Everything Diesel Discuss R/C Diesel engines here.

OS LA .65 conversion

Reply
Old 11-14-2012, 09:47 AM
  #1
Hobbsy
Thread Starter
 
Hobbsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Colonial Beach, VA
Posts: 17,430
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default OS LA .65 conversion

I've had this OS LA .65 converted for a couple of years now but just barely ran it after break in. I sold my Saito 1.00 that powered my AAAlpha .61 and had mounted a new Saito .65 on it. I decided that was a better place for a Diesel engine. It took about 45 minutes to put 16 OZ of fuel through it a various rpm.

Engine==OS LA .65
Head==Davis new annular design
Fuel===Davis Plane Fuel
Prop==Graupner 12.5x7 three blade
Max rpm== 7,550, after knocking of 50 to stabilize it a little.
Idle======1,700 slightly lumpy but with excellent transition.

In the picture it is turning 6,000 rpm. I took four tach pictures but not a one was readable. The LA's are real winners as conversions.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Tr49322.jpg
Views:	10
Size:	50.4 KB
ID:	1820282  
Hobbsy is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 01:03 PM
  #2
AMB
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: winter park, FL
Posts: 6,748
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

What else can be said an LA with a Davis head ?? except a real slugger martin
AMB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 02:37 PM
  #3
Recycled Flyer
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SydneyNew South wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,346
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

All up weight Dave?

Thanks.
Recycled  Flyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 03:08 PM
  #4
fiery
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hervey Bay Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

I have a "Blue" LA 65 with an AJC head. Both given to me separately from fellows who did not need them. Thanks guys, you know who you are.

I have not run it yet, it does not fit my test stand. Will rectify that shortly. With Dave's permission I will report results on this thread.

Both the engine and head are in "as new" condition. I suspected the LA 65 would make a really nice diesel.
fiery is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 03:20 PM
  #5
Hobbsy
Thread Starter
 
Hobbsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Colonial Beach, VA
Posts: 17,430
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

Go for it, an OS LA .65 is an OS LA .65, even if its upside down. Pay particular attention to how smoothly it runs.
Hobbsy is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 03:33 AM
  #6
mike109
 
mike109's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dubbo, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,484
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

G'day Dave and others.

This is not a comment about the diesel LAs but just a general comment about the LA in general. I was teaching a bloke today with his LA46 in a Sig LT-40. It is a wonderful and much under rated engine. It had not run for several months but started first attempt (both times) and ran like the proverbial Swiss watch. It sounded so good we did not even bother to tune it. It sounds a bit lumpy at idle and is probably a little rich in the mid range but it has an excellent transition and never stops until it runs out of fuel. It is also really economical.

They really are a great all round beginners engine. Pity the "experts" always recommend some thing with twin needles and ball bearings. For a beginner, there is nothing better.

Cheers

Mike in Oz

mike109 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 06:24 AM
  #7
Hobbsy
Thread Starter
 
Hobbsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Colonial Beach, VA
Posts: 17,430
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

RF, here is the all up weight including the Tru-Turn spinner, adapter prop nut and prop. Also a shot of the .65 sitting in the plane with one bolt in it and the OS .60FP that I'm thinking of selling. PS, that 32 oz tank wouldn't fit.[8D]

PS #2, that .65 is not touching the scale anywhere. I had to place it very carefully to achieve that.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Ge95770.jpg
Views:	13
Size:	81.9 KB
ID:	1820481   Click image for larger version

Name:	Mh18958.jpg
Views:	9
Size:	90.2 KB
ID:	1820482   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ns45209.jpg
Views:	9
Size:	86.5 KB
ID:	1820483  
Hobbsy is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 06:51 AM
  #8
AMB
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: winter park, FL
Posts: 6,748
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

HOBBSY the thrust in that setup should really be up there, should be short take off with that one martin
off subject my son in central NJ finally got the juice on where he lives in central NJ (inland not on the coast either)
AMB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 01:28 PM
  #9
Recycled Flyer
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SydneyNew South wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,346
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Hobbsy

RF, here is the all up weight including the Tru-Turn spinner, adapter prop nut and prop. Also a shot of the .65 sitting in the plane with one bolt in it and the OS .60FP that I'm thinking of selling. PS, that 32 oz tank wouldn't fit.[8D]

PS #2, that .65 is not touching the scale anywhere. I had to place it very carefully to achieve that.
Thanks for going to the effort Dave.

At first glance I thought great! It only weighs in at 13.7 oz!

But then I spied the 1 (as in 1lb or another 16 oz) in front of that so it waddles in at 29.7 oz.

It seems to be a big jump form the LA46 at about 10 oz (plus spinner and prop) to the 60 Imust say.

Recycled  Flyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 02:18 PM
  #10
fiery
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hervey Bay Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

My example, AJC head fitted, including muffler, on the scales.

Weight is in grams.





Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Vt57266.jpg
Views:	13
Size:	89.5 KB
ID:	1820622   Click image for larger version

Name:	Gb89925.jpg
Views:	12
Size:	77.9 KB
ID:	1820623   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ze86501.jpg
Views:	14
Size:	71.3 KB
ID:	1820624  
fiery is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 02:20 PM
  #11
AMB
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: winter park, FL
Posts: 6,748
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

delete
AMB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 02:37 PM
  #12
Recycled Flyer
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SydneyNew South wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,346
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion


Quote:
ORIGINAL: fiery

My example, AJC head fitted, including muffler, on the scales.

Weight is in grams.





Just over 25 ozs Derek.

Unfortunately just a bit too heavy for control line work.

Recycled  Flyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 02:47 PM
  #13
fiery
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hervey Bay Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

Agreed. She is no lightweight.
fiery is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 03:04 PM
  #14
Hobbsy
Thread Starter
 
Hobbsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Colonial Beach, VA
Posts: 17,430
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

That heftiness is most likey at least partly the reason for the smoothness. A Fox .60 weighs about 20 oz by comparison.
Hobbsy is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 04:46 PM
  #15
Recycled Flyer
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SydneyNew South wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,346
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Hobbsy

That heftiness is most likey at least partly the reason for the smoothness.
(That is what I look for in lady too!)

But seriously, it seems that once you approach the 10cc mark the cranks go all industrial on you.

Cheers.

Recycled  Flyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 05:17 PM
  #16
fiery
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hervey Bay Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

Curves are it. Look at the LA 65 ...
fiery is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 05:38 PM
  #17
dennis
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Minersville, PA
Posts: 1,837
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Recycled Flyer


Quote:
ORIGINAL: fiery

My example, AJC head fitted, including muffler, on the scales.

Weight is in grams.


Well it is and it isn't too heavy for control line models. It depends on the model. If your not contest bound then there is a whole lot to use it on. I'm going to use mine on a 62.5 in Combat streak. It has a short nose and the engine is really not a problem. It probably doesn't need this much engine as it would certainly fly an 80 oz model in the classic 4/2/4 mode but like R/C models excessive power can be addictive. weight with tongue muffler is reasonable. A standard set up with a name engine and header and pipe would go about 15 oz on a standard stunt model.This is 900 sq inches and will fly excellently with the LA65. Now for the best part I got it at auction from a really reputable modeller with the venturi.super Tigre NVA and the hand fabricated tongue muffler for $35.00. Ran it the other day and it starts and runs with impeccable manners.Couldn't buy the conversion pieces for that price on the open market. some pictures are enclosed. I expect the finished weight to be 60 ounces





Just over 25 ozs Derek.

Unfortunately just a bit too heavy for control line work.

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Jh14823.jpg
Views:	7
Size:	69.9 KB
ID:	1820687   Click image for larger version

Name:	Xs57231.jpg
Views:	13
Size:	43.6 KB
ID:	1820688   Click image for larger version

Name:	Qo39317.jpg
Views:	10
Size:	61.0 KB
ID:	1820689  
dennis is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 06:18 PM
  #18
Recycled Flyer
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SydneyNew South wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,346
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

Very interesting Dennis!
But it is about 10 ozs more than any of my current F2B engines.
Thanks for posting.
Recycled  Flyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 06:24 PM
  #19
fiery
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hervey Bay Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

Hi Dennis

No doubt it will work well. Looks like a great buy. There will be plenty of ships out there that will take the weight.

However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
fiery is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 06:30 PM
  #20
Hobbsy
Thread Starter
 
Hobbsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Colonial Beach, VA
Posts: 17,430
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion

Fiery, I take it that your .65 is a Deezel virgin. Now is your spring time, am I correct. I'm burnin wood already. I guess I should go ahead and compare the .60sf and the Fox .60.
Hobbsy is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 07:09 PM
  #21
ffkiwi
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Upper HuttWellington, NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 1,522
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion


Quote:
ORIGINAL: fiery

Hi Dennis


However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
Same with the K&B Sportsters-a lot of bulk (and weight) in the styling. for F/F use it was common to turn down the cylinder and crankcase in a lathe-the resulting engine looked quite different. Particularly common in the UK, with their Slow Open Power rules limiting engines to 3.5cc max and plain bearing. The Sportster 20 was top of the heap for a while (not sure what the current 'must have' engine is for that class......)
Make good diesels too-the 20/28/45/65-though I've never tried one as such. I wonder about the longevity though...............

ChrisM
'ffkiwi'
ffkiwi is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 03:58 AM
  #22
dennis
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Minersville, PA
Posts: 1,837
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion


Quote:
ORIGINAL: ffkiwi


Quote:
ORIGINAL: fiery

Hi Dennis


However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.

Chris,

I ran all but the 45 Sportster as diesels for 10 years with excellent results. All still run well. All had serious lumber on them at times. Longevity is not an issue with any engine with proper care and handling.
As to the 65 for c/l. I seriously doubt that I would ever use an LA or FP 65 in anything for competition. However for fun and to try something different I'm always interrested in the unusual or the unacceptable just for the experience.

Dennis
Same with the K&B Sportsters-a lot of bulk (and weight) in the styling. for F/F use it was common to turn down the cylinder and crankcase in a lathe-the resulting engine looked quite different. Particularly common in the UK, with their Slow Open Power rules limiting engines to 3.5cc max and plain bearing. The Sportster 20 was top of the heap for a while (not sure what the current 'must have' engine is for that class......)
Make good diesels too-the 20/28/45/65-though I've never tried one as such. I wonder about the longevity though...............

ChrisM
'ffkiwi'
dennis is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 02:59 PM
  #23
Recycled Flyer
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SydneyNew South wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,346
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion


Quote:
ORIGINAL: fiery
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
Yes, adding 10ozs to the nose almost equates to adding 10 ozs to the tail and not only blows out the wing loading factor but also gives rise to the barbell effect when maneuvering.
(The resistance to overcome inertia followed by want to keep it going once initiated will ruin any pattern.)

Recycled  Flyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 07:30 PM
  #24
dennis
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Minersville, PA
Posts: 1,837
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Recycled Flyer


Quote:
ORIGINAL: fiery
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
Yes, adding 10ozs to the nose almost equates to adding 10 ozs to the tail and not only blows out the wing loading factor but also gives rise to the barbell effect when maneuvering.
(The resistance to overcome inertia followed by want to keep it going once initiated will ruin any pattern


Actually you would not add 10 ounces to the tail if it was 10 oz nose heavy. depending on tail moment for example a Proctor Antic can take up to 10 oz of noseweight for every ounce of tailweight That is the interesting part of a tail heavy model . It takes far more weight to overcome a tail heavy condition then a nose heavy model. And not to argue with anyone I maintain that any engine can have a model designed for it regardless of it's weight even control line. Want me to use a Fokker DR1 as a proving point. Remember I specified that I wasn't using it for competition and you have to be able to look outside of that very narrow competition window.

dennis is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 07:50 PM
  #25
Recycled Flyer
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SydneyNew South wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,346
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: OS LA .65 conversion


Quote:
ORIGINAL: dennis


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Recycled Flyer


Quote:
ORIGINAL: fiery
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
Yes, adding 10ozs to the nose almost equates to adding 10 ozs to the tail and not only blows out the wing loading factor but also gives rise to the barbell effect when maneuvering.
(The resistance to overcome inertia followed by want to keep it going once initiated will ruin any pattern


Actually you would not add 10 ounces to the tail if it was 10 oz nose heavy. depending on tail moment for example a Proctor Antic can take up to 10 oz of noseweight for every ounce of tailweight That is the interesting part of a tail heavy model . It takes far more weight to overcome a tail heavy condition then a nose heavy model. And not to argue with anyone I maintain that any engine can have a model designed for it regardless of it's weight even control line. Want me to use a Fokker DR1 as a proving point. Remember I specified that I wasn't using it for competition and you have to be able to look outside of that very narrow competition window.

Yeah I am looking at competition plans and with modern rearwardly placed CG's and long attractive nacelles and there is now way I could achieve a 10:1 lever ratio, ever.

A snub nosed Fokker that practically has its top wing's leading edge over the cylinder centre probably could achieve that ratio Iadmit.

Thanks.

Recycled  Flyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:31 AM.