jspauld2

It all depends on what you're looking for. We did do testing on the Katana with the 10cc but found that it might be a little bit on the heavy side for 3D.

AA5BY

The upper weight of the Katana is 7.5 lbs and the gas engine will probably take it slightly more than that so its not surprising that 3D is not possible. On the other hand, the Seagull Funfly 3D has an upper published weight of 6.7 lbs though having 15 more sq inches. That 3/4 lb difference might be significant if the numbers were good.

I've finally got all the needed hardware to assemble mine so will have an all up weight in a week or so.

3D possible or not, it should come out fairly lightly loaded and nimble.

Edit Correction: The upper published weight of the Seagull Funfly 3D is 5.7 lbs rather than 6.7 so there is 1.75 lbs difference between it and the Katana.

AJsToyz

It’s really pretty good if you compare it to a few competitors engines weights, roughly between 22.5 - 27 oz. in the .60 class.

Andy

BlackPowder

My Evolution 10cc engine should be on my front door any day now, can't wait. I like trying out new stuff! I am thinking of installing it on a GP U Can Do 46, very light weight and I have one with a Saito 82. So I fill that it will do just fine. Great forum.

Ernie Misner

I don't have a 60NX but do have a couple of 55AX's. On 2 of them I use an 8 oz. tank and the 3rd one has a 10 oz tank. I think a 16 oz. tank might be a little unrealistic for most folks on 60 size glow... ? Still that should be a great engine for the Katana. I like the instant throttle response that gas engines usually have for 3D. (very 4-stroke like!)

rmh

If you are increasing rpm in a dive - you are likely too lean for climbing maneuvers - -Ideally the dive will slightly load up -because the engine is not working as hard . max rpm should occur in a vertical climb - I know it sounds odd unless you take into account the heat generated in vertical climb.

Wingspam

This might be a really dumb question but, the Manuel recommends breaking the engine in on the plane and in the air.
Why so much time breaking it in on a stand?

flyinwalenda

My Feedback: (5)

Not a dumb question at all.

Two reasons for me.
First :I've always performed the break-in process for engines; glow and gassers on the ground ,even if the manual states it can be done in the air. If the engine is going to give me fits I'd rather it do it on the ground than in the air. After burning enough tanks were it seems to run reliably then I'll fly it and continue the break-in process where with this particular engine it will take a while.
Second: There is 8-10 inches on snow here and when I maiden the plane I don't want the engine to quit where I have to dead-stick out in the lower 40 and schlep through all of that snow to fetch it !

rmh

Breaking in an engine on the ground is both good and bad .
Good in tha it does allow you to discover basic starting and needle valve procedures

the bad part is that simply letting an engine run on the ground, never permits the cooling that occurs while flying - the engine is acully working les cruising around.
ideally you get a decent needle valve setting which will NOT allow full lean running EVER- then fly, throttling down for a while then up for a while.
But if you ar doing ground running - full throttle should neve be for more than a few seconds .
once yo u find the setting is too lean and heat starts to build - you should throttle back for a while - richen the mix - then try higher speeds again.
gassers should not be run four strokin rich -but an occasional burble is fine. and a slight burble in level flight is usually ' bout right.

Ernie Misner

Guess I've been lucky breaking in on the bench, but I've never had an engine get too hot. Every engine purchased from Valley View gets a good 20 minute run on the bench before being sent out. It's a given not to load it too heavily or run too lean.

FlatSpin

rmh,

Thank you for the great inputs! My assumption was that the max RPMs were achieved in a dive based on hearing the engine wind up as it was descending. I noted the min/max RPM numbers after I landed and assumed (yep, made an ***** out of myself!) that the max was in the dive. I will most certainly have an observer next time to read the numbers out as I climb and dive to confirm what the engine is doing.

Dave

earlwb

I tend to compromise it.
I use a test stand to run a few tanks through a new engine as well. But I basically get the engine adjusted on the stand to ensure it is working OK, get familiarized with it, et cetera. Then after a few tanks to limber it up a little, I switch it over to a airplane and finish its break in flying it around. Some engines take longer to break in thus the engine might need a long time getting run in and in the past I used to use a test airplane to fly a new engine for a while to break it in. Then I would install the engine in a airplane I got the engine for in the first place. I have had some engines need a couple three gallons of fuel to get them broke in good. They were quite tight too, you had to break them in for a long time before they ran good.

rmh

The early evolution gassers had a tattletale in the ignition- we would fly the models and never use full throttle except in level flight- OR- climbing everything else was at low throttle
After landing we would read the ignition rpm display
this way, we got good reading of max rpm under load . We compared readings with the observed aircraft performance.- It is a cut n try thing.

The exercize was to find best setup for max performance such as sustained verticals with snaps . On the 26 it proved to be at about 9,500 to 10, 000 rpm when working -
typically the smaller the engine the faster it must turn to extract max output NOT just max rpm.
the smaller pops get less efficient so they have to turn faster.
For nice sport flying this is perhaps over the top but - you can't get more power just adding a bigger prop - - there is a narrow window of max power and you have to stay in it.

BlackPowder

FlatSpin,
I may have missed it, but which airplane are you flying with the 10cc and how much does it weight. I fly at 5000 ft here in NEW Mexico and want to be sure of my airplane choice for this engine. Thanks Jim

FlatSpin

I’m flying it in a 7lb, 4oz modified Train-Air 40. It is an old kit that is fully aerobatic and with the APC 12x6, I have authoritative vertical climb. I can pull up from takeoff and almost go straight up. I think this falls in line with the 7 to 7/12 lb weight estimates for this engine.

Dave

BlackPowder

Perfect, all your information has been helpful. This is the smallest gasoline engine that I will have, but am excited to try it out, thanks. Jim

nalby

Hey Guys, would this engine be OK for a super sportster 60? I've always wanted one but never got around to building it. But now that gas is here I might be motivated.

flyinwalenda

My Feedback: (5)

I would say, YES !

earlwb

I am concerned that the Evo 10cc gas engine may not be powerful enough for a .60 size or 10cc size RC plane. The planes tend to weigh 8 pounds or more and were intended for glow 10cc 2 stroke  to 20cc 4 stroke engines. But to those of you who are using them in these bigger planes, you have me quite interested in how it works out for those planes. The 10cc gas engine is basically a replacement for a glow .40 through .50 size RC plane. The Evo 10cc uses the small NX crankcase size and in glow engines. The Evo .60 NX is a high performance upgrade for .40 through .52 size glow engine powered planes.  But I am watching you guys use the engine in these .60 size planes to see how it goes. It is very fascinating.

Now then the old .60 size planes were smaller many years ago as the old .60 engines used baffled pistons and didn't develop much more power than the .45 through .46 modern glow engines of today. So the old .60 plane designs would work OK though.

But then the Evo 10cc gas engine does work pretty well with larger props though, so maybe my concerns are wrong. Thus I will be watching you folks leading the way here.

captinjohn

I seen a video on Youtube! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFn3_...ture=endscreen Enjoy!

triumphman49

My Feedback: (149)

Amen to that, I was wondering about the SuperSportster also as these are pretty heavy airframes . . . and most tend to overpower them with larger engines. I'd bet it might work "OK" on a 4*60, . . . but don't think that would be a barnburner either.

T-man49 in Al

AA5BY

I'm in agreement. I've nearing buttoning the interior of the Seagull Funfly 3D using the Evo 10cc and its starting to get busy in there after adding the ignition, IBEC, and adequate battery for both flight and ignition. The stuff is not shoe horned in, but not a lot of extra space either.

earlwb

I have a Escapade .60 with a SV-17cc engine (1.0 cubic inch) on it and the plane weighs in at about 9 and 1/4 pounds of weight. I don't think it would have weighed all that much less with a big glow .60 engine or glow four stroke engine either.

My Escapade .40 with a NGH 9cc gas engine weighs in at about 6 pounds too. It flies really well with the engine on it. But it was a tight fit, as I had to put the CDI module up front under the engine. My low wing sprt pattern plane weighs in a little heavier at about 6.5 pounds and it flies well with the little 9cc gas engine too.
So I think having a model go 7 pounds or more in weight might be a bit too much for the EVO 10cc engine. I don't thinkI have ever built up a plane ever that came in under the weight the plane manufactuer claimed it would weigh.

flyinwalenda

My Feedback: (5)

The weight specs for the Super Sportster 60 state 6-7.5 lbs and the Meridian 10cc state 7-8 lbs. I haven't weighed my Meridian yet but will next week, The Sportster is shorter in wingspan and fuselage length by about 7 inches too.

earlwb

You definitely have my interest in your Meridian 10cc plane and how it does with the Evo 10cc engine. They do say 7.5 to 8 pounds, so if it stays under that max weight, I am hoping that it should do fine too.