Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Truly breaking in a modern engine takes more than a few gallons of gas so I really doubt many break in any engine on a test stand. One might start and work the bugs out on a test stand before mounting it in an airframe but unless you are into hours and hours of running it on a test stand the engine is not broken in when you mount it in the airframe.

Buy a high performance after market motor or have yours rebuilt with performance in mind and the good performance suppliers will set up test and run your engine first on a dyno before you take possession of it.

When you put it in the vehicle you expect to achieve the same performance specs the manufacturer gave you. If not then you suspect there may be a problem with your installation.

How many of the gas motors are tested and run at the factory. I wonder if they used an airframe or test stand.

A few tanks on a test stand isn’t breaking in its tweaking the engine and if you feel you want to do this on a test stand or in an airframe its personal preference and neither is going to hurt the engine.

If you use a method that you are comfortable with and it works for you then familiarity and confidence goes a long way to guarantee success.

Dennis

ahicks

My Feedback: (2)

I respect your opinion on other topics Dan, but not this one, and it doesn't make any difference who you quote, because it's all regarding info that's badly in need of updating. It's not just me either. If I thought that were the case I wouldn't be saying anything. I would encourage others, possibly people that might be influenced by your comment here that would like to know more about it, to talk with guys that are currently flying, to see how/where they have their electronics mounted. Let's just say we need to agree to disagree.Regarding the DLE instructions? Those are the same ones that suggest shock mounting an engine is necessary, and that only 2 piece motor mounts should be used. Those are both examples of other comments that can be disregarded as easily/regularly as some of the "rules" spelled out in out of date electronics mounting suggestions.

I'm afraid I need to disagree with the fuel tank stopper comment as well. I would be among those that have not had a failure. I'll add that there is a certain amount of "finesse" involved when snugging it up though. If too tight, there's a pretty good chance you'll split the tank. If too loose, it won't seal. It just needs to be snugged up lightly. If you actually melt one with gas, I'd suggest something happened, and it's not actually the gasoline proof version of the stopper. Can't say as I've ever shared or heard of that issue.

sensei

Breaking in my gas engines has always been done in the air, I set my high end needle just a touch rich and keep the full throttle bursts to a minimum.

Bob

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

When 2.4 first came out a common statement even by hobby shop owners was if you have interference issues from ignition or unknown sources just put a 2.4 system in it and it goes away. It doesn’t go away the 2.4 system just deals with it better. Ignoring what used to be common sense practices when doing an installation seems to be more prevalent. New flyers never had to deal with the older systems and its idiosyncrasies. Is there a point where a 2.4 system will not be able to cope? When might it happen? In the air where signal strength may be diminished due to range or other factors. I wonder if some of the so called lockouts might be attributed to something like this.

I still like to keep my radio gear and ignition gear as far apart as possible. My first 2.4 set ups I used 72 to get it running without any glitches then swapped receivers for the 2.4 (same radios). Now I too have gotten lazy and just slap in the 2.4 and set it up.

After all these years it’s to bad someone hasn’t made a simple tester that would scan for gross noise at the known frequencies so it could be limited/controlled. After all they had a hand held inexpensive scanner to check if anyone was using one of the 72 meg frequencies.

Dennis

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Except for a few tanks on a test stand to set the engine I think the reality is everyone breaks their engine in while flying. One engine manufacturer said it takes about 5 gallons of fuel to really break an engine in might worry about wearing out the test stand LOL.

Dennis

captinjohn

Al Day Dan, I got to disagree with you about soft mounts. If you use the right soft mount they are fine & will not harm the engine. If they are too soft & let the engine move around to much, try a different one. Lord mounts & Hyde mounts seen good. By the way a Kavan 50 comes with soft mounts. Race planes do not use then much, because of extra weight & they need more space for installing them.
Capt,n

dirtybird

My Feedback: (5)

There are three heated arguments in this thread:
1) Break in.Years ago all manufactures recommended a slow breakin on the bench. But impatient buyers would destroy them by not doing so. So they set the engines up so impatient flyers could get away with it. If you know what you are doing you will probably be better off with a good test bench break in.
2) soft mount. Vibration energy has to go somewhere. With a soft mount it is absorbed by the engine. The question is what do you want to protect? Your A/C or the engine. I use the Hyde mount whenever I can.
3) 2.4 interference. Ignition noise cannot interefere with 2.4GHZ RF. It is too low in frequency and does not have the proper code. Unfortunately there are other things in the A/C that ignition noise can interfere with so going to 2.4 is not a guarantee of a noise free operation

Duncman

Dirtybird, I was thinking the same thing on your second comment. Just as in motorcycles and cars that isolate their engines from the rest of the vehicle from engine vibration is more to protect the passengers and supporting vehicle systems from damaging vibration rather than protect the engine. I think protect the AC frame and electronics from the engine vibration is more of a reason to soft mount the engine rather than protecting the engine.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

On the stoppers, It is not a problem until it is a problem. It is a variable that is easily resolved to be a zero failure point. Because it has not happened to you, does not mean that it does not happen. The issue is they pop out. The ethanol screws up the gas stopper, just like a gas stopper screws up a glow stopper. Modern gas has both.

av8tor1977

My Feedback: (6)

I often run mine on a test stand to get the engine dialed in on the mixtures and verify that it runs well. Maybe half a tank to a tank of fuel, with no sustained high rpms. Then I mount it on the airplane and fly it. Flying is the best way to load and unload the engine, heat cycle it, and break it in. No hovering for the first several tanks in order to help keep the engine cool.

AV8TOR

dirtybird

My Feedback: (5)

I disagree. When flying you have no way to know what the engine is experiencing if you dont have telemetry that includes temperature,RPM and load.Even if you do the chances are it will be too late to do anything about it.
With a good instrumented test stand you have much better control.

lamarkeiko

My Feedback: (1)

A new question I have now is mounting the engine inverted or upright in my Four Star 120. I'll have an open cowl for easy access, so I figured that mounting the engine inverted would be a prefered way because I would be able to adjust the high speed and low speed needles eaiser. Am I on the right track, or is there something else I should consider?
By the way, I really don't plan on doing a complete breakin on a test stand. I just want to run a couple tanks of fuel to get some initial adjustment on the carb and to help me get a little familar with a gas engine and what it will take to start it before i mount it on my plane. I still need to finish building my Four Star.

Lamar

ahicks

My Feedback: (2)

IMHO, the engine doesn't know/care which way it's mounted, even if it's on it's side. It's a matter of preference and what works best for your install. The only thing you MIGHT want to keep in mind when mounting inverted is spark plug and plug boot vulnerability. That boot will not tolerate much in the way of a bad bounce resulting in it eating dirt. An experience like that can leave it leaking spark internally, leaving you on the sidelines trying to figure out why it won't start. Not too big a deal once you figure that out. Replacement boots aren't expensive or terribly hard to replace. To that end, many veterans keep an extra ign. module in stock... -Al

MTK

Agreed VG. The first couple gas engines I played with several years ago were first bench run for familiarity purposes. Gas was new to me after decades of glow.. Now typical carb settings are made from the start and the engines are run in in the air .
I have heeded the advice of the few that really know their stuff and have run these at near final needles from the start. The engines broke in fine and work great.. BT W gas engines last better than some glow do, with much less maintenance.

On interference, I have used both 2.4 gig and 72 meg radios and have had no issues. Then again I have used the Tech Aero IBEC from the start. The RFI filtering of this goodie works great

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Once upon a time the "red" stoppers in the US were GAS rated, and the Chinese red stoppers were NOT.
However, many didn't pay real attention to that, made assumptions, had lots of tank stopper failures and decided to replace the RED Chinese stoppers with the US red stoppers, but didn't notice that the Chinese tank stopper necks were just a scosh bigger i.d., and then STOPPERS STARTED BLOWING OUT the front of the tank.

Sometimes, knowing the history can help one understand why we have what we have NOW.

My solution of choice has been, and will continue to be, to simply discard all Chinese fueling components, fuel lines, stoppers, etc. and replace with good ol' USA stuff that works. Worth considering, maybe, even if only to reduce the psychological workload of "What is going to fail?" that reduces our fun....

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

You mean the stoppers that come with your ARF? The stoppers I have seen fail were purchased from Dubro and Sullivan. Are they being made in China now? A screw on cap has no failure point, and allows easy access for maintenance when the time comes, instead of having to replace with another stopper. To each their own, but the screw on cap style of tank is a no brainer of simplicity, and ease. Not to mention it will never fail.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

One thing to keep in mind if mounting inverted. If you nose over on landing, and you spark plug cap touches the runway, you will most likely need to replace the cap and the plug.

MTK

The first gasoline tank I purchased was a Dubro, 6 years ago, when I first came back to gas (I dabbled some 15 years ago but quickly sold the IMAC plane, just too big). The stopper that came stock simply was not right....didn't fit right. The tank leaked.

That's when I started to use Fiji water bottles, certain types of square juice bottles or Dasani round bottles. I also sourced square bottles from USPlastics except the US Plastics caps did not have the special lip seal. I used teflon to seal these.

The Dasani and Fiji bottles and certain types of juice bottles have a cap with a special lip seal molded in from the same plastic as the cap. It seals great. These bottles are rated for upwards of 50 psi so they are safer than nearly every other tank we can purchase. These polyester tanks are all I use nowadays, coupled with the plastic fittings I have sourced. Fittings are for sale but please contact me directly at my emails addy.

Hey, BTW, Dasani round bottles come in 8.5, 11.8, 17, 25, 33 ozs. The 8.5oz is perfect for the 10cc and 15 cc engines. The 330ml (11.8 oz) is perfect for the 30cc class engines. All of these are strong and super light

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Sullivan or Dubro tanks are just fine I replace the whole stopper with this http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...P?I=LXBWL6&P=8 Never ever had a leak or stopper give me problems.

Dennis

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Another thing I have found, is that it is much easier to get gas engines primed quickly, and started easier, when the fuel line to the carb is kept as short as possible. While the carbs are pumped, and run fine with long lengths, it takes longer to get the fuel up when they are long.

MTK

Obviously there are people who have had problems with the Dubro tank stoppers. General statements such as " ,,,,Dubros work fine...." are misleading.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

The issue of ignition interference has been beaten to death as well but the fact is 2.4 systems don't need that separation and many airframes don't allow it.

Those warnings were written by Moses when he was in high school.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Tee your fill line into the fuel line as close to the carb as you can then it doesn't mater how long your fuel line is the line will be filled to within an inch or two of the carb.

Dennis

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Not misleading at all, they work just fine for most people. With all the Dubro and Sullivan tanks in use past and present, a few problems as you put it, including yours, most likely can be attributed to less than stellar installation practices.

Dennis

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

From CH Ignitions https://www.ch-ignitions.com/index.p...controller=cms