qazimoto

My Feedback: (1)

Alberto Parra is planning to offer this new Oliver style 2.5cc diesel in the near future. It's aimed at the Vintage c/l market at this stage.

Looks very R250-ish!

See: http://www.clubtamaran.com/Parra%20T3.htm

No mention of an r/c version yet.

Ray

greggles47

Does he say when they'll be available?

Price?

qazimoto

My Feedback: (1)

Well it's only a CAD file right now apparently, but he's delivered pretty much when promised so far.

Price?

I'd guess about Euro 110 give or take a bit based on his other offerings.

Should be great for Vintage Combat.

We don't want it too cheap do we?

Hopefully this will convince CS to give up making OT replicas.

So many engines, so little time.

AMB

LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BE A NICE ADDITION TO OUR DIESEL CHOICES...Looking at the drawing looks like the c/l needle assembly could be replaced with an r/c carb also, a pop in and clamp. CS engines/ no point in hashing thru that again martin

JohnAV8R

Would you expect this OT replica to have more, the same, or less power than the present Parra 2.5 ?
For anyone running the Parra 2.5 on glow, are you seeing more power?
My lack of diesel fuel made me get the glow head.
John

qazimoto

My Feedback: (1)

I guess it would depend on the Parra 15D set up. It comes with three choices of p/l combinations and a few venturi's with different sized holes, additionally it can have two different glow head buttons.

My ABC Diesel example with the biggest hole (4.34mm) turns an APC 7 x 6 at 19K. This compares very favorably with a Nelson AAC Diesel with a 4.6 mm hole.

With the smaller hole venturi my AAC diesel runs exactly the same rpm on the same prop as the same engine with a glowplug head on 10% nitro fuel.

The Parra glow can also take a Nelson bottom sealing glowplug and a lot more nitro. So I'd say that the engine has better ultimate power potential as a glow.

I'd expect the T3 to have less power but it would be eligible for c/l Vintage Combat and team race (Vintage A, Speed limited Diesel Goodyear, and Classic A classes).

I'd guess that considering it's pedigree it would be somewhere between a genuine Oliver and a Rothwell R250 in power.

I'll certainly be ordering one.

Ray

JohnAV8R

Thanks Ray.
Sounds good.
Very interesting that the diesel and glow gave you the same performance.
I like the diesels, but I am having a hard time with getting fuel. I have tried the JD can for a small mix.
The glow head (Parra 2.5) for a regular 1/4- 32 plug that I got had to be sent back and exchanged.
The threads were not properly cut and the glow plug just would not screw in.
I also got the Wasp with a glow head (only Nelson is available). I'll have to see how much better it does than the Cox TD .09 (MA 7x4 wb, 15%, 16k)
John

fiery

My Feedback: (2)

The technical specs are encouraging. If it is built to the same standard as the existing PARRA 2.5 and by the same Ukrainian concern it will be a worthy product.

It will be interesting to see if their is any problem in "type acceptance" for competition by the various authorities. I can't see why there would be an issue. That said, it is all moot until the production variant is available and presented for assessment.

qazimoto

My Feedback: (1)

I'd be very surprised if there wasn't an immediate acceptance from the Australian and New Zealand Vintage associations.

The UK equivalents seem to suffer from the "not invented here" syndrome, from a distance anyway.

This could just be a few dominant personalities though.

Recycled Flyer

Hey Ray, at best guess what does the 'T3' mean?And you just gotta love the chromed crank pin

qazimoto

My Feedback: (1)

Best guess? Tiger mk3 which is the version it most looks like, hence T3.

fiery

My Feedback: (2)

Anything which gives enthusiasts and competitors more choice for the "Oliver" inspired 2.5 cc engines has to be good. Senor Parra is to be commended.

Some who would otherwise purchase a CS OT may spend just a little more, and get something so much better.

brokenenglish

[/quote]

I'd be very surprised if there wasn't an immediate acceptance from the Australian and New Zealand Vintage associations.

The UK equivalents seem to suffer from the "not invented here" syndrome, from a distance anyway.

This could just be a few dominant personalities though.


[/quote]

Ray, I think your comment is a little unfair. Can I put it another way...

There are things in the vintage CL setup that I, personally, just don't understand...
Can anyone explain why this new 2013 diesel should immediately be accepted as vintage?!!
If it wasa Fora or a Vorobiev it wouldn't be accepted, so why should a Parra be accepted? 'Beats me!
Surely the fact that it just "looks like" an Oliver can't be sufficient...

The original argument was that not everyone has a real Oliver to fly... OK, but we now have a situation in which a real Oliver can't be competitive against stuff with the advantage of 50-odd years of technological development, that is just being wrapped up as an Oliver look-alike...
I think there's probably no satisfactory answer to all this, I just wanted to point out that it certainly isn't just a "not invented here syndrome".
For me, the best solution is Tom Ridley's operation. A genuine attempt to produce real Olivers...

So the bottom line is this question: Why are some 2013-technology diesels considered to be vintage, and others not?
If the answer is just external appearance, for me it's insufficient...

Recycled Flyer

If I may Ray, where is the 2013 only technologly in a T3 Parra?The chromed crank pin?

qazimoto

My Feedback: (1)

Ray, I think your comment is a little unfair. Can I put it another way...

There are things in the vintage CL setup that I, personally, just don't understand...
Can anyone explain why this new 2013 diesel should immediately be accepted as vintage?!!
If it was a Fora or a Vorobiev it wouldn't be accepted, so why should a Parra be accepted? 'Beats me!
Surely the fact that it just ''looks like'' an Oliver can't be sufficient...

The original argument was that not everyone has a real Oliver to fly... OK, but we now have a situation in which a real Oliver can't be competitive against stuff with the advantage of 50-odd years of technological development, that is just being wrapped up as an Oliver look-alike...
I think there's probably no satisfactory answer to all this, I just wanted to point out that it certainly isn't just a ''not invented here syndrome''.
For me, the best solution is Tom Ridley's operation. A genuine attempt to produce real Olivers...

So the bottom line is this question: Why are some 2013-technology diesels considered to be vintage, and others not?
If the answer is just external appearance, for me it's insufficient...

[/quote]


Ah Brian,

you've raised some interesting points.

First let me declare my interests here.

I'm an Oliver Tragic. I have about a dozen genuine MK3, MK4 and Cubs. Three are Ridley new production. Two MK3's and a MK4.

I also have five Rothwell's, Three R250's and two R150's. I also have three CS "Olivers", a stock Cub and two 2.5's albeit with Rothwell and Kerr internals.

There's also a Rustler version in a model down the shed somewhere.

Almost all these engines have been used in local Vintage and Diesel Goodyear and Vintage Combat competitions by myself and Greggles, by my son and his mechanic Brent, or by my son and myself.

Hopefully having said all that I can now say this:


Regrettably original Olivers break crankshafts and conrods when pressed hard. They also split crankcases around the main bearing.

Rothwell's don't.

Out of the box the R250 Will seriously outperform the genuine item by a considerable margin.

Most R250 parts are interchangeable with that of a MK 3 Oliver.

They were about the same cost, but regrettably the R250 production has stopped which leaves a bit of a vacuum in the Vintage scene, particularly when the rumored Ridley "Developmenta"l versions just didn't turn up..



Alberto has ticked all the boxes in the announcement. Notice that the Metallurgy is an Iron Piston with a Steel drop in liner. The rod is bushed, and probably of a rectangular CS.

It's made of WW2 era Unobtanium.

The case is strengthened, and the bearing size indicates that shaft is 10 mm diameter rather than 3/8". Not much difference there!

The porting is clearly 1954 Oliver so where is the 2013 F2C technology?

The backplate has O-ring sealing, but so did the R250 and CS OT. The comp screw has a self tightening mechanism, but the R250 had an effective brass comp screw that did the same thing.

I believe that the idea came form John Oliver in the mid 1950's.

The T3 fits into an Oliver engine "footprint" (pardon the pun) so there's not a lot of opportunity for radical differences.

In modern Vintage Racing the emphasis is on Racing more than Vintage. This is within a set of rules that determine allowable model designs and modifications to make them durable. .

That's the way it's worked out.

I predict that he'll sell heaps because it will be a very usable motor.

The "not invented here" crack is a response to a post on the "other" forum by a serial xenophobic Britisher.

Ray

JohnAV8R

Ray, you've tons more experience than me with these diesels. How well did the CS copy hold up? Was it junk, or really useable.
I have both a used OT and new CS. Just looking at them, they "look" the same. The CS has more compression and is very tight (nib).
I did fly U/C with an ETA .15D against a McCoy RV .19 and found them about the same using the same model. Later on I got a Cox Conquest which had considerably more power.
Presently I have Tom R's copy which looks, and feels better than my original OT.
Thanks
John

fiery

My Feedback: (2)

Ray can respond to that.

What would really be nice is if the PARRA T3 piston, liner and rod were to the same dimensions as the CS tiger. There must be dozens of the CS tigers in drawers or the back of sheds unuseable or uncompetitive, just needing a good powertrain. Until the specs for the T3 are available this will remain a 'what if'.

Recycled Flyer

Isuppose that's if the Parra is totally metric it may not be the case(?)

greggles47

The best place for a CS is the drawer or back of the shed. When I first got mine (one of the early production ones) it felt OK, and started well. I had pretentions to do some racing, and followed advice to have it "normalised" by a well known Sydney based model engineer.

He found the bore out of round, the crankpin undersize and not square, the conrod holes not parallel, and poor fit. So repairs entailed - chrome cylinder and piston lapped to fit. new conrod of substantial cross section, chromed crankpin then ground to square & correct size.

After this work I had a middle of the road (for racing) engine.

Since that time I've replaced all the internals with replacement parts from Rothwell's. The engine is now just a bit below the performance of a R250. But is really a CS crankcase & backplate with R250 grade internals.

The expectation is that the Parra T3 will match the quality of engines already established by Parra - therefore at the good to excellent range. I also expect that chrome bores will be available as an option as he does with all his other engines.

Recycled Flyer

So paradoxically you now have deliberately have an R250 with a chinese case and backplate!

What the ???

greggles47

Pretty much what I said mate.

You know how it is, you get something to go fast & it isn't . Then in its next iteration it still isn't, you just got to do it. And it's still slower than an R250 even tho' more expensive.
Go figure eh?

flyingflea1

A little more info on the T3.
The mounting hole spacings have been revised to match Tiger mk3/R250, website images have been updated, prototypes are hoped to be ready some time in August.
I don't think they will cost as little as Ray's estimate, the performance level and high quality aimed for can't be had for that money.
You can put your name down for one now as well.

fiery

My Feedback: (2)

FlyingFlea1

Is it anticipated that an R/C carb version with exhaust collector will be offered?

I like that the steel cylinder will be chromed.

***

The CS OT 15 has a bore of 14.05 mm and a stroke of 16 mm. The PARRA T3 as a metric build should be nominally the same. How fortunate would it be if the T3 liner's OD, overall length,port timing, and big end ID was the same as for the CS OT 15.

flyingflea1

I don't know the answer Fiery,
the r/c carb would be simple,
There was a CAD image of the motor with a collector having a single exhast port sized I guess to take the bolt on elbow from the 2.5 D, we'll have to wait & see.

fiery

My Feedback: (2)

Generic email (presumably to all on the waiting list) from Alberto advising of production delay.

I'd say the high standard of the 2.5 and 1.5 Wasp will be maintained or even improved upon with the T3.

[quote]

Hello Friends,

I would like to inform you of the present situation regarding engine production.
Delays have occurred due to the difficulty in chroming AAC liners, only one factory in Ukraine can do this with the required quality, and they carry out chroming for all the Russian and Ukranian factories with the result that the waiting list is long.
Secondly, another engine producer is very concerned because my factory is unique in Ukraine having an excellent CNC machining capacity, and consequently this other engine producer is putting pressure on the chroming factory to push Parra & MS components to the end of the list.

My factory now has the capacity to carry out chroming for ABC and SSC, and we are now setting up an installation for AAC chroming, this should be in operation by the next month.

We are now producing crankcases, liners and other parts with CNC machining and obtaining spectacular results.

Many parts for the new T3 have been finished but we are low on piston material stock (all used for Parra SSC engines), so a new supply of best quality cast iron is in process for T3 and T4 pistons.

Hopefully this month will run smoothly, solving the various problems and start production of all pending engines.



best regards


Alberto Parra

[unquote]



Soooo ... what is the "T4"?