"1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes These are the small ones...more popular now than ever.

Fuji .05

Reply

Old 10-31-2017, 10:16 AM
  #1  
gmeyers
Thread Starter
 
gmeyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Camden Point MO
Posts: 153
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default Fuji .05

I am now the owner (not sure if proud owner) of a shiny new Fuji .05 rc engine from MECOA - Kinda unusual but pretty at the same time. On the downside it's on the heavy side at 3.5 ounces with muffler it's 4.4 ounces. I haven't ran it yet but will post results if anyone is interested in seeing them. I don't expect it to be a record breaker for sure I only bought it because I'm always looking for something new..
gmeyers is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 04:48 PM
  #2  
Pond Skipper
 
Pond Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas, TX
Posts: 2,629
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

The Fuji requires some refinement I have one at 76.4g by using a smaller vintage OS 10 carb rather than the bulky one supplied.
I also took the time to reduce the head fins and spinner nut / prop back plate. Used a header rather than the optional muffler supplied.

Here is a vid of one of my Fuji engines in action:


AmpAbuser
Published on Jul 24, 2016

Best pass 36,747 rpm gives a theoretical 157mph potential from a HQ 4x4.5 prop per audio tach from brief bursts of rpm past camera. With the right size plane the prop speed can be used to it's full advantage. Per Doppler wave analysis: 238 kmh / 147.89 mph best pass. Down wind shallow dives gets the rpm / speed up, prop is too small into the wind or when pushed in steady banking turns. Peak speed is brief average speeds much lower. Wing is approx 130sq. in. If with a 90sq. in wing and thinner airfoil will get the most out of the engine and thrust from the 4x4.5
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	IMAG1066.jpg
Views:	45
Size:	173.0 KB
ID:	2243199   Click image for larger version

Name:	05 to 07 Conversions.jpg
Views:	57
Size:	141.8 KB
ID:	2243200   Click image for larger version

Name:	Sport werks.jpg
Views:	36
Size:	110.8 KB
ID:	2243201   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMAG1509.jpg
Views:	34
Size:	133.3 KB
ID:	2243202   Click image for larger version

Name:	imag3615.jpg
Views:	40
Size:	157.7 KB
ID:	2243203  

Last edited by Pond Skipper; 10-31-2017 at 05:09 PM.
Pond Skipper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 06:36 PM
  #3  
gmeyers
Thread Starter
 
gmeyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Camden Point MO
Posts: 153
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Pond Skipper View Post
The Fuji requires some refinement I have one at 76.4g by using a smaller vintage OS 10 carb rather than the bulky one supplied.
I also took the time to reduce the head fins and spinner nut / prop back plate. Used a header rather than the optional muffler supplied.

Here is a vid of one of my Fuji engines in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IaQ4o_qXZ8

AmpAbuser
Published on Jul 24, 2016

Best pass 36,747 rpm gives a theoretical 157mph potential from a HQ 4x4.5 prop per audio tach from brief bursts of rpm past camera. With the right size plane the prop speed can be used to it's full advantage. Per Doppler wave analysis: 238 kmh / 147.89 mph best pass. Down wind shallow dives gets the rpm / speed up, prop is too small into the wind or when pushed in steady banking turns. Peak speed is brief average speeds much lower. Wing is approx 130sq. in. If with a 90sq. in wing and thinner airfoil will get the most out of the engine and thrust from the 4x4.5
WOW - pretty impressive for a sideport. I have a couple of CS .049's rear exhaust that don't want to turn that many R's . I'd like to thank you for sharing and you have my curiosity up with the tuned pipe - mind sharing some specs about it ? The CS pipe was not all that great at improving performance til you had a prop so small and thin it wouldn't fly an RC plane. I imagine it was ok on a control line speed plane though .. What I'd find most interesting in your pipe is the volume and if it has a baffle. I doubt it has any sort of baffle since most of those tiny pipes are straight through. Actually it looks like a Picco pipe.
Cheers
gmeyers is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 07:05 PM
  #4  
aspeed
 
aspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ruthven, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,281
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

You can lengthen the pipe an inch or two with silicone tubing or whatever, if you want a bigger prop. I keep thinking of getting one, but really I doubt I would actually use it, and they are not really that cheap to get up here.
aspeed is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2017, 07:46 PM
  #5  
Pond Skipper
 
Pond Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas, TX
Posts: 2,629
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

The Profi pipe is a good for .049 to .07 size engines very low in weight, with thin harden aluminum not easy to ding.
The Fuji did just fine with a 5x4.5N (N meaning narrow blade / cord prop) only if the plane is light enough.
The HQ 4x4.5 carbon prop really lets it sing, if your plane is lean it's the way to go short of trying a 4.5x4.5 carbon.
A 4x5 / 4.75x4 worthy props to use depending on thrust vs speed.

Speed Domingo sells them on ebay for $55 his name is Alberto he just sold a batch of 20 they where all gone
within 4wks. you just have to add him to favorites there and check his page from time to time. I have 5 of them.
Otherwise you can buy them on the net from another vendor cost more like 85 bucks as I recall.



Published on Jul 30, 2016

DART -Fuji .05 / Profi Tuned Pipe / HQ 5x4.5N Static in the hand 20,429 rpm / 87 mph
Best pass at 7:24 mins 26,082 rpm / 111.14 mph 2nd best 25,353 rpm at 2:24 mins. / 108 mph
Needle was not optimum I think a hair lean, as the best pass was after a cool down session of up close slow passes.


Bench test Fuji .05 / Profi .8cc tuned pipe note the MRP:


Published on Jul 16, 2016

HQ Prop 4x4.5 / Idle 9.3k rpm / 28,746 rpm / 122.4 mph .197hp / 147w /
Pipe set up per Bolly Book at {8.8in / 31k} mean reflective point.

Here is the impossible over 50k rpm with that pipe and a Picco .05


AmpAbuser
Published on Nov 22, 2016

Picco P-Zero .05 / .85cc engine 2nd Vid - Cut Octura to 1426 detongued
Static rpm on the bench hit tad over 50,000 rpm. RPM higher than the stock X427 prop,
best pass 36,902 rpm Med lift prop. 30% nitro / 20% castor. Best pass 43 mph.
The rigger is too big for the engine really I made it on purpose to take upgrades up
to a .12 size engine. I didn't count on the engine putting out such excellent rpm with
that Profi pipe. It breaks all common perceptions of what is possible rpm wise.

Last edited by Pond Skipper; 10-31-2017 at 07:49 PM.
Pond Skipper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2017, 04:17 AM
  #6  
gmeyers
Thread Starter
 
gmeyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Camden Point MO
Posts: 153
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Wow - I don't plan on trying to set any new world speed records just looking for a good looking combination of pipe/engine/plane . Thanks very muchly for all the info and videos on this thread.
gmeyers is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2017, 06:16 AM
  #7  
Pond Skipper
 
Pond Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas, TX
Posts: 2,629
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

What plane / est. weight I can recommend from there. It does make good power with the muffler supplied.
Need to set it up with a reasonable light load it is a car engine designed to unload up to 36k
For thrust 5.5x3 or a APC 6x2 tops. You can use the Sportwerks header in the previous pic posted,
in the package, cut of the curved section and go from there. A strait pipe with a pressure tap will motivate the engine.
Pond Skipper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2017, 09:34 AM
  #8  
gmeyers
Thread Starter
 
gmeyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Camden Point MO
Posts: 153
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Pond Skipper View Post
What plane / est. weight I can recommend from there. It does make good power with the muffler supplied.
Need to set it up with a reasonable light load it is a car engine designed to unload up to 36k
For thrust 5.5x3 or a APC 6x2 tops. You can use the Sportwerks header in the previous pic posted,
in the package, cut of the curved section and go from there. A strait pipe with a pressure tap will motivate the engine.
I wanted to use the Fuji .05 on a simitar like the Baby Scimitar (photos in my gallery) though it would need to be slightly modified and I plan to build another one since the one in the photo is a 1980's version built around a stock TEE DEE .051. it had a 30 inch span and weighed in at 16 ozs. The other one in the gallery I call Speedy is smaller with an upgrade to a VA .049 RC 24 inch span and 13 ozs. New one will be slightly higher aspect wing but still at 30 inches and probably about 16 Oz. I am hoping to use a foam wing on the new one for strength but not at the expense of weight. Planform may well be same as Baby Desperado though I am thinking about some wing sweep. I also plan to stretch the airfoil a mite to thin it some. Maybe down to 12% or 15%.
gmeyers is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2017, 11:30 AM
  #9  
Pond Skipper
 
Pond Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas, TX
Posts: 2,629
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Yes if you are in the 200 -240 sq. in range you should have a moderately fast set up hitting 100 +mph but tame enough for
stunts and horsing around without it getting away from you.
Pond Skipper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 08:22 AM
  #10  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,017
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by gmeyers View Post
I am now the owner (not sure if proud owner) of a shiny new Fuji .05 rc engine from MECOA - Kinda unusual but pretty at the same time. On the downside it's on the heavy side at 3.5 ounces with muffler it's 4.4 ounces. I haven't ran it yet but will post results if anyone is interested in seeing them. I don't expect it to be a record breaker for sure I only bought it because I'm always looking for something new..
Interesting that it is as heavy as many .09's and a few .15's without muffler. The Cox .074 Queen Bee RC was about the same weight. It was said to have the power of the Tee Dee .049 with reasonable throttling characteristics, but never caught on. A heavier weight is not good for an engine, although some have shown that the Fuji has decent performance.

Nevertheless, I find it edifying when someone makes good use of an engine when placed in the right airframe.

Last edited by GallopingGhostler; 11-03-2017 at 08:25 AM.
GallopingGhostler is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 08:40 AM
  #11  
aspeed
 
aspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ruthven, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,281
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I don't mind a heavier motor if it makes more power, like if it is a schnuerle with ball bearings. Power to weight ratio is important for sure but it is the weight of the total airplane. As a percentage, 20% of the motor weight may be 5% of the plane which is nothing if the power is 30% more. The poor old Queen Bee got such a bad rap comparing it to a TD. Very few TDs had a muffler, and the Queeny had one and was only a reedy. To compare it with no muffler to a B Bee with no muffler would be more fair. It would win that, as the muffler is quite restrictive. Some of the .049s are sharing the c case of an .06 so that adds a bit of weight too, like Norvel CS and Fora. I am not sure if the Fuji has a bigger brother. When I was trying for records I had to use an .049 but weight made no measurable difference when going in a straight line. (Control line) A stunt plane or even a pylon racer is a different story when tight turns are needed. Now, again, the new combat planes are quite big now and a Fora .049 flies what used to be a .15 size plane quite well.

Last edited by aspeed; 11-03-2017 at 08:45 AM.
aspeed is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 09:14 AM
  #12  
gmeyers
Thread Starter
 
gmeyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Camden Point MO
Posts: 153
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by GallopingGhostler View Post
Interesting that it is as heavy as many .09's and a few .15's without muffler. The Cox .074 Queen Bee RC was about the same weight. It was said to have the power of the Tee Dee .049 with reasonable throttling characteristics, but never caught on. A heavier weight is not good for an engine, although some have shown that the Fuji has decent performance.

Nevertheless, I find it edifying when someone makes good use of an engine when placed in the right airframe.
I have had, in the past, planes that were to big for the available .049's but not quite .09 sized so I was delighted when the .074 queen bee came along and I bought one. I was a little disappointed in it's performance so bought a Norvel .074 and also the Purple Top Thunder Tiger .074 and did side by side comparisons - The Norvel won hands down for many reasons so I bought 5 more of them when I spotted one on E.bay. I found quickly that the Cox Queen Bee used the same threads and dimensions as the TD .09 and the only difference was the size of the crankpin. So I made a bronze bushing and sized it to fit the TD con rod and press fit it in place and turned my .074 Queen in to an .09 King. It performs much better as an .09 than it did as an .074. The larger cylinder bore didn't save any weight and I learned over time that teflon reeds also made a difference in performance.
gmeyers is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 09:40 AM
  #13  
aspeed
 
aspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ruthven, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,281
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I made up a turbo plug head for the TTiger .074 and it equalled the Norvel. I think the Queen Bee muffler needs the outlet drilled bigger. Kind of hard to do.
aspeed is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 01:04 PM
  #14  
Pond Skipper
 
Pond Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas, TX
Posts: 2,629
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Per my last vid using thrust calc it makes way more power than at TD .49

Static: 5x4.5 / 20429rpm / 11.3oz thrust / .172hp / 128w / 87 mph

Mind you I did use a Profi tuned pipe = )
Pond Skipper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 03:41 PM
  #15  
gmeyers
Thread Starter
 
gmeyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Camden Point MO
Posts: 153
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Pond Skipper View Post
Per my last vid using thrust calc it makes way more power than at TD .49

Static: 5x4.5 / 20429rpm / 11.3oz thrust / .172hp / 128w / 87 mph

Mind you I did use a Profi tuned pipe = )
Thanks for sharing - do you know what the volume is of the Profi tuned pipe ? I usually measure that by filling the pipe with liquid (I use water) then pouring the water into a measuring flask. Sometimes the manufacturer provides that information with the pipe.
Again thank you I'll try to duplicate your test when I acquire a proper sized pipe - either Profi or Picco .
gmeyers is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 04:07 PM
  #16  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,017
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by gmeyers View Post
I have had, in the past, planes that were to big for the available .049's but not quite .09 sized so I was delighted when the .074 queen bee came along and I bought one. I was a little disappointed in it's performance so bought a Norvel .074 and also the Purple Top Thunder Tiger .074 and did side by side comparisons - The Norvel won hands down for many reasons so I bought 5 more of them when I spotted one on E.bay.
I bought a Queen Bee too, when they first came out. Then got busy with work and family. Put it on an ARF foam plane, had difficulty with runs and thus sidelined it. Later, was told should have changed the plug. My 1966 OS Max .10R/C certainly wasn't fickle and a much more user friendly engine, plus more powerful and lighter. Good reason why I have 3 of the OS.

Originally Posted by gmeyers
I found quickly that the Cox Queen Bee used the same threads and dimensions as the TD .09 and the only difference was the size of the crankpin. So I made a bronze bushing and sized it to fit the TD con rod and press fit it in place and turned my .074 Queen in to an .09 King. It performs much better as an .09 than it did as an .074. The larger cylinder bore didn't save any weight and I learned over time that teflon reeds also made a difference in performance.
You turned bruised apples into apple sauce. Yes, I wondered why basically an underbored .09 cylinder, since it is heavier. I think that if Cox made it an exhaust throttled .074 with a postage stamp type back and with .049 tank spaced mount lugs, shorter lighter crankcase, or even made it a reed valve .09, they might have a lightweight decent upgrade for the .049's. The carb screw slots were split on my nylon carb mount, so I bought a new one from Ex Engines.

Originally Posted by aspeed View Post
I made up a turbo plug head for the TTiger .074 and it equalled the Norvel. I think the Queen Bee muffler needs the outlet drilled bigger. Kind of hard to do.
I think that if Cox had made it use an exhaust throttle muffler instead that allowed one to adjust the amount of muffling might have been a better choice.

Originally Posted by Pond Skipper View Post
Per my last vid using thrust calc it makes way more power than a TD .049
Static: 5x4.5 / 20429rpm / 11.3oz thrust / .172hp / 128w / 87 mph
Mind you I did use a Profi tuned pipe = )
That puts the Fuji .05 Schneurle then in the .09 cross scavenge power class. That's about the power of the 1965 Enya 09-III TV.
GallopingGhostler is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 05:56 PM
  #17  
Pond Skipper
 
Pond Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas, TX
Posts: 2,629
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Here is another source, I have bought two pipes from him before. 1.15cc pipes for my .09 engines.


Profi .8cc tuned pipe you can call the guy and go from there:

Profi .8cc (.049cid) Glow 1/2A Speed engine w/pipe [PRO-1/2A-Speed] - $329.95 : Hobby Club

P.O. Box 6004
San Clemente, CA 92674
U.S.A.
(949) 425-1362 - Voice
(877) 235-0702 - Fax
E-mail : hobbyclub@earthlink.net
hobbyclub@cox.net
Pond Skipper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2017, 10:48 PM
  #18  
Pond Skipper
 
Pond Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas, TX
Posts: 2,629
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Another thing about the Fuji is run time I have gotten longer runs with the 5x4.5 but not so much with the 4x4.5
Tank used was 2oz 5 mins ish vs 7.2 mins ish. Thirsty engine with the tuned pipe acting like a pump.
A 1oz tank is out of the question min. 1.5oz.

Also did a test with the stock muffler and the Picco .05 does have a nice tone to it and idles great with a pressure tap.


AmpAbuser
Published on Jan 23, 2016

Picco P-0 .05 / .85cc APC 4.2x4 26,570 rpm / 101mph static - Muffler from Mecoa Fuji engine.
AP .09 carb used. 25% nitro / castor / synthetic mix Run up after 2.5oz break in time.

I would like to try a smaller plane design using ply for the fuselage per pic. with a 1.5oz tank
just for speed passes think it can do 160 with the right prop. Shown next to my TD .051 effort.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Fuji .05.jpg
Views:	32
Size:	443.7 KB
ID:	2243542  

Last edited by Pond Skipper; 11-04-2017 at 10:54 PM.
Pond Skipper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2017, 06:38 AM
  #19  
aspeed
 
aspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ruthven, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,281
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by GallopingGhostler View Post
I bought a Queen Bee too, when they first came out. Then got busy with work and family. Put it on an ARF foam plane, had difficulty with runs and thus sidelined it. Later, was told should have changed the plug. My 1966 OS Max .10R/C certainly wasn't fickle and a much more user friendly engine, plus more powerful and lighter. Good reason why I have 3 of the OS.







That puts the Fuji .05 Schneurle then in the .09 cross scavenge power class. That's about the power of the 1965 Enya 09-III TV.
Things were a lot different in 1965. If you want a good comparison, get one of the new Profi or Fora .049 or .06s. They put out the power of a fairly recent .15. The piped one may be a bit more trouble to tune. I got my Fora for $150 CDN which is about what the Fuji would end up being with shipping and $ exchange. That was a few years ago. I still have not run it yet though. Can't think of a plane yet, besides a combat which has been started.
aspeed is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2017, 07:41 AM
  #20  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,017
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Tech developments leading to the Fuji, Profi and Fora half-A's are amazing, don't get me wrong. There is a right engine for the right plane. The older pre-WW2 aircraft like the 6 or 7 lb. (2.7 - 3.2 kg), 7 or 8 foot (2.1 - 2.4 m) wingspan free flight cabin were better suited with a 1/4 HP Brown .60 Junior than a .15 cross scavenge of the 1960's although they both produce the same horsepower. My half-A and A stuff are slower, a larger diameter propeller turned less quickly works more efficiently. It's more a matter of taste and type of flying.
GallopingGhostler is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2017, 08:32 AM
  #21  
aspeed
 
aspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ruthven, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,281
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I find that I like fast planes, but for rc at least, I fly half throttle for the first half tank. Some of the Fora .15 engines kind of scare me to be honest. It still is fun to fly though, gets the heart rate up. I can't fly the floaty stuff here because of the bad winds. Half of my fleet just hangs in the basement.
aspeed is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2017, 11:06 AM
  #22  
gmeyers
Thread Starter
 
gmeyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Camden Point MO
Posts: 153
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by aspeed View Post
I made up a turbo plug head for the TTiger .074 and it equalled the Norvel. I think the Queen Bee muffler needs the outlet drilled bigger. Kind of hard to do.
Had I found Nelson or Turbo plugs readily available I would have experimented some with the little Thunder Tiger - Of course nowadays they are available but it't too late as I have sold mine and won't likely experiment anymore.
gmeyers is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2017, 11:34 AM
  #23  
Pond Skipper
 
Pond Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas, TX
Posts: 2,629
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

GP-07

I benched tested that engine with the following results:



AmpAbuser
Published on May 6, 2017

HQ 5x4.5 carbon / nylon prop 30% nitro / 20% castor
Ran in about 2oz of fuel prior to test. 4 heat cycles to break in rich.
Best Static 19,864 / 12.1oz thrust / 74 mph / 118w / .16hp
I would imagine it will hold 20k ish after a few more tanks.
Runs very quite and clean with a integrated carb.

Per Manufacture Specification: Displacement(c.c. / cu.in.) 1.13 c.c. / 0.069 cu.in.
Bore(mm / in.) 12.0 mm / 0.472 in. Stroke(mm / in.) 10.0 mm / 0.394 in.
Practical R.P.M.(R.P.M.) 4,000 ~ 18,000 rpm Output(BHP/RPM) 0.19 BHP / 17,000 RPM
Weight(g/oz) 94.4 g / 3.33 oz
Pond Skipper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2017, 12:28 PM
  #24  
gmeyers
Thread Starter
 
gmeyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Camden Point MO
Posts: 153
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Pond Skipper View Post
GP-07

I benched tested that engine with the following results:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P10XsPvkleM

AmpAbuser
Published on May 6, 2017

HQ 5x4.5 carbon / nylon prop 30% nitro / 20% castor
Ran in about 2oz of fuel prior to test. 4 heat cycles to break in rich.
Best Static 19,864 / 12.1oz thrust / 74 mph / 118w / .16hp
I would imagine it will hold 20k ish after a few more tanks.
Runs very quite and clean with a integrated carb.

Per Manufacture Specification: Displacement(c.c. / cu.in.) 1.13 c.c. / 0.069 cu.in.
Bore(mm / in.) 12.0 mm / 0.472 in. Stroke(mm / in.) 10.0 mm / 0.394 in.
Practical R.P.M.(R.P.M.) 4,000 ~ 18,000 rpm Output(BHP/RPM) 0.19 BHP / 17,000 RPM
Weight(g/oz) 94.4 g / 3.33 oz
I got different results but of course I used a different prop - I used the same 6 x 6 prop on all my .074's and got about 17.700 with the Thunder Tiger and 19,750 with the Norvel. Essentially the same fuel. 30% nitro and 21%castor.
gmeyers is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2017, 11:04 PM
  #25  
Mr Cox
 
Mr Cox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Karlstad, SWEDEN
Posts: 3,790
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Pond Skipper View Post
GP-07
Best Static 19,864 / 12.1oz thrust / 74 mph / 118w / .16hp
With a turbo plug it will make at least 50% more power;
ABC type break in, no rich runs, no heat cycling.
APC 7x3 prop / 13% nitro / 22% oil (50% castor)
16700 rpm / 31.04 oz thrust / 47.4 mph / 177W / 0.241Hp

On a smaller electric prop I would expect 74.32% more power.

Worlds first ever, published June 15, 2008;


Last edited by Mr Cox; 11-05-2017 at 11:14 PM.
Mr Cox is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service