Change your FG84R3 to 40-1 oil mix!!!!!!!!!!!
200 more than the 84. i guess someone has to pay for the screw ups from the 84.
10-03-2016, 08:41 PM
#80
I'm not sure how many Ray English motors have been sold, are being used, and people are reporting back on the result of the modifications. As far as I can tell very few, not much at all is being reported after the fact which is strange to me and my friends at least.
Anyway, I have one and have used it this summer for the first time. The 84 was broken in on the bench before it was shipped to Ray. After flying the maiden for a club member who had a H9 Corsair with the stock 84 we were convinced the engine had an issue as it stumbled in flight. Not a comfortable feeling wondering if it was going to die in the mid range on the first flight. So after the experience we sent my friends 84 with bench time to Ray to have the manifold and bearing mods done and the DLE bolt pattern as well as the Keleo exhaust, the full service in other words.
The engine came back and I modified, extensively, a TF Corsair to fly it in. I bought the $50 gallon of synthetic oil recommended by Ray from Cool Power to mix at 15:1. The prop was a Mejzlik 24x10 carbon fiber. This is a recommended prop specification just to be clear, the carbon prop isn't but, the dimensions fall within the guideline Saito publishes.
So at this point the fuel is correct, the prop is correct, and the engine is installed and ready to fly in the Corsair.
First flight on the engine which has over 3 hours of time on it by now on the bench thus far. On the ground the temps were checked and looked good in the 170F range. Sounds good, revs and responds as expected, check check check, OK let's go.
I flew around at about half throttle for a few circuits and the sounds were good and the response was good. I made one pass at full power and the prop was pretty loud so I backed off and made a half throttle pass as I dropped the gear. Just as the gear came down the engine seized! No I'm dead stick down wind and I'm immediately redirecting back to the runway to make the best of this situation. Made it back ok and ran over a soft traffic cone marker causing minor damage to the tail gear mount.
Upon initial inspection the engine is F-ed up!!
We didn't turn a single bolt. I boxed it up and sent it to Ray as is, maybe that was a mistake, but we figured he would want to see for himself a fresh untouched failure to understand what happened. So I don't know what let go or anything and in retrospect I should have opened it up and seen for myself and documented it. The list of broken parts included the crank, connecting rods, pins, pistons and gaskets. It must have been a mess inside.
The diagnosis was that the engine was over revved. With no prop recommendation and by following the prop guide by Saito the engine over revved. Ok.
So what prop do you suggest? Try a 24x12, the "24x10 Mejzlik is not enough prop."
We we got the engine back and interestingly enough the "new" instruction sheet has a 24x12 prop recommendation and the oil is changed to include Klotz. I bought a quart of Klotz Technoplate thru Tower and made up a gallon of 92 octane E10 FREE gas at 15:1.
I bought a Xoar 24x12 and a Xoar 24x14 to try.
With either prop this engine has never reached 6000rpm on the bench. About 5714rpm is the highest I've seen. Saito claims this engine will rev more within the recommended props they specify in their manual. The gain in RMP I was expecting due mainly to the new bearing added to the main rod never materialized. Instead it seems we lost RPM.
I did follow the instructions and tuned the mid range at about 3000RPM so it's smooth to transition. However in flight if I roll there is short hesitation when inverted and it doesn't always do it, more adjustment needed I think.
The 12 was ok but the 14 has better performance and loads the engine. The next thing I'm adding is RPM telemetry so we will know for sure what the in flight RPM is. The sensor should be here this week so this weekend I can test it.
In contrast or comparison the first 84 I flew was sold to another guy not too far from here and has been running great ever since, no problems. It has not been modified and runs with the Keleo exhaust.
Our engine does start great cold or warm. Once warmed up or with fuel in the carb I can flip it by hand one time and it starts right up.
If I could say anything to Saito it would be to change the carb to a more typical Walbro. The choke method is terrible and the long tiny flat blade adjustment tool supplied is too difficult to use when running. A typical Walbro carb with its large easy to use needles would be better. If needed extensions can be added to them making them easier to reach and adjust.
Anyway, I have one and have used it this summer for the first time. The 84 was broken in on the bench before it was shipped to Ray. After flying the maiden for a club member who had a H9 Corsair with the stock 84 we were convinced the engine had an issue as it stumbled in flight. Not a comfortable feeling wondering if it was going to die in the mid range on the first flight. So after the experience we sent my friends 84 with bench time to Ray to have the manifold and bearing mods done and the DLE bolt pattern as well as the Keleo exhaust, the full service in other words.
The engine came back and I modified, extensively, a TF Corsair to fly it in. I bought the $50 gallon of synthetic oil recommended by Ray from Cool Power to mix at 15:1. The prop was a Mejzlik 24x10 carbon fiber. This is a recommended prop specification just to be clear, the carbon prop isn't but, the dimensions fall within the guideline Saito publishes.
So at this point the fuel is correct, the prop is correct, and the engine is installed and ready to fly in the Corsair.
First flight on the engine which has over 3 hours of time on it by now on the bench thus far. On the ground the temps were checked and looked good in the 170F range. Sounds good, revs and responds as expected, check check check, OK let's go.
I flew around at about half throttle for a few circuits and the sounds were good and the response was good. I made one pass at full power and the prop was pretty loud so I backed off and made a half throttle pass as I dropped the gear. Just as the gear came down the engine seized! No I'm dead stick down wind and I'm immediately redirecting back to the runway to make the best of this situation. Made it back ok and ran over a soft traffic cone marker causing minor damage to the tail gear mount.
Upon initial inspection the engine is F-ed up!!
We didn't turn a single bolt. I boxed it up and sent it to Ray as is, maybe that was a mistake, but we figured he would want to see for himself a fresh untouched failure to understand what happened. So I don't know what let go or anything and in retrospect I should have opened it up and seen for myself and documented it. The list of broken parts included the crank, connecting rods, pins, pistons and gaskets. It must have been a mess inside.
The diagnosis was that the engine was over revved. With no prop recommendation and by following the prop guide by Saito the engine over revved. Ok.
So what prop do you suggest? Try a 24x12, the "24x10 Mejzlik is not enough prop."
We we got the engine back and interestingly enough the "new" instruction sheet has a 24x12 prop recommendation and the oil is changed to include Klotz. I bought a quart of Klotz Technoplate thru Tower and made up a gallon of 92 octane E10 FREE gas at 15:1.
I bought a Xoar 24x12 and a Xoar 24x14 to try.
With either prop this engine has never reached 6000rpm on the bench. About 5714rpm is the highest I've seen. Saito claims this engine will rev more within the recommended props they specify in their manual. The gain in RMP I was expecting due mainly to the new bearing added to the main rod never materialized. Instead it seems we lost RPM.
I did follow the instructions and tuned the mid range at about 3000RPM so it's smooth to transition. However in flight if I roll there is short hesitation when inverted and it doesn't always do it, more adjustment needed I think.
The 12 was ok but the 14 has better performance and loads the engine. The next thing I'm adding is RPM telemetry so we will know for sure what the in flight RPM is. The sensor should be here this week so this weekend I can test it.
In contrast or comparison the first 84 I flew was sold to another guy not too far from here and has been running great ever since, no problems. It has not been modified and runs with the Keleo exhaust.
Our engine does start great cold or warm. Once warmed up or with fuel in the carb I can flip it by hand one time and it starts right up.
If I could say anything to Saito it would be to change the carb to a more typical Walbro. The choke method is terrible and the long tiny flat blade adjustment tool supplied is too difficult to use when running. A typical Walbro carb with its large easy to use needles would be better. If needed extensions can be added to them making them easier to reach and adjust.
10-03-2016, 09:22 PM
#82
From a mechanic's point of view (I have 13 years of NHRA drag racing experience including holding National Records as well as being a licensed A&P mechanic), if an engine comes unglued as you describe, it's pretty obvious when you open it up that it was spun too fast. Did you do any RPM checks before flying? Did you spend any time running the thing in before flying it full throttle with a new bushing/clearance on the master rod and crank?
Besides being a master machinist, Ray has also designed and built F1 racing engines, do you think the Saito is above him?
Nah, I think I know what/who screwed up here and you've not provided any evidence to change my mind.
10-04-2016, 02:57 AM
#83
A friend took a video of my 5th or 6th flight with my stock FG84 last year.
Was still sorting out thrust line/CG testing :-)
https://youtu.be/64_Ukj5I628
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64_Ukj5I628&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiOr-k5tRic
Was still sorting out thrust line/CG testing :-)
https://youtu.be/64_Ukj5I628
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64_Ukj5I628&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiOr-k5tRic
Last edited by SJN; 10-04-2016 at 03:01 AM.
10-04-2016, 04:53 AM
#84
[QUOTE=Chris Nicastro;12264130]I'm not sure how many Ray English motors have been sold, are being used, and people are reporting back on the result of the modifications. As far as I can tell very few, not much at all is being reported after the fact which is strange to me and my friends at least.
This is just for info and is not meant to start an argument or to slander anyone! I have over the past year or so been visiting several different forums where owners of the FG84 R3 have posted information concerning the performance of their Saito's. As of today from my tally, there have been 7 reported failures/seizures of the FG84 after having the RE modification.
This is just for info and is not meant to start an argument or to slander anyone! I have over the past year or so been visiting several different forums where owners of the FG84 R3 have posted information concerning the performance of their Saito's. As of today from my tally, there have been 7 reported failures/seizures of the FG84 after having the RE modification.
10-04-2016, 08:39 AM
#85
So what is your point?
From a mechanic's point of view (I have 13 years of NHRA drag racing experience including holding National Records as well as being a licensed A&P mechanic), if an engine comes unglued as you describe, it's pretty obvious when you open it up that it was spun too fast. Did you do any RPM checks before flying? Did you spend any time running the thing in before flying it full throttle with a new bushing/clearance on the master rod and crank?
Besides being a master machinist, Ray has also designed and built F1 racing engines, do you think the Saito is above him?
Nah, I think I know what/who screwed up here and you've not provided any evidence to change my mind.
From a mechanic's point of view (I have 13 years of NHRA drag racing experience including holding National Records as well as being a licensed A&P mechanic), if an engine comes unglued as you describe, it's pretty obvious when you open it up that it was spun too fast. Did you do any RPM checks before flying? Did you spend any time running the thing in before flying it full throttle with a new bushing/clearance on the master rod and crank?
Besides being a master machinist, Ray has also designed and built F1 racing engines, do you think the Saito is above him?
Nah, I think I know what/who screwed up here and you've not provided any evidence to change my mind.
For your info since we're throwing resumes around I have 33 years experience both professionally and as a hobbyist with a design patent for an RC product under my belt, Guiness BWR, RC boat world records, global RC product sales and a few other notables... I think I know what I'm doing with this engine.
Well, is the crank mod necessary? From my experience, no. The intake mod, yes and the DLE bolt pattern is a plus.
On the props the point is all props are not created equal and even though I followed the recommendation by the factory the engine failed.
Yes I ran the engine up on the ground and yes it was fine and tached. It unloaded a lot more in the air than expected with the Mejzlik and as a result I'm running far more prop than expected because the engine can take it.
The other point is from a customer service point of view. If your going to offer an upgrade or modification to any existing product then you must supply ample direction and recommendation to the customer so they can make an informed decision from that point on. In this case there wasn't a list of Do Not Use props at all. So in the absence of any suggestion either by phone or email or print I opted for the factory spec.
So if anyone is just going to throw props on this RE engine please note to go for more pitch. At least 12 to 14 and 2 or 3 blades.
10-04-2016, 09:10 AM
#86
Not to "step on toes", but isn't one of the benefits of modding the engine that it increases the performance by ~500-600rpm? If you know you're sending an engine to have an aftermarket performance modification done, I would think you'd measure the max RPM on the ground and make a decision based on that what prop to use on the plane in the air.
The FG84 has a maximum RPM listed in the manual, and yes... it's up to you to prop it correctly. However, sure... I agree Ray should probably give a heads-up that you may have to use a bit more prop after the engine has been modded. But didn't you say you have vast amounts of experience??
That was 100% your fault still however; always check max RPM on the ground and reference the manual - you made no mention of a pre-flight max RPM check or tune on the carb. Especially with a performance mod done to the engine, which could push those numbers up even higher. You can throw credentials around all day, but with these engines at very least before your first flight you let the engine warm up to operating temp, and check the max RPM and tune the needles if required ... again, making sure especially after a performance modification to check your max RPM
The FG84 has a maximum RPM listed in the manual, and yes... it's up to you to prop it correctly. However, sure... I agree Ray should probably give a heads-up that you may have to use a bit more prop after the engine has been modded. But didn't you say you have vast amounts of experience??
That was 100% your fault still however; always check max RPM on the ground and reference the manual - you made no mention of a pre-flight max RPM check or tune on the carb. Especially with a performance mod done to the engine, which could push those numbers up even higher. You can throw credentials around all day, but with these engines at very least before your first flight you let the engine warm up to operating temp, and check the max RPM and tune the needles if required ... again, making sure especially after a performance modification to check your max RPM
10-04-2016, 09:11 AM
#87
[QUOTE=ForcesR;12264209]
So that's interesting to note 7 engines have failed. Obviously the failure is from the crank mod as the intake mod would not be mechanically involved. These engines need needle bearings. I wonder if the new 90 has a bushing or a needle bearing on the main rod. That update alone should circumvent the licensing agreement if it's solely based on a bushing design.
My friend and I are interested in seeing the new 90 because he has a large Mulligan kit on the bench, wait and see I guess!
I'm not sure how many Ray English motors have been sold, are being used, and people are reporting back on the result of the modifications. As far as I can tell very few, not much at all is being reported after the fact which is strange to me and my friends at least.
This is just for info and is not meant to start an argument or to slander anyone! I have over the past year or so been visiting several different forums where owners of the FG84 R3 have posted information concerning the performance of their Saito's. As of today from my tally, there have been 7 reported failures/seizures of the FG84 after having the RE modification.
This is just for info and is not meant to start an argument or to slander anyone! I have over the past year or so been visiting several different forums where owners of the FG84 R3 have posted information concerning the performance of their Saito's. As of today from my tally, there have been 7 reported failures/seizures of the FG84 after having the RE modification.
So that's interesting to note 7 engines have failed. Obviously the failure is from the crank mod as the intake mod would not be mechanically involved. These engines need needle bearings. I wonder if the new 90 has a bushing or a needle bearing on the main rod. That update alone should circumvent the licensing agreement if it's solely based on a bushing design.
My friend and I are interested in seeing the new 90 because he has a large Mulligan kit on the bench, wait and see I guess!
10-04-2016, 10:39 AM
#88
Chris, now that's what I would be looking at myself personally - having a proper needle bearing installed. The brass bushing may not really even be an improvement over how Saito ships the engines stock IMO; I still don't know how they get away with shipping a this size of an engine without a proper needle bearing especially on a 4 stroke, as less lubrication in general makes it to that area of the engine versus a 2 stroke.
10-04-2016, 10:46 AM
#90
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Monroe,
NC
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=ForcesR;12264209]
I have been involved in this project since it began. I don't know where you get your tally but the real number is 3 engines returned for failures. Two of which were using Red Line oil and the other was installed on an FW 190 without baffles. All three engines failed due to temps over 400 degrees.
I'm not sure how many Ray English motors have been sold, are being used, and people are reporting back on the result of the modifications. As far as I can tell very few, not much at all is being reported after the fact which is strange to me and my friends at least.
This is just for info and is not meant to start an argument or to slander anyone! I have over the past year or so been visiting several different forums where owners of the FG84 R3 have posted information concerning the performance of their Saito's. As of today from my tally, there have been 7 reported failures/seizures of the FG84 after having the RE modification.
This is just for info and is not meant to start an argument or to slander anyone! I have over the past year or so been visiting several different forums where owners of the FG84 R3 have posted information concerning the performance of their Saito's. As of today from my tally, there have been 7 reported failures/seizures of the FG84 after having the RE modification.
10-04-2016, 11:14 AM
#91
[QUOTE=Condor060;12264344]
I have been involved in this project since it began. I don't know where you get your tally but the real number is 3 engines returned for failures. Two of which were using Red Line oil and the other was installed on an FW 190 without baffles. All three engines failed due to temps over 400 degrees.
You don't think these engines would benefit from a proper needle bearing setup? Look at all other quality 4 stroke gas and glow engines outside of Saito. That's pretty naive to just say "Next".
Let's face it, Saito engines for this size displacement and below are the only gas options available right now; doesn't mean they are good in all areas, even after modification. Heck, my ASP FS400AR which is an engine designed to run on methanol even has a proper needle bearing on the master rod and it's a cheap chinese-clone of an OS.... the way Ray English is modding the engine doesn't magically transform the Saito into a completely different engine... it's just improving what's reasonable to improve.
Have you seen the backplate modification to convert the Saito's to direct crankcase induction done by Modelisme Micromoteurs? That may be an even better idea as far as internal lubrication goes, and is how the Moki's, the Seidel radials, and a small grouping of other brands of radials are setup.
The engine modifications no doubt improve the engine performance, but it doesn't make the engine somehow impervious to engine failures...
I have been involved in this project since it began. I don't know where you get your tally but the real number is 3 engines returned for failures. Two of which were using Red Line oil and the other was installed on an FW 190 without baffles. All three engines failed due to temps over 400 degrees.
Let's face it, Saito engines for this size displacement and below are the only gas options available right now; doesn't mean they are good in all areas, even after modification. Heck, my ASP FS400AR which is an engine designed to run on methanol even has a proper needle bearing on the master rod and it's a cheap chinese-clone of an OS.... the way Ray English is modding the engine doesn't magically transform the Saito into a completely different engine... it's just improving what's reasonable to improve.
Have you seen the backplate modification to convert the Saito's to direct crankcase induction done by Modelisme Micromoteurs? That may be an even better idea as far as internal lubrication goes, and is how the Moki's, the Seidel radials, and a small grouping of other brands of radials are setup.
The engine modifications no doubt improve the engine performance, but it doesn't make the engine somehow impervious to engine failures...
10-04-2016, 11:21 AM
#92
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Monroe,
NC
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=chorner;12264355]
You don't think these engines would benefit from a proper needle bearing setup? Look at all other quality 4 stroke gas and glow engines outside of Saito. That's pretty naive to just say "Next".
Let's face it, Saito engines for this size displacement and below are the only gas options available right now; doesn't mean they are good in all areas, even after modification. Heck, my ASP FS400AR which is an engine designed to run on methanol even has a proper needle bearing on the master rod and it's a cheap chinese-clone of an OS.... the way Ray English is modding the engine doesn't magically transform the Saito into a completely different engine... it's just improving what's reasonable to improve.
Have you seen the backplate modification to convert the Saito's to direct crankcase induction done by Modelisme Micromoteurs? That may be an even better idea as far as internal lubrication goes, and is how the Moki's, the Seidel radials, and a small grouping of other brands of radials are setup.
The engine modifications no doubt improve the engine performance, but it doesn't make the engine somehow impervious to engine failures...
I wasn't responding to your post. I simply meant to direct to my post that was beneath it. I agree with you. This engine should have never been introduced to the commercial market with its flawed design parameters.
You don't think these engines would benefit from a proper needle bearing setup? Look at all other quality 4 stroke gas and glow engines outside of Saito. That's pretty naive to just say "Next".
Let's face it, Saito engines for this size displacement and below are the only gas options available right now; doesn't mean they are good in all areas, even after modification. Heck, my ASP FS400AR which is an engine designed to run on methanol even has a proper needle bearing on the master rod and it's a cheap chinese-clone of an OS.... the way Ray English is modding the engine doesn't magically transform the Saito into a completely different engine... it's just improving what's reasonable to improve.
Have you seen the backplate modification to convert the Saito's to direct crankcase induction done by Modelisme Micromoteurs? That may be an even better idea as far as internal lubrication goes, and is how the Moki's, the Seidel radials, and a small grouping of other brands of radials are setup.
The engine modifications no doubt improve the engine performance, but it doesn't make the engine somehow impervious to engine failures...
10-04-2016, 11:31 AM
#93
[QUOTE=Condor060;12264359]
Ah ok, my mistake then. Thought that was in direct response 
Horizon should hire Ray to design an engine, then send it out to be made somewhere affordable. Probably not enough money in creating competition for these model radials though I'd imagine, or OS would probably already be in the game I would have to assume.
Horizon should hire Ray to design an engine, then send it out to be made somewhere affordable. Probably not enough money in creating competition for these model radials though I'd imagine, or OS would probably already be in the game I would have to assume.
10-04-2016, 02:55 PM
#94
Wait so now I'm throwing credentials around!?! Your funny Mr NHRA.
I have not blamed anyone for what happened I've simply explained our experience just to be clear. I own the plane and my friend owns the engine. We fly together and he's been around this hobby for many years.
On the ground before the first flight the engine was run up to temp, carb tune checked, peak RPM checked and no it did not exceed 6000 on the ground. This process was slow and methodical, not rushed at all. We checked and talked about it and then decided to go up. Every indicator was positive and our collective impression was good to go, per usual hobby practices.
Why should we expect an 8-10% increase in RPM to cause the engine to fail? That's a small gain. What we are more interested in is better response and no stumbbling in the mid range. We also see good fuel economy and even temps, all good indicators.
The biggest noticeable difference was the prop blade chord length. Other props have a wider blade and are not called or classified as wide or pattern or 3D. The Mejzlik prop has no classification other than its a standard prop so to speak but clearly there is a difference.
What we clearly don't know is the true power of this engine or its limits in real figures because nobody has provided that info. That should be the responsibility of the person or company that makes the mods or aftermarket parts to improve an existing design. As a result we have been testing with 24 inch props and adding pitch while taking temps and tach readings. Like I said I have an onboard telemetry tach coming this week so I'll have more info soon.
One other thing to note: Altitude Density
You could have the perfect prop on a plane one day and the next time you go out you could here it ripping in the sky. When the density of the air changes the load on the engine changes too.
On one day in particular I couldn't get a simple new micro heli to lift off from the ground. I added 3mm more chord length to the trailing edge of the rotor blades with packing tape and then it flew. On that day the Altitude Density was over 6000 feet but we are 2240 feet above sea level.
Its a good idea to call you local airport for a weather report just to see what's going on with the air near your flying site. They have automated weather reporting by phone. Mine is on speed dial under Pappy Boyington, lol
I have not blamed anyone for what happened I've simply explained our experience just to be clear. I own the plane and my friend owns the engine. We fly together and he's been around this hobby for many years.
On the ground before the first flight the engine was run up to temp, carb tune checked, peak RPM checked and no it did not exceed 6000 on the ground. This process was slow and methodical, not rushed at all. We checked and talked about it and then decided to go up. Every indicator was positive and our collective impression was good to go, per usual hobby practices.
Why should we expect an 8-10% increase in RPM to cause the engine to fail? That's a small gain. What we are more interested in is better response and no stumbbling in the mid range. We also see good fuel economy and even temps, all good indicators.
The biggest noticeable difference was the prop blade chord length. Other props have a wider blade and are not called or classified as wide or pattern or 3D. The Mejzlik prop has no classification other than its a standard prop so to speak but clearly there is a difference.
What we clearly don't know is the true power of this engine or its limits in real figures because nobody has provided that info. That should be the responsibility of the person or company that makes the mods or aftermarket parts to improve an existing design. As a result we have been testing with 24 inch props and adding pitch while taking temps and tach readings. Like I said I have an onboard telemetry tach coming this week so I'll have more info soon.
One other thing to note: Altitude Density
You could have the perfect prop on a plane one day and the next time you go out you could here it ripping in the sky. When the density of the air changes the load on the engine changes too.
On one day in particular I couldn't get a simple new micro heli to lift off from the ground. I added 3mm more chord length to the trailing edge of the rotor blades with packing tape and then it flew. On that day the Altitude Density was over 6000 feet but we are 2240 feet above sea level.
Its a good idea to call you local airport for a weather report just to see what's going on with the air near your flying site. They have automated weather reporting by phone. Mine is on speed dial under Pappy Boyington, lol
Last edited by Chris Nicastro; 10-04-2016 at 07:44 PM.
10-04-2016, 03:18 PM
#95
Chris, now that's what I would be looking at myself personally - having a proper needle bearing installed. The brass bushing may not really even be an improvement over how Saito ships the engines stock IMO; I still don't know how they get away with shipping a this size of an engine without a proper needle bearing especially on a 4 stroke, as less lubrication in general makes it to that area of the engine versus a 2 stroke.
The stock master rod on the steel crank is ok with enough lubrication as far as I have witnessed.
From having flown the stock and modified engines I do think the intake mod is the best update.
And I repeat, we have not seen that 8 to 10% increase in RPM on the ground after adjusting the carb for the day.
10-04-2016, 07:19 PM
#96
[QUOTE=Condor060;12264344]
I have been involved in this project since it began. I don't know where you get your tally but the real number is 3 engines returned for failures. Two of which were using Red Line oil and the other was installed on an FW 190 without baffles. All three engines failed due to temps over 400 degrees.
There are 3 engines that failed that were not returned to RE for tear down, investigation, and repair. Two of the 3 engines are in Europe, and the other one is from Canada. The 2 in Europe will more than likely be returned to RE for repair as soon as the owners have the funds available. The 1 in Canada was sent to HH for repair, the owner would not return it to RE for repair. He gave no answer as to why he would not return it to RE. These 3 plus the 3 you mentioned and CN's engine tallies a total of 7 modified engines that failed.
I have been involved in this project since it began. I don't know where you get your tally but the real number is 3 engines returned for failures. Two of which were using Red Line oil and the other was installed on an FW 190 without baffles. All three engines failed due to temps over 400 degrees.
10-04-2016, 07:35 PM
#97
Which forums are you reading this info from?
I have not been looking around all the popular forums or EU so that's why
I haven't seen anything pop up about others experience.
Id be curious about how many engines have been modified verses how many have failed.
I have not been looking around all the popular forums or EU so that's why
I haven't seen anything pop up about others experience.
Id be curious about how many engines have been modified verses how many have failed.
10-11-2016, 01:07 PM
#98
Senior Member
