Hanno MKI and MKII
05-12-2010, 05:19 PM
#76
RE: Hanno MKI and MKII
justinh
I think you do not find any information how to rebuild the pump.
For example the adjustement of any control valve inside if there is any, see the drawing, the Perry.
I do not know your pump, it has more connections so is more complicated.
So you first need a drawing, after that a parts list, next a description how to rebuilt and adjust, last point instruments to measure pressures, data and maybe the special tools.
How we continue?
Cees
I think you do not find any information how to rebuild the pump.
For example the adjustement of any control valve inside if there is any, see the drawing, the Perry.
I do not know your pump, it has more connections so is more complicated.
So you first need a drawing, after that a parts list, next a description how to rebuilt and adjust, last point instruments to measure pressures, data and maybe the special tools.
How we continue?
Cees
09-07-2015, 03:19 AM
#80
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Denpasar-Bali , INDONESIA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did I buy this from new, yes and no 
.
Bought this from an old timer in Jakarta.
He said there is too much hassle in setting up and running this, so he just stored it for years.
I'm lucky I guess
.Bought this from an old timer in Jakarta.
He said there is too much hassle in setting up and running this, so he just stored it for years.
I'm lucky I guess
09-07-2015, 03:33 AM
#81
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rennerod, GERMANY
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes you are lucky.
For anybody who likes glow engines owning (and running) a Hanno Special is pure pleasure.
Should you get tired of it send me a message....
For anybody who likes glow engines owning (and running) a Hanno Special is pure pleasure.
Should you get tired of it send me a message....
09-07-2015, 09:05 AM
#82
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Port Saint Lucie, FL,
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hanno MKI and MKII
I happen to have 3 nib Hanno's and one in an EU-1A, does the serial number mean anything as far as value??
My 3 are:
0736
0594
3066
all with pipe and header
My 3 are:
0736
0594
3066
all with pipe and header
09-08-2015, 08:51 AM
#83
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Denpasar-Bali , INDONESIA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-09-2015, 09:23 AM
#84
Patrick,
Not sure if numbers are worth anything, they were all the same to my knowledge, albeit with the accessories as options. I have an EU1-A also, under construction, and a Hanno would make a nice addition! (hint hint! - sent you a PM)
BTW Richard - Nice 5+year bounce on this thread!
Not sure if numbers are worth anything, they were all the same to my knowledge, albeit with the accessories as options. I have an EU1-A also, under construction, and a Hanno would make a nice addition! (hint hint! - sent you a PM)
BTW Richard - Nice 5+year bounce on this thread!
Last edited by time907356; 09-09-2015 at 10:01 AM.
09-09-2015, 12:03 PM
#85
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rennerod, GERMANY
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be nice to know when the first ones were available for the average pilot, and if those had serial numbers smaller than few hundred.
Dominik
09-10-2015, 04:08 AM
#86
A very good pick up there.
I have 2 NIB Hannos and one used, but only one Hanno pipe. When I first started flying pattern in 2000, I had a ringed version. I sold the model and it has since been crashed. I have tried to buy back the engine, but the guy won't sell.
Yet Lol. But I keep working on him.
I have 2 NIB Hannos and one used, but only one Hanno pipe. When I first started flying pattern in 2000, I had a ringed version. I sold the model and it has since been crashed. I have tried to buy back the engine, but the guy won't sell.
Yet Lol. But I keep working on him.
09-10-2015, 04:31 AM
#87
Flywilly pointed out in the first posts of this thread that there were Mk1 and Mk2 types, the latter one as ABC (ABN...) and ringed piston version.
It would be nice to know when the first ones were available for the average pilot, and if those had serial numbers smaller than few hundred.
Dominik
It would be nice to know when the first ones were available for the average pilot, and if those had serial numbers smaller than few hundred.
Dominik
Patrick,
Not sure if numbers are worth anything, they were all the same to my knowledge, albeit with the accessories [and] options
I read through a lot, but not all posts, but I didn't get that clear delineation you're refereing to...
Example from Post #7:
MK II (ring): 6306; 6307; 6556
MK II ABC: 6696; 6713; 6756; 6784; 6810
It seems like in the first 10 posts, the obvious feature-based differences between MKI & II were dispelled, and that it may have just been 'tweaking' the design (carb upgrades, timing, ports, etc.) Maybe I missed something obvious, but I was fairly confident that there wasn't a herculean difference. I'm no Hanno scholar though; I could never have afforded one back then. I ran the RF until moving to a YS 4s. Hanno's were behind the times from my recollection; the YS's were the wave/rage in the '90's, and 60's in general couldn't keep up.
I'd love to have one now, but it seems like most are hangar queens. I buy them to use them, and with a EU1A under construction, have chosen the YS 61 Classic. Only 200 came to the US, I'm told, but mine will see service!
09-11-2015, 07:51 AM
#88
My Feedback: (121)
I don't have my Hanno notes with me, but I am quite certain serial numbers 0001 to 4999 were for the original MKI version. I have never seen a serial number for a Hanno from 5000 to 5999. That doesn't mean there weren't Hannos made with a serial number in that range, but I have tracked Hanno serial numbers for about 20 years without seeing one. I have only seen MKII Hannos with serial numbers in the 6000 to 6999 range.
I believe that there were 5,000 MKI Hannos made and only 1,000 MKII Hannos (approximately 500 ringed and 500 'abc' versions). I have accounted for a very small number of the Hannos, probably fewer than 100; so this is all conjecture on my part.
By the time the MKII versions were released they were competing with the YS 120AC and the '.60' sized pattern ship was quickly going extinct as Tim pointed out.
There were some minor refinements made to the MKII versions, but no significant impact on performance.
The Hanno is a personal favorite.
Lastly, there were only 100 YS classics imported, though more than 100 were made (I erroneously mentioned 200 on another forum). Hopefully, more will be produced.
I believe that there were 5,000 MKI Hannos made and only 1,000 MKII Hannos (approximately 500 ringed and 500 'abc' versions). I have accounted for a very small number of the Hannos, probably fewer than 100; so this is all conjecture on my part.
By the time the MKII versions were released they were competing with the YS 120AC and the '.60' sized pattern ship was quickly going extinct as Tim pointed out.
There were some minor refinements made to the MKII versions, but no significant impact on performance.
The Hanno is a personal favorite.
Lastly, there were only 100 YS classics imported, though more than 100 were made (I erroneously mentioned 200 on another forum). Hopefully, more will be produced.
09-11-2015, 09:26 AM
#89
I don't have my Hanno notes with me, but I am quite certain serial numbers 0001 to 4999 were for the original MKI version. I have never seen a serial number for a Hanno from 5000 to 5999. That doesn't mean there weren't Hannos made with a serial number in that range, but I have tracked Hanno serial numbers for about 20 years without seeing one. I have only seen MKII Hannos with serial numbers in the 6000 to 6999 range.
I believe that there were 5,000 MKI Hannos made and only 1,000 MKII Hannos (approximately 500 ringed and 500 'abc' versions). I have accounted for a very small number of the Hannos, probably fewer than 100; so this is all conjecture on my part.
By the time the MKII versions were released they were competing with the YS 120AC and the '.60' sized pattern ship was quickly going extinct as Tim pointed out.
There were some minor refinements made to the MKII versions, but no significant impact on performance.
The Hanno is a personal favorite.
Lastly, there were only 100 YS classics imported, though more than 100 were made (I erroneously mentioned 200 on another forum). Hopefully, more will be produced.
I believe that there were 5,000 MKI Hannos made and only 1,000 MKII Hannos (approximately 500 ringed and 500 'abc' versions). I have accounted for a very small number of the Hannos, probably fewer than 100; so this is all conjecture on my part.
By the time the MKII versions were released they were competing with the YS 120AC and the '.60' sized pattern ship was quickly going extinct as Tim pointed out.
There were some minor refinements made to the MKII versions, but no significant impact on performance.
The Hanno is a personal favorite.
Lastly, there were only 100 YS classics imported, though more than 100 were made (I erroneously mentioned 200 on another forum). Hopefully, more will be produced.
Given the 100 imports, the YS .61C sold surprisingly slow. I guess there are only a few builders of classic pattern ships.
Going back though, the 'transition' to turnaround, and its industry, was fairly quick. Pattern remained largely unchanged for ~30 years or so-maybe more Or at least, heading in the same direction - faster. All of a sudden, in the late 80's, turnaround hits, and we're 30mph beyond the speed needed to keep it in the box. So the go slow, get big equation churns everything up, and that's when these engines hit the scene. LS, 4S, electrics, then no formula, all within ~15 years. They're right on the other side of the pinnacle of development, at a time where pattern was anything but settled. That's why there are probably 10x more aircraft designs for an engine like the NR Speed 13, than a long stroke engine.
Anyway, the Hanno certainly has a unique place in pattern history. Tumultuous times. I flew from 88 to 93, right in the middle of it. Every year was something new.
09-13-2015, 09:10 AM
#90
I don't have my Hanno notes with me, but I am quite certain serial numbers 0001 to 4999 were for the original MKI version. I have never seen a serial number for a Hanno from 5000 to 5999. That doesn't mean there weren't Hannos made with a serial number in that range, but I have tracked Hanno serial numbers for about 20 years without seeing one. I have only seen MKII Hannos with serial numbers in the 6000 to 6999 range.
I believe that there were 5,000 MKI Hannos made and only 1,000 MKII Hannos (approximately 500 ringed and 500 'abc' versions). I have accounted for a very small number of the Hannos, probably fewer than 100; so this is all conjecture on my part.
By the time the MKII versions were released they were competing with the YS 120AC and the '.60' sized pattern ship was quickly going extinct as Tim pointed out.
There were some minor refinements made to the MKII versions, but no significant impact on performance.
The Hanno is a personal favorite.
Lastly, there were only 100 YS classics imported, though more than 100 were made (I erroneously mentioned 200 on another forum). Hopefully, more will be produced.
I believe that there were 5,000 MKI Hannos made and only 1,000 MKII Hannos (approximately 500 ringed and 500 'abc' versions). I have accounted for a very small number of the Hannos, probably fewer than 100; so this is all conjecture on my part.
By the time the MKII versions were released they were competing with the YS 120AC and the '.60' sized pattern ship was quickly going extinct as Tim pointed out.
There were some minor refinements made to the MKII versions, but no significant impact on performance.
The Hanno is a personal favorite.
Lastly, there were only 100 YS classics imported, though more than 100 were made (I erroneously mentioned 200 on another forum). Hopefully, more will be produced.
This is one of the Hanno experts.
Also, glad I grabbed a YS Classic.
09-15-2015, 04:32 PM
#94
My Feedback: (121)
Hi Speed-panzer,
Central hobbies (here in the US) has sold out their allotment. Richard Verano, the YS engine importer for North America may have a few left. None of the Asian hobby shops that I have dealt with have any left... so we may need to beg for more :-0
You can email Richard at: [email protected]
good luck,
Will
Central hobbies (here in the US) has sold out their allotment. Richard Verano, the YS engine importer for North America may have a few left. None of the Asian hobby shops that I have dealt with have any left... so we may need to beg for more :-0
You can email Richard at: [email protected]
good luck,
Will
09-15-2015, 04:48 PM
#95
My Feedback: (121)
Hi Tim,
prior to the change to aresti style pattern (which officially started in 1984 at the FAI level), I would say the biggest rule change made by the FAI rules committee was to increase engine displacement from 7.5cc to 10cc which occurred in the mid '60s (before my time, so I'm a little hazy on the details). It was a kick in the groin to at least one engine manufacturer who had tooled up for a new 7.5cc pattern engine. The trickle down effect from the '83 rules changes was met with some resistance here in the lower 'AMA' classes, but by the end of the '80s everybody was flying in 'the box'. Some of the designs from the 80's were slower, but most were still pretty fast (Aurora, Mistress, LA-1, etc.) especially since the 150 meter restriction was pretty loosely enforced. I attended the '89 World Championships held in Virginia and some of the models were very fast. Matt's Saphir (designed for a 60, but retrofitted with the YS 120) was a rocket. It had enough power to accelerate in the verticals which were quite impressive. There were quite a few designs kitted from that era, but pattern (and pattern engines) was evolving very quickly back then and a lot of designs which flew well never were mass produced. Now everything (or almost) is electric powered and pretty cookie-cutter from a design perspective, though they all fly well.
2 more cents...
Will
prior to the change to aresti style pattern (which officially started in 1984 at the FAI level), I would say the biggest rule change made by the FAI rules committee was to increase engine displacement from 7.5cc to 10cc which occurred in the mid '60s (before my time, so I'm a little hazy on the details). It was a kick in the groin to at least one engine manufacturer who had tooled up for a new 7.5cc pattern engine. The trickle down effect from the '83 rules changes was met with some resistance here in the lower 'AMA' classes, but by the end of the '80s everybody was flying in 'the box'. Some of the designs from the 80's were slower, but most were still pretty fast (Aurora, Mistress, LA-1, etc.) especially since the 150 meter restriction was pretty loosely enforced. I attended the '89 World Championships held in Virginia and some of the models were very fast. Matt's Saphir (designed for a 60, but retrofitted with the YS 120) was a rocket. It had enough power to accelerate in the verticals which were quite impressive. There were quite a few designs kitted from that era, but pattern (and pattern engines) was evolving very quickly back then and a lot of designs which flew well never were mass produced. Now everything (or almost) is electric powered and pretty cookie-cutter from a design perspective, though they all fly well.
2 more cents...
Will
09-16-2015, 06:42 AM
#96
Good history Will...thanks for that! The 'innovations' proved expensive for the common modeler, and without a clear indication of what combinations would work well, we were left fishing a bit. I believe the result is that many fewer are flying patters as a direct result.
My EU1A flying 'slow' with an OS .61RF was not good; I ended up getting blown out of the sky by anything over a 5mph breeze = non competitive. Bought a Summit III and had good results in Sportsman, but too fast for Advanced. Bought an XLT and modified it, but was underpowered with a YS .91. Built this Persuasion, but it's again too fast with an OS 120 2S. I couldn't have afforded all of the changes to keep up 'appropriately' then, but maybe now that the kids are gone...
Anyway, not wanting to get into the IC/Electric debate, change offers much to those who can afford the ride. I had lost as much interest as money chasing the moving target after 5 years of flying. It's a different game now, but $3000 is a ton to pay for a 2M toy, and many won't. Personally, I prefer the lines of the newer 2M aircraft to the "crop-duster" (my word) look of the late '90's, 2000's: B*** UGLY!. I still have a heart for retracts too!!!
My EU1A flying 'slow' with an OS .61RF was not good; I ended up getting blown out of the sky by anything over a 5mph breeze = non competitive. Bought a Summit III and had good results in Sportsman, but too fast for Advanced. Bought an XLT and modified it, but was underpowered with a YS .91. Built this Persuasion, but it's again too fast with an OS 120 2S. I couldn't have afforded all of the changes to keep up 'appropriately' then, but maybe now that the kids are gone...
Anyway, not wanting to get into the IC/Electric debate, change offers much to those who can afford the ride. I had lost as much interest as money chasing the moving target after 5 years of flying. It's a different game now, but $3000 is a ton to pay for a 2M toy, and many won't. Personally, I prefer the lines of the newer 2M aircraft to the "crop-duster" (my word) look of the late '90's, 2000's: B*** UGLY!. I still have a heart for retracts too!!!
09-21-2015, 03:20 PM
#97
My Feedback: (121)
Hi Tim,
just a little more history... One of the BIG problems with Aresti style pattern has been (and still is) judging. The first 'turnaround' WC in 1985 was a bit disconcerting for the US team as the event organizers provided NO box markers and most competitors took full advantage by flying beyond the 60 degree line as well as much farther away then the 'recommended' 150 meters. The US team was prepared to fly based on their expectation of the enforcement of the FAI rules and by the time they had 'adjusted' they could not overcome their scoring deficit. Jumping forward a few years to the 2015 US Nationals, there were some significant issues with the judging (again) where scores for one maneuver would range from a low of 2 to a high of 8 raising some 'concerns' by many competitors about the validity of their scores. A personal observation is that judging at local contests has become more demanding than flying and you will certainly spend more time judging than flying.
As for the IC/electric debate, I will say that the advent of competitive electric propulsion systems has been welcomed and embraced by the pattern community; very few competitors fly IC any more. While I will remain an IC guy, I can see the advantages of electrics. Electric power has definitely been a boon to the RC industry, making RC flying more accessible to the less mechanically inclined.
As for the 'crop-duster' design period (I referred to them as 'lawn darts'), they certainly flew well. I blame the FAI for that aesthetic aberration as that was when the 2 meter rule went into effect; so everybody felt obligated to fill the 2M parameters. I wish that the FAI had capped the engine displacement at 20cc and not placed any design/size restrictions on the aircraft. There was a lot more variety in the pattern designs from 1980 or so to about 1995.
I still like retracts, too, but hate the maintenance (I fly off grass). I am finishing a DIck Hanson Zlinn with retracts right now.
Lastly, the price tag of the new ARF pattern designs is steep, but being powered with electrics and only one flight line at most pattern contests, they should last several years.
I enjoy building and flying and if I compete again it will be on my terms (I'll fly what I want within the constraints of the rules) win or lose.
-Will
just a little more history... One of the BIG problems with Aresti style pattern has been (and still is) judging. The first 'turnaround' WC in 1985 was a bit disconcerting for the US team as the event organizers provided NO box markers and most competitors took full advantage by flying beyond the 60 degree line as well as much farther away then the 'recommended' 150 meters. The US team was prepared to fly based on their expectation of the enforcement of the FAI rules and by the time they had 'adjusted' they could not overcome their scoring deficit. Jumping forward a few years to the 2015 US Nationals, there were some significant issues with the judging (again) where scores for one maneuver would range from a low of 2 to a high of 8 raising some 'concerns' by many competitors about the validity of their scores. A personal observation is that judging at local contests has become more demanding than flying and you will certainly spend more time judging than flying.
As for the IC/electric debate, I will say that the advent of competitive electric propulsion systems has been welcomed and embraced by the pattern community; very few competitors fly IC any more. While I will remain an IC guy, I can see the advantages of electrics. Electric power has definitely been a boon to the RC industry, making RC flying more accessible to the less mechanically inclined.
As for the 'crop-duster' design period (I referred to them as 'lawn darts'), they certainly flew well. I blame the FAI for that aesthetic aberration as that was when the 2 meter rule went into effect; so everybody felt obligated to fill the 2M parameters. I wish that the FAI had capped the engine displacement at 20cc and not placed any design/size restrictions on the aircraft. There was a lot more variety in the pattern designs from 1980 or so to about 1995.
I still like retracts, too, but hate the maintenance (I fly off grass). I am finishing a DIck Hanson Zlinn with retracts right now.
Lastly, the price tag of the new ARF pattern designs is steep, but being powered with electrics and only one flight line at most pattern contests, they should last several years.
I enjoy building and flying and if I compete again it will be on my terms (I'll fly what I want within the constraints of the rules) win or lose
.-Will
09-22-2015, 01:00 AM
#98
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rennerod, GERMANY
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Tim,
just a little more history... One of the BIG problems with Aresti style pattern has been (and still is) judging. The first 'turnaround' WC in 1985 was a bit disconcerting for the US team as the event organizers provided NO box markers and most competitors took full advantage by flying beyond the 60 degree line as well as much farther away then the 'recommended' 150 meters. The US team was prepared to fly based on their expectation of the enforcement of the FAI rules and by the time they had 'adjusted' they could not overcome their scoring deficit. Jumping forward a few years to the 2015 US Nationals, there were some significant issues with the judging (again) where scores for one maneuver would range from a low of 2 to a high of 8 raising some 'concerns' by many competitors about the validity of their scores. A personal observation is that judging at local contests has become more demanding than flying and you will certainly spend more time judging than flying.
just a little more history... One of the BIG problems with Aresti style pattern has been (and still is) judging. The first 'turnaround' WC in 1985 was a bit disconcerting for the US team as the event organizers provided NO box markers and most competitors took full advantage by flying beyond the 60 degree line as well as much farther away then the 'recommended' 150 meters. The US team was prepared to fly based on their expectation of the enforcement of the FAI rules and by the time they had 'adjusted' they could not overcome their scoring deficit. Jumping forward a few years to the 2015 US Nationals, there were some significant issues with the judging (again) where scores for one maneuver would range from a low of 2 to a high of 8 raising some 'concerns' by many competitors about the validity of their scores. A personal observation is that judging at local contests has become more demanding than flying and you will certainly spend more time judging than flying.
Dominik
09-22-2015, 01:03 AM
#99
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rennerod, GERMANY
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the IC/electric debate, I will say that the advent of competitive electric propulsion systems has been welcomed and embraced by the pattern community; very few competitors fly IC any more. While I will remain an IC guy, I can see the advantages of electrics. Electric power has definitely been a boon to the RC industry, making RC flying more accessible to the less mechanically inclined.
I enjoy building and flying and if I compete again it will be on my terms (I'll fly what I want within the constraints of the rules) win or lose.
-Will
I enjoy building and flying and if I compete again it will be on my terms (I'll fly what I want within the constraints of the rules) win or lose
.-Will
In any case, I am the mechanically fascinated one, so for me it will be I/C powered - that just part of the fun.
Dominik
09-23-2015, 05:18 PM
#100
Lastly, the price tag of the new ARF pattern designs is steep, but being powered with electrics and only one flight line at most pattern contests, they should last several years.
I enjoy building and flying and if I compete again it will be on my terms (I'll fly what I want within the constraints of the rules) win or lose.
-Will[/QUOTE]
Hey Will,
My thoughts in getting back into pattern are similar to my first daliance; I can't see the point unless I'm in it to win...or at least give myself a fighting chance. Much/most of pattern is impression - one can disagree, and I've heard my share of heated debates in the pits between disgruntled flyers judges about just how far off axis they were on such and such maneuver....never to be resolved. However, if 90% of pilots are flying, discussing, maintaining, and dealing with electrons, the 'odd-duck' IC motor is sure to be on the downside of the scoring curve. I've seen it, and done it before myself. I'd love to say I'm impartial, unbiased, and completely objective to the letter of the law, but a Sig Kadet flying agianst a Kaos is going to be at a deficit. An IC (mine at least) is going to seem loud, messy, annoying and old, and until I park the newest sparky on the line, I don't expect to do to well. This is all my opinion, of course, and I'll let you know after Charlotte next weekend.
In the " flying pattern for fun " category I'll have my EU1, with a YS 61Classic...that should satisfy the retro longings!
I enjoy building and flying and if I compete again it will be on my terms (I'll fly what I want within the constraints of the rules) win or lose
.-Will[/QUOTE]
Hey Will,
My thoughts in getting back into pattern are similar to my first daliance; I can't see the point unless I'm in it to win...or at least give myself a fighting chance. Much/most of pattern is impression - one can disagree, and I've heard my share of heated debates in the pits between disgruntled flyers judges about just how far off axis they were on such and such maneuver....never to be resolved. However, if 90% of pilots are flying, discussing, maintaining, and dealing with electrons, the 'odd-duck' IC motor is sure to be on the downside of the scoring curve. I've seen it, and done it before myself. I'd love to say I'm impartial, unbiased, and completely objective to the letter of the law, but a Sig Kadet flying agianst a Kaos is going to be at a deficit. An IC (mine at least) is going to seem loud, messy, annoying and old, and until I park the newest sparky on the line, I don't expect to do to well. This is all my opinion, of course, and I'll let you know after Charlotte next weekend.
In the " flying pattern for fun " category I'll have my EU1, with a YS 61Classic...that should satisfy the retro longings!