Magnum 36 Back in Production

[realSteveSmith]

I've learned from Mike Greenshields (MikeGoesFlying.com) that the Magnum 36 is scheduled to be back in production in March '25.  I've never owned or flown one of these engines but I've heard/read good things about them.  I thought some of you might find the return of this engine to be good news.

Magnum engines had 2 sister brands....ASP and SC (all made by Sanye in the same factory).  As I understand it, all three brands offered virtually identical engines aside from the logo on the case.  If that is also true of this newest production run, I expect the Magnum 36 will look like the attached picture of a newly re-released SC 036 engine.  I believe this was referred to as the 'XLS' or 'square head' version of the Magnum 36.

Beyond that, I was hoping to learn more about this engine as used in a stunt model.  I've seen mention of them being used with a pipe in 60 size models and also with a muffler as a friendly 4-2-4 style engine in smaller 35-46 sized airplanes.  This seems like a fairly wide operating envelope....I wonder if I may have some of the details confused.  I'd like to start a discussion on the Magnum 36 in terms of it's handling characteristics, best setups, compatible models sizes/weights, etc.

[Mike Scholtes]

Brett can probably add more details, but yes, Phil Granderson ran the motor very successfully on a pipe in a 60-size stunter, using a side-to-rear header. I have one that I used in a Vector 40, but not in a 4-2-4 mode. It runs like a piped motor, steady rpm using stock muffler. It is also a very compact motor for a twin ball bearing case, more like 25 size. I used a delrin venturi and front-mounted NVA. The rear mounted NVA would be hard to work with in a closed-cowl mounting arrangement.

[Jim Svitko]

I had a Magnum 36 in a 48 ounce Gieseke Nobler.  Great combination.  More than enough power.  And, fuel consumption is very low.  I needed only 3 ounces of 5% nitro to do the pattern.  All I did to the engine was remove the carb and get a needle and venturi from Randy Smith.  Although it was designed as an RC engine, it runs just fine for CL use.  It does not need to be re-timed.  Leave that alone.

The Magnum 36 is a good stunt engine.  If you prefer glow power and you can get your hands on one, do it.

The only negative aspect about the Magnum 36 is that is has some of that Fox "outside burp" when mounted sideways.

I never had the ASP 36 version, but I do have the ASP 46 and 52.  They appear identical to the Magnum 52.  The 46 is a bit heavy so you are probably better off with the 52.

For what it is worth, I have a Magnum 52 in a 64 ounce plane.  Again, plenty of power, very good running.  It reminds me of the ST 51 but with a softer break into 2 cycle during maneuvers.  Five ounces of 5% nitro fuel is enough for the pattern.  In cool, dry air, I can cut the nitro content and still have plenty of power.

I never ran any Magnum/ASP on a pipe.  Only muffler, so I can't provide any information if you want to run a pipe.

[Mike Greb]

I think this motor is basically the same as the Evo 36rc without the fancy fins.

[Howard Rush]

I have a bunch of Magnum stuff from the Granderson estate.  I don't want the bother of making a list or trying to identify the parts, but if you want some, you can come to the house and look at it or I could take a box of stuff to a contest.  I'm bad/nationwide. 

[Dan McEntee]

I think this motor is basically the same as the Evo 36rc without the fancy fins.

   I think you are giving too much credit to the EVO.36. I had two that just defied description. When people ask me what I think of them, I say, "Very little! They must not have been very good because they only made them for a short while."  I think Hanger 9/Horizon must have lost their ass on that engine and the PT-19 combo they sold because that airplane as designed was hideous and so was the engine!!

   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[kenneth cook]

                 I love my EVO .36 and even more the .60.

[Dan McEntee]

                 I love my EVO .36 and even more the .60.

  That's the big mystery about these engines. Some have success with them and some don't. Seems to be about 50/50. Mine just absolutely would not needle. They had the pinned needle valves that were supposedly set at the factory after a test run. Mine just ran away screamimg and would not needle. I should have sent it back. I suspect it had a porous casting and was leaking air right through the crank case. I had to go through real extremes to get any kind of run out of it. I traded it to a guy that just had to have it for a Sakitumi with a LA.40 on it. he destroyed the EVO .36 in some sort of crash. The second one was acting similarly but I haven't messed with it in a while. The PT-19 that I have it on shed the entire bottom outboard wing covering on the first flight after break in and I have not returned to that airplane since. There had to be some sort of QC issue with these, just don't know what it was.
  Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee

[bill bischoff]

Judging by their availability on Ali Express, The Evolution 36 is also being made again. All that I have seen listed is the RC version. On the first go-around at least, the CL version didn't have the boost port in the liner, but the RC version did. Once fitted with a standard NVA and given enough break in, mine ran very nicely. On cosmetics alone though, I'd take the ASP over the Evolution any day!

[Dan McEntee]

Judging by their availability on Ali Express, The Evolution 36 is also being made again. All that I have seen listed is the RC version. On the first go-around at least, the CL version didn't have the boost port in the liner, but the RC version did. Once fitted with a standard NVA and given enough break in, mine ran very nicely. On cosmetics alone though, I'd take the ASP over the Evolution any day!

    I'll agree, the EVO .36 was as butt ugly as it could get. Would probably be an once lighter if it was more conventional looking instead of artsie fartsie. I never took my forst one apart to see how it was ported. That may explain the way mine ran, if it was sold as a C/L version but was really an R/C. I may have to revisit the second one to check it out.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Mike Greb]

I have had both the evo36 in both the cl and rc versions.   I liked the converted rc version better.

[kenneth cook]

            My EVO .36's all have the Jim Lee venturi and PA needle valve assembly. From first start, I never used the stock assembly which is still in the box. They work flawlessly. That was until I took it apart one day. I didn't understand what happened until I took it apart a second time. Jim uses a Teflon bushing to neck down the hole through the case. There's a cutout within this bushing which isn't centered or at least on mine it wasn't. When reassembled, the hole in the spraybar was partially blocked and the engine would just howl when started and the needle had no response. Aside from my success with the .36, some or our  new flyers are using them with terrific right out of the box success. I did notice however they tend to work far better using low oil fuels such as the Cool Power varieties.

[Perry Rose]

I was given one of the PT-19/Evo .https://www.facebook.com/groups/1578319525568857/?multi_permalinks=8368511526549589&notif_id=1738400021284593&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif36 combo's. It took a lot of fiddling and venturi changes and a large trim tab on the wing to get it right. After that it was a great flying plane, the engine had plenty of power.  I gifted it to another modeler.
 And while we are at it don't rule out the Evo .52 as a stunt motor. It shares the Evo .60 crank case so it's a direct bolt in swap. Jim Lee made a true venturi for it. 
 

[Perry Rose]

More on the  Evo .36  https://www.facebook.com/groups/1578319525568857/?multi_permalinks=7871849336215813&notif_id=1738400010252026&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif

[realSteveSmith]

I was given one of the PT-19/Evo .https://www.facebook.com/groups/1578319525568857/?multi_permalinks=8368511526549589&notif_id=1738400021284593&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif36 combo's. It took a lot of fiddling and venturi changes and a large trim tab on the wing to get it right. After that it was a great flying plane, the engine had plenty of power.  I gifted it to another modeler.
 And while we are at it don't rule out the Evo .52 as a stunt motor. It shares the Evo .60 crank case so it's a direct bolt in swap. Jim Lee made a true venturi for it. 
 

I cant view this link....I'm not a member of that FB group.  I suspect this might be true for others as well.

[realSteveSmith]

I think this motor is basically the same as the Evo 36rc without the fancy fins.

Mike,

Are you presuming this to be true because Evolution engines were also made by Sanye, or has someone taken both engines apart and examined/measured to confirm?  For sure, the Evo 36 looks quite different from the outside (whereas the ASP/Magnum/SC engines look identical save the logo).  The Evo also seems to have quite a different reputation than the Magnum 36 (admittedly based purely on what I've been able to read).

[Dave Harmon]

I cant view this link....I'm not a member of that FB group.  I suspect this might be true for others as well.

Probably correct....I can't see it either.

[bill bischoff]

The Magnum line was not always manufactured by Sanye. Previously it was a rebranded Thunder Tiger. As for ASP and Evolution having the same innards, one of our club members examined parts and declared the m the same. Mike Greb and I are in the same club, so this is what he may be basing his above statement on. I always ran my Evo 36 on a profile model, so I  just removed the fuel spigot and drilled across the venturi to install a conventional spray bar. Having the spray bar farther outboard from center is actually beneficial with the wide tanks used on profiles.

[Lauri Malila]

.

[Perry Rose]

The link is from face book. Search "Baton Rouge Bi-Liner control line club".