Author Topic: Area/weight recommendations for TT .46 Pro (Read 1755 times)

Terry Caron · « **on:** January 06, 2015, 08:53:53 PM »

I've read this engine is more powerful than a .46 LA, though heavier at nearly 1 pound.
What's considered max wing area and all-up weight for it?
I'm thinking of building an up-sized "Bamboozle" from 1960, the first c/l I flew (and crashed

).

Terry Caron

Terry Caron · « **Reply #1 on:** January 08, 2015, 05:50:47 PM »

So, a bit more searching and, for anyone else who may search sometime, seems 630 sq in and 54 ozs is a useful target (considering possible windy conditions) with perhaps 650/58 a practical upper end.

FWIW.

Terry Caron

RandySmith · « **Reply #2 on:** January 08, 2015, 08:28:13 PM »

Terry
The TT46 Pro is a very powerful engine and will fly a 700 sq in 60 size ship, it will also make more power than a ST60, setup correctly it will fly an SV-11 or Impact with no problem.

Randy

Terry Caron · « **Reply #3 on:** January 08, 2015, 09:02:11 PM »

Quote from: RandySmith on January 08, 2015, 08:28:13 PM

Terry
The TT46 Pro is a very powerful engine and will fly a 700 sq in 60 size ship, it will also make more power than a ST60, setup correctly it will fly an SV-11 or Impact with no problem.

Randy

Thanks Randy.

The given figures were actually in re the OS .46 and I didn't know for sure about the power difference so figured them safe, conservative numbers.
700 sq ins will make a monumental Bamboozle.

Terry Caron

RandySmith · « **Reply #4 on:** January 08, 2015, 09:59:04 PM »

Quote from: Terry Caron on January 08, 2015, 09:02:11 PM

Thanks Randy.

The given figures were actually in re the OS .46 and I didn't know for sure about the power difference so figured them safe, conservative numbers.
700 sq ins will make a monumental Bamboozle.

Terry Caron

If your comparing it to the OS LA 46, the TT46 Pro is a much more powerful engine, It weighs in at about 12 ounces, the LA at about 9.5 ounces. THe 46 Pro TT is also a dual ball bearing motor and has a tougher piston sleeve set, so it will last much longer, BUT you should take into consideration the size and weight, try to match the plane and motor

Randy

RknRusty · « **Reply #5 on:** January 08, 2015, 10:11:39 PM »

I have a ball bearing OS.46fx which may be comparable. Randy could say for sure if I'm right about that. Except yours is probably ABN and I think mine is steel, but it flies my 70oz Magnum with authority. I put a TT Pro 25 on a 34oz Shoestring and never did get it tamed. It was very fast even with the flattest props.
Rusty

Terry Caron · « **Reply #6 on:** January 09, 2015, 02:19:34 PM »

Yes, the TT is ABN (tho' referred to as ABC).
I believe the Taiwan-made Magnum (XL?) is the same engine produced by TT for Tower Hobbies, before Magnum went to the Chinese mainland.

So, while noticeably more powerful than the highly popular .46 LA, how does it compare in user-friendliness and "stunt-run-ability" in an appropriate sized airframe?

Terry Caron

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #7 on:** January 09, 2015, 07:05:27 PM »

Quote from: Terry Caron on January 09, 2015, 02:19:34 PM

Yes, the TT is ABN (tho' referred to as ABC).
I believe the Taiwan-made Magnum (XL?) is the same engine produced by TT for Tower Hobbies, before Magnum went to the Chinese mainland.

So, while noticeably more powerful than the highly popular .46 LA, how does it compare in user-friendliness and "stunt-run-ability" in an appropriate sized airframe?

Terry Caron

A number of years ago I converted several of these engines from R/C to CL. I used (according to my notes) a .295 diameter venturi (restrictor) with Aeroproducts (Randy Smith) needle valves and two head gaskets. They ran very well in a wet two type of run and were very powerful. I recall that one of them was used in a 680 sq in airplane that was similar to a SIG Magnum. Weight was likely in the low 60 oz range. I think the airplane belonged to Robin Sizemore but not sure about that. Sold the others to folks not from this area and never had any complaints.
The prop used was a bolly three blade in 11.5 diameter...pitch unknown but I would guess about a 4. I didn't make any notations of RPM etc. I may still have one of these engines...I bought 5 of them at one time as I recall...have to look.

My notes say these were true ABC engines based on the sleeve coloration and texture, not ABN.

Randy Cuberly

Terry Caron · « **Reply #8 on:** January 09, 2015, 08:04:52 PM »

I certainly can't say one way or the other, but during my search I read forum comments that boxes were marked ABC tho' actually ABN.
Comments also said that no peeling problems occurred such as some experienced with OS ABN engines.
The Clarence Lee report on the Magnum .40 Pro here (http://sceptreflight.net/Model%20Engine%20Tests/Magnum%2040%20PRO.html) says ABC in the Specs box, but he notes ABN in the text.
Again, I've read that TT/Magnum were both made by TT.

I can say the cylinder is plated inside and out, which I think I read indicates nickel, chrome being inside only (could be the other way 'round - it was 2-3 days ago and that's a long time for a 68 yo brain to keep details catalogued

).

Terry Caron

Steve Scott · « **Reply #9 on:** January 10, 2015, 03:18:39 PM »

The older series of the TT .46 Pro came in black box and were ABC. The newer ones came in a red box and were ABN. The nickle plating was thicker than that used on the OS .46 which exhibited liner peeling.

Terry Caron · « **Reply #10 on:** January 10, 2015, 03:29:25 PM »

I'd say that explains the confusion.
I got mine used/no box so don't know how old it is.
Good nickel or not, I think I'd just feel better if it were chrome.

Terry Caron