Author Topic: which engine would you chose (Read 5521 times)

Gary Dowler · « **on:** December 16, 2018, 02:15:20 PM »

Next winter will see my SV-11 begin. Randy assures me that my Thunder Tigre Pro 46 is quite up to the task. But given recent conversations from others regarding K&B engines, and given that the SV-11 is designed around larger engines, it occurred to me that I do have a nice running K&B 61 sitting there with nothing to do.

Id prefer to not buy a new engine for this if it can be avoided.

That said, Im curious the input from the community on the best choice of these for the SV-11

Thunder Tigre Pro 46 or K&B 61 (edit) realized there is a third option; Super Tiger blue head 60 (which I mention with hesitation, as Randy didn't seem to thrilled with that one)

Gary

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #1 on:** December 16, 2018, 02:35:56 PM »

The ST. Blue Head .60 is not a stunt engine. Vintage R/C pattern guys or a vintage carrier guy may desire that engine. The person I saw use the K&B .61 the most was the late Russ Gifford and his ran very well. I have a few stashed away in my collection. They are just a bit portly but if you can shorten the nose just a bit and still get a 6 or 7 ounce tank in it you should be OK. I don't think any one ever won the NATS with a K&B .61 but they are widely used. The last version that they produced with a twist on head where you could vary the compression usually bring decent prices on eVilBay. Compare the weight of the K&B with the Thunder Tiger .46 and see how they compare. If the finished weight isn't too heavy and the TT.46 is a Randy prepared engine, I may be compatible to the K&B. Randy could also counsel you on whether or not to shorten the nose a bit for better balance since it is his design.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

Gary Dowler · « **Reply #2 on:** December 16, 2018, 02:48:25 PM »

Quote from: Dan McEntee on December 16, 2018, 02:35:56 PM

The ST. Blue Head .60 is not a stunt engine. Vintage R/C pattern guys or a vintage carrier guy may desire that engine. The person I saw use the K&B .61 the most was the late Russ Gifford and his ran very well. I have a few stashed away in my collection. They are just a bit portly but if you can shorten the nose just a bit and still get a 6 or 7 ounce tank in it you should be OK. I don't think any one ever won the NATS with a K&B .61 but they are widely used. The last version that they produced with a twist on head where you could vary the compression usually bring decent prices on eVilBay. Compare the weight of the K&B with the Thunder Tiger .46 and see how they compare. If the finished weight isn't too heavy and the TT.46 is a Randy prepared engine, I may be compatible to the K&B. Randy could also counsel you on whether or not to shorten the nose a bit for better balance since it is his design.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

Thanks Dan. This is the "improved" version of the kit, with a lengthened tail to counter heavier engines already. I will compare weights when I get off work in a few hours. Having looked the numbers up once the TT 46, at 1.6hp, is the HP champ of the two (K&B had 1.3) but Ill wager the 61 might have a torque edge. Don't know how this all compares though. The ST 60 did come my way via a carrier guy, so you nailed that one!

Gary

Dave_Trible · « **Reply #3 on:** December 16, 2018, 03:11:23 PM »

I like horsepower so I’d go the K&B. Just so happens I am having another .61 converted from RC to CL by Jim Lee to be used in a classic Shark 45. You can still get parts too. I'd have to think the .61 will out pull the .46 at operational RPM ranges, and can swing more prop but I'm not familiar with the Thunder Tiger. Without a pipe setup I'd bet on the .61.

Dave

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #4 on:** December 16, 2018, 04:42:07 PM »

I'm flying a 1988 plane of Paul Walker's (Atlantis) which I believe is similar in size (nearly 700 square inches, and 64 ounces). It flies quite nicely on a 46LA, so I suspect the TT 46 should pull it just fine.

If I were going to do anything with the Atlantis short of getting a PA or a Ro-Jett on a pipe, it would be to get a pipe setup from Randy that works with the LA -- even if I had to make a weirdo wrap-around header from the side-exhaust LA.

Take the money you'd spend on the 61, spend it on a pipe setup from Randy. Think about whether you're more repelled by the idea of messing with a wrap-around header (if it can be done), or angling the engine 45 degrees to put the pipe straight down (as Igor Burger did with the 46LA about ten years ago).

Brett Buck · « **Reply #5 on:** December 16, 2018, 09:27:08 PM »

Quote from: Gary Dowler on December 16, 2018, 02:15:20 PM

Next winter will see my SV-11 begin. Randy assures me that my Thunder Tigre Pro 46 is quite up to the task. But given recent conversations from others regarding K&B engines, and given that the SV-11 is designed around larger engines, it occurred to me that I do have a nice running K&B 61 sitting there with nothing to do.

Randy certainly knows what engines are adequate. I don't know much about either one of them, but, whichever one you think is going to run the best (not necessarily the most powerful) is the correct choice. Either way, you are off into terra incognita, I am not aware of much work being done with either one.

Brett

Dane Martin · « **Reply #6 on:** December 16, 2018, 10:00:53 PM »

Here's my opinion, have both of those engines "in service". My K&B 61 is in a 78 oz ringmaster 1000. It has run away and can make your arm longer. The common practice is to run a .260- .277 venturi on an ST nva.

The 46 pro, I ran in my Strega, after pulling a k&b 61 out. I had to add a little nose weight to compensate. The .46 handles it, but I think the K&B had the edge on actual usable power. However, this Strega is an absolute boat anchor. So much so, I'd just give it to anyone who wanted it. Lol.

That being said, if your plane can come in at the 60 something ounce range vs 80-ish... I'd much prefer the 46. The 46 pro is a high timed ball bearing engine. It can handle a lot. Basically, you'd work the k&b around 25-50 percent of its power range, vs the 46 being like 50-75 percent. That sounds like the k&b would be a good choice, because it's working less... but it's just not quite there on ease of operation. My vote is for the 46

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #7 on:** December 16, 2018, 10:43:54 PM »

The SV11 is a class act! It is as competitive as anything out there, but not with that old engine technology.
I recommend you simply bite the bullet and buy a RO Jett 61 and a pipe and (or a PA65 and a pipe, if you can find a good used one).

I'm not sure but last I heard Randy Smith was gearing up to make another run of PA 65's.

You'll be ahead of the game and learn faster and be competitive with the best equipment. A good engine on a pipe is the best investment you can make!

With proper care the PA or RoJett will last forever! Don't be scared of the pipe. It's the easiest thing in the world to set up with all the info available today, and definitely the best performing and most reliable set up of all!

Randy Cuberly

Ruslan Kurenkov · « **Reply #8 on:** December 17, 2018, 05:02:36 AM »

Hello Gary
I think that the TT 46 is a very good engine for radio-controlled models of airplanes, cars and boats. It is very powerful due to a good purge but only at high speeds. At such speeds, you will need a resonant tube and other fuel supply system in the engine, without a carburetor, for proper operation of the engine during flight. The SV-11 aircraft was also designed for the installation of a resonant tube. But your TT has exhaust gas to the side. You cannot install a pipe on your TT. But you have no problem, while you build your SV-11, you can sell these two excellent engines and buy one of the engines with a resonance tube that you were offered to buy by Randy Kuberli in the message above.
A good airplane needs only a good engine .
This will be the most correct option in my opinion.
Regards,RusLan

Paul Walker · « **Reply #9 on:** December 17, 2018, 09:54:19 AM »

Well Gary, it all would depend on what my goals were for that plane.

What are your goals for that plane?

For example:
Are you trying to learn the pattern?
Are you trying to improve your pattern?
What is your current skill level?
What is your building skill level? Meaning, will you he able to build it at a "reasonable" weight?
Are you a skilled engine tuner? I.e., matching fuel, comoression, prop to the aircraft.

These all go into the decision.

We could get together and discuss this in more detail if it would help!

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #10 on:** December 17, 2018, 03:12:35 PM »

Wow,Gary,

By all means if it's at all possible get together with Paul. He's very likely the best Control Line Stunt flier in the world, and just happens to be a very nice Guy also!

You can probably soak up more information from Paul in a couple of hours than 5 years on the Forum! It seems you live in the same general area and would be worth a long drive to spend some time with him!

Randy Cuberly

Gary Dowler · « **Reply #11 on:** December 17, 2018, 03:21:56 PM »

Quote from: Paul Walker on December 17, 2018, 09:54:19 AM

Well Gary, it all would depend on what my goals were for that plane.

What are your goals for that plane?

For example:
Are you trying to learn the pattern?
Are you trying to improve your pattern?
What is your current skill level?
What is your building skill level? Meaning, will you he able to build it at a "reasonable" weight?
Are you a skilled engine tuner? I.e., matching fuel, comoression, prop to the aircraft.

These all go into the decision.

We could get together and discuss this in more detail if it would help!

Paul, thank you for the reply, not to mention the offer of help. I would appreciate that and I can better answer your questions in person. Mark has been working with me since last year and the understanding grows.
I'll send you a PM

Gary

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #12 on:** December 17, 2018, 05:03:22 PM »

Quote from: Randy Cuberly on December 17, 2018, 03:12:35 PM

Wow,Gary,

By all means if it's at all possible get together with Paul. He's very likely the best Control Line Stunt flier in the world, and just happens to be a very nice Guy.

Randy Cuberly

He’a a smartass

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

M Spencer · « **Reply #13 on:** December 17, 2018, 06:31:37 PM »

The TT 46 is a Schneule , so something like a 4 in pitch job . I think Randy did a Raise the Bypass top edge trick . Search here TT 46 should find recomendations .

With everyone speaking so highly of the TT 36 , youd think the 46 would ' Have Potential ' .

A Side to Rear Header would get you piped , if thats your game .

I was given a box of dead ( and not so dead ) TT 46s .
Crank almost fits FSR 40/45 - 45 case is relieved to clear big end . Royal 46 is similar ( SF OS Clone ) Dimensionally , at least .
The S had slower crank timing . Thinking of machining a FSR case for the TT 46 or Royal Liner , For outside side exhaust .
Machine Dia. of flywheel to fit in FSR Case. All this is by the way , The Royal liner just about fits in a K&B 7.5 RE case , just a nudge loose .

AGAIN , ! T T 46 in SEARCH should get you some Info Here .

Blue Head is a bit big & ugly for stunt , but the R- ABC was first 200 mph C/L & R.C. plane powerplant , so it could be good if your planning
to use it for COMBAT .

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #14 on:** December 17, 2018, 11:17:26 PM »

Quote from: Larry Fernandez on December 17, 2018, 05:03:22 PM

He’a a smartass

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

Oh yeah, I forget sometimes...He is a smart Ass! but a very smart, Smart Ass!

Randy Cuberly

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #15 on:** December 17, 2018, 11:54:14 PM »

Quote from: Randy Cuberly on December 17, 2018, 11:17:26 PM

Oh yeah, I forget sometimes...He is a smart Ass! but a very smart, Smart Ass!

Randy Cuberly

Indeed, one of the smartest smartasses I have ever known.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

Al Ferraro · « **Reply #16 on:** December 18, 2018, 07:57:11 AM »

I have a stock TT 46 in a 60oz Genesis using the stock muffler .170 intake, APC 12,1/4x3,3/4 APC prop, Power Master GMA 10-22 fuel, Thunder Bolt plug. The engine runs great, lots of power.
Al

RandySmith · « **Reply #17 on:** December 18, 2018, 12:35:43 PM »

The Thunder Tiger 46 OS SF 46 Mag 52 53 will all pull an SV-11 very well, They all will put out more power than a 61 Single by pass engine like the ST 60 and K&B 61
The TT 46 can be made to run very well, it is not high timed, and will run a wet 2 or a higher RPM 4/2 run., The CF 12 1/4 x 4 1/4 is excellent and one of the best props found for this engine, same prop we run on the OS VF 46.
The TT 46 will pull even larger stuntships like the IMPACT and other that size

I have many people using this engine that I setup with the 12 1/4 x 4 1/4 in Cf 2 blades, and 12 x 4.5 3 blades. Many of them are here on Stunt Hangar

Randy

Gary Dowler · « **Reply #18 on:** December 20, 2018, 01:01:34 AM »

Guys, I want to thank you all for your input. Everyone had some good input and I learned about both of these engines.

In my post I expressed a desire to go with what I have, as opposed to buying something new. After a indepth conversation today with Mr Walker I have decided to get something new after all. It came down to the ultimate performance of the airplane, which, assuming a proper build, will end up being limited only by my flying abilities if it gets a proper engine. Hence the choice is made to try to budget a piped PA51 exactly as shown on the plans.

Now all I have to do is figure out how to get an engine that might equal the cost of a new gun past the Wife , who doubles as the household CFO......lol!!!

Several engines will be going up for sale to help offset this cost.

Thanks!!

Gary

Ruslan Kurenkov · « **Reply #19 on:** December 20, 2018, 04:35:15 AM »

Yes Gary, the question is now how to sell two engines and buy one new one so that the wife does not recognize - I think this is the most difficult question and here I don’t even know what to advise. I think if your wife asks you what to give for the New Year or Christmas, then you will already know what to answer.
I think you made a very good choice. With what I congratulate you!