way too fast (probably 4 second laps or less), and (B) will lean out and "fade" at the high points in maneuvers.  Neither you nor the engine will be happy.

On the 46LA, you want to use the 12.25x3.75 prop on a smaller lighter plane, and the 11x4 prop on a bigger plane (with the smaller prop the engine gets to spin up more, and is happier pulling a load).  I'm assuming the TT is the same.  You need to experiment with your engine and plane combination -- like Brett said, no one here has any mileage with the TT 46, so you're a pioneer.  If you get tired of messing with it, get a 46LA off da Bay and use that.
Tim, what I meant was to set my throttle settings so that when my trigger on the handle is at full open travel the throttle its actually not opening all the way. Just far enough that sufficient power is produced to get good 5-5.2 sec lap times with a given prop.  That way I just let it run at a fixed setting during the flight instead of trying to hold it at a particular uniform point, which I have found slightly difficult to do.      Did I word that correctly?
Profanity is the crutch of the illiterate mind

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12808
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2017, 09:02:39 PM »
Tim, what I meant was to set my throttle settings so that when my trigger on the handle is at full open travel the throttle its actually not opening all the way. Just far enough that sufficient power is produced to get good 5-5.2 sec lap times with a given prop.  That way I just let it run at a fixed setting during the flight instead of trying to hold it at a particular uniform point, which I have found slightly difficult to do.      Did I word that correctly?

Ah.  I see.  I forgot that you've got throttle control on this thing.  Max throttle would have worked better for me, today, but I'm not sure that it'd work best for everyone (I've spent a lifetime writing, and even been paid for it from time to time -- you simply cannot get 100% understanding 100% of the time).
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13736
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #21 on: October 08, 2017, 09:04:14 PM »
Just a point of order -- APC doesn't make an 11x4.25 that I know of.  Just an 11x4, and an 11.5x4. 

  I stand corrected. I used the 11.5-4 (original narrow type) at the 1994 NATs. The current version is a medium/wide blade prop.

    Brett

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13736
Re: Fuel consumption
« Reply #22 on: October 08, 2017, 10:16:13 PM »
Tim, what I meant was to set my throttle settings so that when my trigger on the handle is at full open travel the throttle its actually not opening all the way. Just far enough that sufficient power is produced to get good 5-5.2 sec lap times with a given prop.  That way I just let it run at a fixed setting during the flight instead of trying to hold it at a particular uniform point, which I have found slightly difficult to do.      Did I word that correctly?

      My input was predicated on using a fixed but adjustable throttle stop on the engine itself, not on active control through 3rd lines or IR/RF links. Certainly for sport stunt you do not want to run a 3-line system since that greatly increases the drag.

    Brett


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here