Period correct power for the classic

[Gordon Tarbell]

In the mid sixties (64-67) what would be the optimum period correct engine to use on the larger classics that were being built? Some of these planes were close to 700"  (Shark 45 comes to mind first and I know there were others)of wing area and were needing more grunt to pull them through the air. Looking back, what would be the better pics? May be a veco 45 or 50, K&B 45, Enya 45, ST 46 , Some OS product. Would some of these engine benifit from using a higher rpm 2-2 set up instead of a 4-2-4 style. Hope posting this in this section was correct.

[Brett Buck]

In the mid sixties (64-67) what would be the optimum period correct engine to use on the larger classics that were being built? Some of these planes were close to 700"  (Shark 45 comes to mind first and I know there were others)of wing area and were needing more grunt to pull them through the air. Looking back, what would be the better pics? May be a veco 45 or 50, K&B 45, Enya 45, ST 46 , Some OS product. Would some of these engine benifit from using a higher rpm 2-2 set up instead of a 4-2-4 style. Hope posting this in this section was correct.

    I tried running relatively low pitch (~3.8") on ST46s, and it would spin it fast enough, but was completely "dead" in the air. I haven't tried the others but I would expect similar results. At the end of the era, we we running about 4.75 most of the time, and that is about as good as we ever managed with those sorts of engines.

       My suggestion is that around 5" of pitch, relatively rich (using lots of nitro) and as much blade area as you can spin is about the best you are going to do. It was pretty good and no one knew any better before about 1985.

    Brett

[FLOYD CARTER]

I agree with Brett.  I'm still trying to find a "paddle blade" 11" low pitch prop for OS 46.  Geo. Aldrich showed up at a VSC with a home-made paddle blade prop on his Nobler.  It seemed to do very well, so I wonder why that idea didn't catch on.

Floyd

[Steve Helmick]

Those GMA paddle blade props were from "Joe   Supercool" in Australia. They may still be available.   Steve

Edit: The ST .60bb works well in the Shark 45, and I'm sure it would work fine in a USA-1 or Colossus. It definitely dates from the '60's. But it won't like much less than 5" pitch. Windy tried a piped ST .60, and I read that the rod bearings didn't survive long at the higher rpm he was trying to run. But maybe that was a fuel/oil issue. However, I don't think there's any law that says you have to use high rpm just because you're running a pipe. 

[Dave Adamisin]

In the Tiger G21 series. If you want to spin faster (low pitch) I think the 40 is a better bet than the 46. The Veco 45-50 ran nice but I never thought they had a lot of beans. The greenhead K&B 45 had more power. the Tiger 51, 56, 60 all work well. The 51 had a smaller case which fits the narrow Shark fuse a bit nicer than the 56-60. The Plain bearing Tigers in the 51-60 range all work well too.

[Brett Buck]

However, I don't think there's any law that says you have to use high rpm just because you're running a pipe. 

     But, there's also not a whole lot of point to it, either. The performance jump comes largely from getting away from chugging around at 8000 RPM with a 13-6. An ST60 works fine without a pipe at those sorts of speeds.

    I am not surprised at all that the ST doesn't work well at 40VF revs, pipe or no pipe, it doesn't breathe freely enough at high revs.

     Brett

   

[Gordon Tarbell]

When did the use of the ST 60 come into the game ? I was under the impression that no one was using anything larger than a 45 or 46 size engine . I realize the tiger46 was a lower rpm deal but I thought maybe some of the K&B 45 and veco 45's were tried at higer rpms and lower pitched props . I guess as a youngster in 65' they just sounded like alot of rpm.  I think it all boils down to which of the engines available in the mid sixties (65 +/- ayear or two) had the most power to offer with out going to a larger cased engine. Some of the larger classic birds were designed for this medium size engine and would require a bit of shoehorning to get a ST60/56 in there and then might not look quite as authentic. Maybe I should not worry about authentic engines and just put a ST60 or modern ST51(squarehead) in and call it good. Most people that know me at the flying field know I have a propensity to tip the can(nitro) if necessary (have had a bad case of yellow fever for many years now) in my other sporting activities using infernal cumbustion.

[jim ivey]

a guy posted a question about what would be a good perfomance by a stunt engine. I thought well heres an easy question I should be able to help with. I said for a 35, one that would turn a 10x6 prop about 14-15 thousand rpm and trasistion easily from a 4 to a 2 cycle without stuttering. Leonard strikes out at me in big bold letters! what are you crazy??? we use 12 and 13" x2 or 3  pitch props and run around 20,000 rpms!!!  I didnt repond to that, no since in 2 of  us showing our s's. And here I always thought of len as a friend. I would never adress any of you that rudely. even though I strongly disagree with several when it comes to Johnson engines. I wonder if any of those experts that know more than I do, could name any of our supliers or outside processors. The  materials they were made of. When or what they were changed from and to!  I could, all of it.  Speaking of engines I just scored a greenhead 35 Nib. A cheese factory engine. box is KnB allyn. dwarte adress not compton, 50s or 60s. Should I use it ? , or does somone want to make me an offer I cant refuse, trade or money this is a real treasure . I wouldn't advise running it at 20 grand like len says. It would probably blow a crank or rod. we didnt design them to run that fast!   

[Dave Adamisin]

When did the use of the ST 60 come into the game ? I was under the impression that no one was using anything larger than a 45 or 46 size engine . I realize the tiger46 was a lower rpm deal but I thought maybe some of the K&B 45 and veco 45's were tried at higer rpms and lower pitched props . I guess as a youngster in 65' they just sounded like alot of rpm.  I think it all boils down to which of the engines available in the mid sixties (65 +/- ayear or two) had the most power to offer with out going to a larger cased engine. Some of the larger classic birds were designed for this medium size engine and would require a bit of shoehorning to get a ST60/56 in there and then might not look quite as authentic. Maybe I should not worry about authentic engines and just put a ST60 or modern ST51(squarehead) in and call it good. Most people that know me at the flying field know I have a propensity to tip the can(nitro) if necessary (have had a bad case of yellow fever for many years now) in my other sporting activities using infernal cumbustion.

The first 60 I saw was Ron Adams Intruder. I also don't think your ears were lying to you back then. Most of the 45-46 engines were spinning 11" props. It was rare to see a 12" stirring anything other than paint. We also used 10x6 three blade Tornado nylons on Tiger 46's in the 60's.

[Brett Buck]

When did the use of the ST 60 come into the game ? I was under the impression that no one was using anything larger than a 45 or 46 size engine .

   The ST60 got popular in the early-mid-80s, mostly as a replacement for the very powerful but hard to control (at the time) schneurle engines like the 40 and 45FSR, and the other "schneurle wars" motors that everybody was trying at the time. Most of the problem was that everybody was trying to run them like ST46s. They generally didn't respond well to that, but the ST60 certainly did. The heyday of the ST60 was only a few years from about 84 to 88, when everybody realized you could make the schneurles run very nicely after Bobby Hunt and Dean Pappas showed the way.

    Brett

[andrew stokey]

My memory isn't the greatest, but I remember Jimmy Casale running a ST 60 in 83 at Chicopee.  We watched him "practice" for hours.  What stamina!!!!!!!!

[RandySmith]

"The heyday of the ST60 was only a few years from about 84 to 88, when everybody realized you could make the schneurles run very nicely "

WE found that out in the 1970s, Loop Charged engines are not hard to run if you know how, They were and are a big improvement in technology for CL Stunt. Others around the country were using them with good success in the 70s also, Bill Werwage was one I flew with in about 1973 using a HP loop charged 40, it worked pretty good for him too

Regards
Randy

[Derek Barry]

Dad told me once that back in the 50's my great grandfather ran racing fox 35's with 4 pitch and lower props. He said that they would have contest by hooking the planes tail to tail with the engines running to see who was the strongest. I hear that he won a lot. These engines were used on stunt planes.