flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

Glow fuel is expensive and gas is cheap. This and the size of the model should determine which route to take. I switched from gas back to glow because I didn't like the smell of gasoline. Why is glow so expensive and the answer is nitro methane and our EPA.

Phoenex

My Feedback: (1)

I don't think everything is so black and white. I fly electric only right now. I am very comfortable with electric power and have a very good understanding of setting up an electric plane. Once dialed in, there are no adjustments that ever have to be made, just turn on your radio, set the model, plug-in the battery, do a pre-flight check and go fly. We get the most stick time of all flyers at the club. Electric is very easy on the airframe with no vibration or fuel destroying the model over time. We have glow/gas only guys at our club that once they have their glow/gas engines adjusted and working good on the same regular fuel they use, they just fuel up and go.When they are done, they wipe down their planes and go home.We also have some glow/gas guys that bring planes with glow/gas engines that are NOT ready to fly and fight them the whole time they are there. Sometimes, they don't even get a flight in.One of the glow guys who keeps his planes in immaculate condition and rarely ever touches the needles on his glow engines got a plane that he really likes but with a gas engine. He has had a lot of trouble with this engine with multiple dead sticks, he got the engine worked on by the vendor at least once. He has mentioned that he wished he never put a gas engine on his plane and instead had a glow engine on it. He does seem to be gaining on the issues and has cut down his dead sticks and time spent trying to get the engine dialed in. Most of the members at our club get knowledgable and confortable with using one type of power system, switching pushes us out of our confort zone forcing us to learn all the ins and outs of the new power system. I am thinking about putting together a small 40 size plane with a NV 40 gas engine for the challenge and learning experience. I am waiting to get my health issues worked out and the funds to purchase yet another plane ;-)

tes21966

I too prefer glow. Not as much smell but I like faster planes and not quiet ready for turbines. Sure the clean up is worse and the cost of glow is high but FOR ME it is easier since I have so much glow stuff already. I have tried a few gassers and have a couple now but I reach for my glow planes alot more often than I do my gas planes. With that said, being several companies are making small gas engines now that are close to compariable size glow engines. If I were just coming into the hobby, I would strongly consider gas to start with. There is not as much support equipment needed, cost are similiar, and the fuel savings.

okdreamin

My Feedback: (9)

I got a sig mayhem 1.20 with a dle 20. its a power house.  dle 30 on a 1.20 giant ultrastick.  it hovers easily.  10 min flight is 4-6 oz fuel.  got a da 50 on a 50 cc size 330.  I go to the flying field at least once a week.  I have a one gallon can.   I run all three on 32.-1 mix.  I fill my gas can about once every 2 months.    4 bucks worth of gas and oil mix for 2 months worth of  Wind Therapy.   It doesn't get much better than that.       That's why I no longer fly nitro.  Gap your dle 30  ngk cm6 plug at .024  after break in if u still have mid range burbling that you cant adjust out. 

NUFF  SAID

av8tor1977

My Feedback: (6)

ELECTRIC??!! Blasphemy!!

AV8TOR []

littlera

If you go gas, don't heed the advice of the guy who says you shouldn't (or at least don't need) an optical engine kill switch. The availability of this device is what really pushed me to try gas in the first place. It is a wonderful safety device. You have at your disposal on your Tx a switch that will kill the engine on demand. Not only is this handy, but in the case of an out of control aircraft, you can kill the engine before it possibly injures someone. If the Rx fails, you will crash, but it will come down with the engine off because without an Rx operating, the kill switch automatically kills the engine. Even a long glitch will trigger most of these devices to stop the engine.

Sure, any device can fail, but failure of the optical switch will normally only cause the engine to quit. I am sure there may be other failure modes and effects, but everyone I know uses them religiously and have not had problems.

A guy at Joe Nall reportedly lost a $6k gasser because he had no kill switch when there was a throttle failure at full power (servo?) He pulled the wings off the plane trying to fly it full out till it ran out of fuel. Some large gassers are just not designed for extended full power flight.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

I'm sorry both for his loss and your misunderstanding of the problems he had. It is clear (to me) that his aircraft was NOT really airworthy or the wings would have stayed on.

do335a

For me, the answer is quite simple since I've already gone over the upside and the downside to all the options, looked at all the costs, the various weights, relative power output, complexity/simplicity, battery, ignition issues and everything else involved.

Up to the size of about 25-30cc (e.g. OS 1.60FX), it's glow. With a larger engine size than that, I choose gasoline.

Had several Webra engines and all were great, longer lasting and of much higher grade construction, power output and ease of use than anything else comparable for a similar price. Much better than OS of same time frame production. If they were still in production, I'd use the Webra.

However, now Webra parts are essentially unavailable. So it would be back to my OS 1.60FX, followed in the larger size by current gasoline engines.

You'll also find that current engine designs are set up differently than your Webra 1.20. Presently, the trend is to slower revving, larger diameter props. The Webra is a higher revving engine with a smaller diameter prop. The newer style is intended to keep noise levels lower.

It's also a realization that what you need to fly the planes of current favor (hand stupidly looking imitating a helicopter off the prop which is unrealistic compared to full size flight with a fixed wing) is thrust, which you get more of this way. In the earlier days, it was a horsepower race. But that is only an arithmetic calculation. RPM x torque = horsepower.

If it's a racing plane, then you want RPM, a high revving high pitch prop and horsepower instead.

littlera

I have no misunderstanding of the circumstances of the loss of that plane, smart guy, just relaying what was reported to me by a hobby shop owner who witnessed the crash. Just trying to make a point, that if the pilot had control of the throttle he would not have lost his plane, not matter how airworthy (or lack thereof) it was. Many 3D airplanes will flutter and blow apart in the air if the large control surfaces are not very carefully set up. Not usually a problem, as wide open straight and level flight is usually not part of the program and a bit outside of the flight envelope of the airframe. So these planes are not airworthy? Depends on what you plan to do with it. An Airbus 320, flown full power straight down, will blow apart before it reaches terra firma. Was the airframe airworthy - yes. It was just being operated way outside the approved design envelope.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

No need for the inflammatory remarks about being a smart guy, or trying to compare a poorly set up airframe to an Airbus in a full power dive. Both make you look less than I am sure you want and both are uncalled for, out of order, and deserve a much less friendly response than I want to give you. Please try to shift gears and think about what is being discussed instead of trying to best people.

This is a simple SAFETY issue and people at that event were endangered by someone not being properly prepared. Read that either as an unsafe airframe or not enough of the safe equipment practices (the optical switch you are touting and I am NOT speaking against). Before you go any further, please ask the hobby shop owner to tell you what the difference is in end result again.

Most folks (and I am sure the courts would) view airframe failure as a much more serious safety issue than a simple throttle servo failure. The issue with ANY pilot taking ANY aircraft to a LARGE gathering of the public (yes, even modelers are members of that group) without having set it up to handle the flight stresses it might encounter is an unsafe pilot and bothers the heck out of me. While I do understand the issues with 3D aircraft, the basic problem is that the airframe was not properly prepared and if it cannot handle full throttle straight and level flight it has absolutely no business being flown in the presence of a large crowd as is normally at the Joe Nall. Having said that I will add that all of the 3D guys I know take extra precautions so that their airframes are safe at all throttle settings no matter what. Why else do you think that many have multiple servos on control surfaces (not a shot a simple question and observation). To take it a step or two further why was he going straight and level when there are many other things he could have been doing that would have kept the airspeed down AND possibly shut the engine off early because of fuel starvation? Do you have any idea of how many full throttle maneuvers there are that use up energy like a sponge?

While the potential bad end result is not obvious, I would hate to try to explain to a deceased modeler's family how and why someone died and then with the same mouth try to claim the airframe was safe.

Don't get all hung up on being macho man - engage your mind and consider what prevented someone from getting seriously hurt. THEN try to tell us the airframe really was safe.

Phoenex

My Feedback: (1)

Sorry, I did not intend to stir up the fuel gods..
.

midastouch_73

My Feedback: (27)

Go gas and don't look back. I did it and I have zero regrets. The initial cost of prop jigs, ignition batteries and the engine will be well worth it. Dead sticks are fewer and the reliability is awesome. No more glow plug igniters, glow plugs, starter boxes, messy cars, planes etc. Gas engines are simple and straight forward. The fuel cost savings is enough reason alone to do it. As far as electrics? If you're into having dozens of expensive batteries(which constantly need replacing after too many charges) multiple chargers, regulators, ESC's etc more power to you. Keep it simple. The most valuable advice I can give you in this hobby is..... Reduce any and all points of possible failure. How? By not having unnecessary BS going on inside your plane......

av8tor1977

My Feedback: (6)

It's ok. Everyone here knows that god made electricity for lights, air conditioning, spark for engines, and engine starters; NOT for motive devices!

All in good fun.

AV8TOR

bogbeagle

As usual, I'm out of step with the herd.


I flew petrol for many years ... when Zenoah was king ... but have since disposed of all my petrol engines in favour of four-stroke glow. The weight and bulk of the petrol engines compelled me to build either large airframes or else highly-loaded airframes; and I just got tired of it.

I understand that the newer petrol engines are more refined than those industrial conversions, so these factors may no longer apply.



You will find that the black, oily residue from the exhaust of a petrol engine will permanently discolour any woven covering that has not been thoroughly sealed.

It's true that the cost of petrol is lower than the cost of methanol, but I suspect that the annual savings are really quite modest ... for the average modeller. As a "sport flier", I reckon to burn about 6 gallons of glow fuel per annum. This costs me about £50 'cos I mix my own. So, even if petrol were FREE, the most I could save would be £50 per annum. Sure, that's worth having, but it's not a major factor in my modelling budget. It won't do much to offset the loss of selling my good glow engines and buying new petrol engines.









Anyway, like most of the thread on RCU, this one is no more than an expression of personal preferences. There is no objective standard by which to measure the desirability of glow over petrol over electric.

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

For me, a big factor was the cleanup at the end of the day. My planes are stored in my home, and oil covered planes make a large mess. As the cost of glow fuel went from $3 a gallon when I was a kid to the $20-plus it is today, the change made even more sense. I have a couple of electrics, but they lack duration and just don't sound right.

AA5BY

There are of course objective standards such as weight, economics, ease, performance, sound, availability or accessibility, smell, and even looks to name those that come quickly to mind, but it is in the way that each of us prioritize and weight those standards.

Fortunately we all do that differently, otherwise we would all have clamored to win the hand of the same lady and the flying field would be a dull place with everyone flying the same craft.

There is no right or wrong to the order or weight that is given to the standards... there is only wrong when one or more of the standards are totally ignored.

bogbeagle

Nah, what is objective about "ease of use" or "smell" or "looks" or "sound"?

It's just personal preferences, is all.

My favourite colour is blue ... who is he that can tell me that it "should be red" ?

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

A lot of different views as always. I switched over to gas and wished I had done it a lot sooner now that I am switched over. My biggest gripe was glow fuel prices. Granted it will take a while to recover my investment, yet just the satisfaction alone of not buying the expensive glow fuel certainly gives me some peace of mind.

I do have a few glow planes left, but just don't fly them anymore. I did take one out to the field one day thinking I might want to fly it again and left it in the van. I thought I would fly them again, however since the migration to gas, they are just shelf sitting.

Everyone has different reasons as to why they fly different types of planes, yet once going to gas I would think the simplicity of it alone should be a huge benefit for someone. There is some cost differences, all in all not bad though.

Once I got my gas setup and tuned the way I like that was it. You basically, buy some gas, choke and flip a few times, off choke flip and start, and fly and nothing really changes flight after flight after flight. Extremely dependable and no real tinkering after the fact.

Most have already covered that gas is less messy to clean up. I think after a year of not buying glow fuel I will have saved enough for one of my gas engines. So in two years I should at least be covered for two engines. As far as batteries and other items, you have to have those for glow planes too so not all that much up charge in pricing.

jaav

Ill do a gas conversion on a scale plane that I dont want oil streaks... running cost dont worry me..

oliveDrab

I was going to say "go electric" but I didn't want to hear somebody say "You're off topic!"

Go electric.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

I am mostly gas now, but will always own some glow engines. One of the big things I like is the lack of oil getting all over the airplane, helps preserve the finish. I think in general a gas powered airframe will last longer than a glow powered one.

Pay particular attention to the fuel tank. Avoid stoppers, and I would not convert the old glow tank with a gas stopper. You are asking for trouble here. (unless you like fuel inside the fuse and deadstick landings). Just get a Bennett built tank or one from Fortitude. You will not regret this.

Gas is wonderful. Have fun.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Me 2. The life of a gasser does seem to be longer but for the unseen reason. Most are/were scared about going to gas and asked the old guys for advice and were pointed to the many various safety steps most had used and proved back when gas was a rarity. The second driver is the basic cost, most of us take a little more care with expensive things and gas engines tend to be on that list of not cheap stuff in your airframe.

What that really means is that many (clearly not ALL) user of gas take extra precautions and spend lots of extra dollars and time buying and installing various things to extend the level of safety in the airframe, from optical switches, expensive dual servos on flying surface and dual receivers to the 'fail on' switch. It is easy to build a multi thousand dollar airplane simply by putting this and that neat and tricky safety widget in it.

I shudder to look at the replacement cost of one of my GS birds and all its internal stuff.

However, going gas to day does not have to be expensive nor unsafe. Vertical has pointed out the first steps that are different and you can learn the others as your foray into gas deepens.

RichardGee

My Feedback: (156)

It has been mentioned that two drawback of gas engines are weight and vibration. This is generally true of the older designs that were NOT purpose-built and had magneto ignitions. Compare a DA60 to a Zenoah G62...both superb gassers, but the DA makes more HP at half the weight, and with its electronic advance ignition, it runs smoother as well.
I would add that if you wish to minimize vibrations/air frame wear and tear, go with a gas TWIN. I have used only twin cylinder gas engines for nearly a decade, and during that time, have NEVER had a single screw come loose! The vibration produced by a twin is totally different and much more forgiving than ANY single cylinder. And now, twins can be purchased as small as 40cc.

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

i went to gas for cheaper flying just as good power or better no mess>> but i have about 10 nitro from 46 to 60 size engines ill keep i have 3 planes on gas 5 planes on nitro

Phoenex

My Feedback: (1)

You really know how to hit below the belt on electric. I still have a regular job and work overtime so my free time is very limited.The smaller EPO foam planes are so very easy to fix and being small you can just pull them out the car and fly them. I do have one balsa plane on electric (Mini Pulse) and really like the way it flies. Once a person goes so big on airframe size, the electronics and batteries get very expensive. Personally, I think gas is the way I will go on larger models. The NVGX 40RC gas@less than 11oz w/o muffleris an interesting engine in that it does not have an ignition module and all the extra weight, it will open doors for smaller airframes on gas. As I understand it,NV is now working on a 10cc size as well. I can get a 40 size plane in and out the car much easier so that is why I am looking at 40 size gas plane as my first gas powered plane. The new Sig 4-Star 54 is sure looking sweet.

Links to the two items I mentioned in case anyone wants to take a look at them. I have no business association with these two, I just have a personal interest in both.

NVGX 40RC

Sig 4-Star 54

Dave