killer bee backplate VS surestart backplate
#2
RE: killer bee backplate VS surestart backplate
Warren Leadbeatter, a Cox engine guru posted an article on E-Bay:
[link=http://www.ebay.com/gds/cox-surestart-hop-up/10000000005390559/g.html]E-Bay Buying Guides - Cox Surestart Hop up[/link]
In there he describes modifications to the backplate to improve performance. Can't tell you if you'll have a Killer Bee backplate with the mod, but think you're probably not too far from one.
[link=http://www.ebay.com/gds/cox-surestart-hop-up/10000000005390559/g.html]E-Bay Buying Guides - Cox Surestart Hop up[/link]
In there he describes modifications to the backplate to improve performance. Can't tell you if you'll have a Killer Bee backplate with the mod, but think you're probably not too far from one.
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
RE: killer bee backplate VS surestart backplate
The only KB backplate I ever laid eyes on measured the intake at .180"...[if I remember correctly].
I remember comparing it to other backplates I had laying around and noting that none of them had enough extra meat to drill out to match the KB.
I remember comparing it to other backplates I had laying around and noting that none of them had enough extra meat to drill out to match the KB.
#4
RE: killer bee backplate VS surestart backplate
SureStarts are the latest interation of the odd 4 bolt bulkhead mount venturi back. The intake is narrowed by flattening both left and right side of the hole, so it is sort of like a crude oval. Opening it up to 3/16" of an inch is 0.1875, which is not too far off from the KB.
Then I gather CP that the earlier ones used less plastic, which then of course would be hard to modify. I guess these were targeted for the then Cox series of cheap ready-to-flies, which of a smaller wingspan of what? 16", wanted a better fuel draw and slight reduction in power was warranted I imagine.
Going with a Tee Dee sub-induction piston/cylinder assembly with a Glo-Bee head and modifying back by drilling it out probably gets close to if not next to a KB.
I suppose if one wants to replace a Cox Pee Wee intended plane with a SureStart, probably could leave the tank back alone, put in a glow plug head adapter to lower compression, place prop backwards to reduce thrust or use a throttle ring and 3rd channel. Ken Willard's Virus comes to mind. It would be a hoot on .049 power.
Then I gather CP that the earlier ones used less plastic, which then of course would be hard to modify. I guess these were targeted for the then Cox series of cheap ready-to-flies, which of a smaller wingspan of what? 16", wanted a better fuel draw and slight reduction in power was warranted I imagine.
Going with a Tee Dee sub-induction piston/cylinder assembly with a Glo-Bee head and modifying back by drilling it out probably gets close to if not next to a KB.
I suppose if one wants to replace a Cox Pee Wee intended plane with a SureStart, probably could leave the tank back alone, put in a glow plug head adapter to lower compression, place prop backwards to reduce thrust or use a throttle ring and 3rd channel. Ken Willard's Virus comes to mind. It would be a hoot on .049 power.