Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Results 1 to 21 of 21

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    fairfield, CA
    Posts
    3,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    maybe stupid question but

    Why do all most all gas engines have these carbs from the chain saw and weed eater days. The front mounted carbs on some engines like normal glow ones doesnt allow to fit in cowls very well.

    I would guess they are cheap and work well and no one wanted to redesign them. I would think you could make a smaller carb and a remote mounted pump.

    Anyway just wondering.
    AMA # 126183
    Fly light, fly fast and fly low.

  2. #2
    acerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Lithia, Fl
    Posts
    6,599
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but

    You make it a habit toanswer your own question? they are cheap and work well and no one wanted to redesign them
    Robert
    Cub Brotherhood #3\\ Ryan STA Brotherhood #4
    Corsair Brotherhood #56\\ Waco Brotherhood #184

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ringgold, GA
    Posts
    11,487
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but


    ORIGINAL: airraptor

    Why do all most all gas engines have these carbs from the chain saw and weed eater days. The front mounted carbs on some engines like normal glow ones doesnt allow to fit in cowls very well.

    I would guess they are cheap and work well and no one wanted to redesign them. I would think you could make a smaller carb and a remote mounted pump.

    Anyway just wondering.


    The hobby market isn't large enough to pay for reengineering engines for such few sales.

    On the other hand, there are a few gas engines being made that offer carbs on the front/back of their engine, such as MVVS/Evolution, RCS, Moki (I think), etc. The latter engines are great for tightly cowled models. Mine run well.


    Ed Cregger
    \"Practice makes prefect\"

    Saito Club Member #52

  4. #4
    aussiesteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    PerthWA, AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    2,924
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but


    ORIGINAL: airraptor

    Why do all most all gas engines have these carbs from the chain saw and weed eater days. The front mounted carbs on some engines like normal glow ones doesnt allow to fit in cowls very well.

    I would guess they are cheap and work well and no one wanted to redesign them. I would think you could make a smaller carb and a remote mounted pump.

    Anyway just wondering.

    Before I answer. I will ask you a coupel of questions.

    What is your purchasing criteria when buying an engine?
    Is Price even remotely a factor in the decision as to what you purchase?
    Are you aware that any "redesign" of somethign liek a carb will be copied very quickly by others so the cost of doing so needs to be amortised over a very few items?
    What is stopping you from finding a better alternative?

    Ok - to answer the question

    What we now get is inexpensive and it mostly does the job required as long as the engine "manufacturer" chooses the right model for their goods. To use an alternative that wil do the job better will significantly add to the selling price of the enigne and will limit the market to very few users.

    3W, BME and DA all the way. Proven power, Proven reliability and Proven support equals much cheaper in the long term.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    fairfield, CA
    Posts
    3,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but

    Price doesnt matter to much. I do plan on a MVVS/EVO 58 for that new warbird racing and a couple of DLE30's this year.

    I was just wondering like you said I answered my own question.
    AMA # 126183
    Fly light, fly fast and fly low.

  6. #6
    mrbigg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Streator, IL
    Posts
    4,771
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but

    Didn't Saito design their own gas carb?
    Smooth, like Keith Stone.

  7. #7
    Lnewqban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    4,034
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but


    ORIGINAL: airraptor

    maybe stupid question but
    That is actually a very intelligent question.
    Lnewqban - "God will not look you over for medals, degrees or diplomas, but for scars. He has achieved success who has worked well, laughed often, and loved much." - Elbert Hubbard

  8. #8
    378's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Lebanon, TN
    Posts
    2,758
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but

    OS GT55 has a front mounted carb. Not sure about the GT33 though, think it's a normal reedie.


    I prefer the front-mounted carb because it removes the reed valves and replaces them with something that just doesn't fail.
    My stash:
    1 rally modded NTC3, 1 HeliMax Axe CX Nano, 1 Hobbico NexSTAR.

  9. #9
    Turk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Istanbul, TURKEY
    Posts
    1,083
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but

    NGH engines are also having front mounted carb/rotary valve system.
    GlowHead Brotherhood #31

  10. #10
    Moderator w8ye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Shelby, OH
    Posts
    37,111

    RE: maybe stupid question but


    ORIGINAL: mrbigg

    Didn't Saito design their own gas carb?
    A retired Walbro engineer designed it for them

    Attended the CutFinger Institute of DirtNap University for years but never did graduate....
    Recipient, Mangledhand award August 2008
    Club Saito Member #7
    Original AMA #31261

  11. #11
    speedracerntrixie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    4,488
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but

    This brings up a question I have been asking for years. What we really need is fuel injection. We already have RPM information being read by the ignitions. It really would not be too difficult to upgrade the ignitions to monitor EGT as well. Between RPM and EGT a fairly good fuel injection system can function. Once the initial engrichment VS RPM curve is figured out the system would only have to make small changes based on EGT. I think there are small injectors available and the Jet guys have usable fuel pumps. Seems we need an EE to step up to this one.
    Of course it's true, I read it on the Internet.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, CO
    Posts
    296
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but

    I'm not at all convinced that the benefits of fuel injection would outweigh the added cost and complexity for our application. We won't get any noticible increase in power from it.
    The engine temperature may not be stable enough to reliably use fuel injection also.
    To err is human, to really mess things up requires government involvement

  13. #13
    speedracerntrixie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    4,488
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but

    Not for power increase, think linear throttle response. Something lacking in a Walbro or Tillitson. We make due with throttle curves but it would be so nice to have a flat, smooth transition. Not to mention fuel economy. We could carry 1/3 less fuel, that will make up some for the added weight.
    Of course it's true, I read it on the Internet.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    fairfield, CA
    Posts
    3,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but

    Well Fi is a whole other ball game. Yes you will gain some power. Fi will allow you run a larger throttle body which could allow more power.

    I should have stated this question is for the smaller GAS engines coming ou like the Magnum 52, and some of the other 10-20cc engines where the carb is the size of the cylinder. I would think a glow carb would work just as well on these smaller engines with out a pump.

    AMA # 126183
    Fly light, fly fast and fly low.

  15. #15
    speedracerntrixie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    4,488
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but

    Sure just as long as the O rings on the high and low needles are of the proper material. The only issue I wouls have with it is that as long as the carb is open fuel can leak out. The Walbro type carbs don't do that. I have actually thought about putting a gasser carb on a glow motor so as not to have to run a seperate pump to get a fuel tank on CG
    Of course it's true, I read it on the Internet.

  16. #16
    MTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Whippany, NJ
    Posts
    4,762
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but

    ORIGINAL: 378

    OS GT55 has a front mounted carb. Not sure about the GT33 though, think it's a normal reedie.


    I prefer the front-mounted carb because it removes the reed valves and replaces them with something that just doesn't fail.
    GT33 is a rear intake engine like so many others in that size range. The 55GT has a walbro carb on it and the ratory shaft valve usually does not fail. MOKI's (glow 180's) had a run of bad luck with their shafts breaking several years ago right at the valve, so this isn't fool proof either.

    I use both types and don't think about either a reed or a rotary valve failing, ever. If one has to worry about something failing on their engines, why even bother?
    Regards,
    MattK
    (Rcmaster199@aol.com)

  17. #17
    378's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Lebanon, TN
    Posts
    2,758
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but

    ORIGINAL: HunkaJunk

    I'm not at all convinced that the benefits of fuel injection would outweigh the added cost and complexity for our application. We won't get any noticible increase in power from it.
    Poppycock! Fuel injection conferred significant boosts to car engines because of it's ability to maintain an ideal fuel mixture, whereas a carb is never quite there. It will do the same for us as well. It will also make engines as trouble-free as brushless, the only fuel mixture control needed would be a break-in switch that fattens it up a bit during the first few tanks for glow applications. After that, the computer will adjust the fuel mixture on the fly. You'll have an engine that's peaked out 24/7 with no worries of the engine leaning out at high altitude or due to the tank draining.

    The engine temperature may not be stable enough to reliably use fuel injection also.
    Engine temperature won't matter. For starters the ideal fuel mix will keep temps in check, but on top of that the computer would be able to richen the mixture when temps got high to act as a somewhat active cooling system. The main stats required are exhaust oxygen levels, where the piston is, the RPM, the throttle position, and how much air is going in. Measure those things and the computer will be able to give you a good fuel mix.
    ORIGINAL: MTK

    ORIGINAL: 378

    OS GT55 has a front mounted carb. Not sure about the GT33 though, think it's a normal reedie.


    I prefer the front-mounted carb because it removes the reed valves and replaces them with something that just doesn't fail.
    GT33 is a rear intake engine like so many others in that size range. The 55GT has a walbro carb on it and the ratory shaft valve usually does not fail. MOKI's (glow 180's) had a run of bad luck with their shafts breaking several years ago right at the valve, so this isn't fool proof either.
    If the rotary shaft on a GT55 breaks you've got bigger issues, namely, a snapped crankshaft. That's why the front carb setup just doesn't have issues and is why it's used on glow engines. A hollow crankshaft with a timed port under the carb will not cause induction issues like worn reeds will. It only fails due to operator error or a defect in materials, if it's well made and not constantly subject to prop strikes and detonation it will outlast the rest of the engine.

    If one has to worry about something failing on their engines, why even bother?
    Why intentionally complicate something that doesn't need to be complex? Rotary induction works, it's fool proof, the fixed intake timing renders them more resistant to running backwards(My 46AX likes to start backwards but if I drop the idle enough it will bounce forwards and stabilize, something reedies do not do), and they last the life of the engine. The only way they fail is if you get a lot of prop strikes, let the engine suck in tons of dirt, or the crank is poorly made and not strong enough to survive the engine running. If it truly isn't superior, then why did Cox opt to use a hollow crank front carb setup on their tiny little 0.010 when everything else they made was a reedie?
    My stash:
    1 rally modded NTC3, 1 HeliMax Axe CX Nano, 1 Hobbico NexSTAR.

  18. #18
    aussiesteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    PerthWA, AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    2,924
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but


    ORIGINAL: 378

    If one has to worry about something failing on their engines, why even bother?
    Why intentionally complicate something that doesn't need to be complex? Rotary induction works, it's fool proof, the fixed intake timing renders them more resistant to running backwards(My 46AX likes to start backwards but if I drop the idle enough it will bounce forwards and stabilize, something reedies do not do), and they last the life of the engine. The only way they fail is if you get a lot of prop strikes, let the engine suck in tons of dirt, or the crank is poorly made and not strong enough to survive the engine running. If it truly isn't superior, then why did Cox opt to use a hollow crank front carb setup on their tiny little 0.010 when everything else they made was a reedie?
    There is the real reason that the majority of RC Engine "manufacturers" (based on numbers of units sold) don't use the Rotary intake.
    Most of them have anough problems with conventional crank failures - It is a scary thought what would happen if they then hollowed them out and removed part of the front shaft. - VERY scary indeed.

    I do like my rotary intake engines but they are ZDZ and MVVS so I don't worry too much about that.

    Back to the OP - it all comes down to what the users expect to pay. Nowadays, the majority of RC buyers don't expect to pay much so there is no reason for the manufacturers to add cost (Even if they knew how to do so). Where the majority of the upper end manufacturers sell their engines to, Fuel injection is in fact used - and quite a lot more extensively than many realise. But th price of those engines is very much higher than what most would be prepared to pay (plus those engines are not made available to RC'ers for a multitude of reasons).
    3W, BME and DA all the way. Proven power, Proven reliability and Proven support equals much cheaper in the long term.

  19. #19
    378's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Lebanon, TN
    Posts
    2,758
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but


    ORIGINAL: aussiesteve


    ORIGINAL: 378

    If one has to worry about something failing on their engines, why even bother?
    Why intentionally complicate something that doesn't need to be complex? Rotary induction works, it's fool proof, the fixed intake timing renders them more resistant to running backwards(My 46AX likes to start backwards but if I drop the idle enough it will bounce forwards and stabilize, something reedies do not do), and they last the life of the engine. The only way they fail is if you get a lot of prop strikes, let the engine suck in tons of dirt, or the crank is poorly made and not strong enough to survive the engine running. If it truly isn't superior, then why did Cox opt to use a hollow crank front carb setup on their tiny little 0.010 when everything else they made was a reedie?
    There is the real reason that the majority of RC Engine ''manufacturers'' (based on numbers of units sold) don't use the Rotary intake.
    Most of them have anough problems with conventional crank failures - It is a scary thought what would happen if they then hollowed them out and removed part of the front shaft. - VERY scary indeed.

    I do like my rotary intake engines but they are ZDZ and MVVS so I don't worry too much about that.
    That's not a fault of crankshaft induction though. That's just lazy design and skimped-on materials.
    My stash:
    1 rally modded NTC3, 1 HeliMax Axe CX Nano, 1 Hobbico NexSTAR.

  20. #20
    aussiesteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    PerthWA, AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    2,924
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but


    ORIGINAL: 378
    That's not a fault of crankshaft induction though. That's just lazy design and skimped-on materials.
    Yep - that is pretty much exactly what I was getting at.
    It scares me to think of the amount of people who would be ducking for cover if some of the manufacturers tried it. One in particular had enough problems with a conventional crank design letting the prop hubs go a flying all on their own (I am specifically banned from posting their name).

    Like you, I am a fan of rotary valving as long as it is done right. Pretty much all high performance 2 stroke engines use it nowadays.
    3W, BME and DA all the way. Proven power, Proven reliability and Proven support equals much cheaper in the long term.

  21. #21
    MTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Whippany, NJ
    Posts
    4,762
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: maybe stupid question but


    ORIGINAL: 378
    If it truly isn't superior, then why did Cox opt to use a hollow crank front carb setup on their tiny little 0.010 when everything else they made was a reedie?
    Same reason his larger Tee Dee engines were all front rotary induction. No valve float at the very rpm these engines operated at. And in the case of the 010, that was something around 35,000 rpm if I recall.

    I just got a few of these little jewels from a guy's estate after he died. A couple 020's and 049's too....Marvelously simple little pumps
    Regards,
    MattK
    (Rcmaster199@aol.com)


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:35 AM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.