the Wasp

My Feedback: (1)

I thought some would be interested in this engine ,,

http://www.rcshowcase.com/html/RCS/rcssv17.html

Jim

skip1320

Interesting YES intrested NO! Hope thats not part of there recession buster deal!

rcdude7

My Feedback: (264)

Displacement

17cc

RPM Range

1200-9000

Horsepower

1.6hp

Weight

2.6lb w/ign and muffler

Fuel/Ratio

Gasoline mixed 32:1

Ignition

4.8v-6v Electronic

Prop Size 2 blade 14x6,14x8 APC@7600, 15x6

Engine Width

Muffler to Carburetor (with choke open) 6.0"

NEW!! RCS SV 17!!




If that number is correct, that's not a very powerful engine. A .91 surpass will turn the APC 14X8 up to about 9000.

Rcpilot

My Feedback: (78)

I saw that a couple weeks ago. I think it's neat. Price isn't too bad.

It's not going to be as powerful as a glow engine. Gas engines don't put out as much power as comparable sized glow engines. It's right at 1.03 cubic inches. I think thats right on the mark for power. 14x6 at anything over 7700-8000RPM is "getting it done" on a gasser that size. [8D]

Zippi

My Feedback: (10)

A plane suited for a 17cc gasser compared to a glow of equal power is really going to push the wing loading on that small of a plane. Not sure if that's what I would be looking for. The wing loading isn't bad when you get in the 26cc range but I don't think I personally would want to go any lower.

Ram Jet

I'd run 20:1 fuel mix other than that I think I like it.

Bill

the Wasp

My Feedback: (1)

this would be a good engine to burn that Gas/Glow mix..

Jim

mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

Looks like it could be just a few more ounces heavier than a Super Tigre .90 on ignition. Be great on a profile with a little extra wing area.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Unfortunately it's output is on a par with a fair glow .60. That's the downfall of small gassers. Their output is more than offset by their size and weight, which is why I personally don't believe the 26cc engines are worth the effort and expense unless used of high lift, high wing area slow flyers like Cubs and such. 40cc's is pretty much the break point imo.

the Wasp

My Feedback: (1)

""40cc's is pretty much the break point imo""

hey, my MVVS 35 gasser in my 82" ARF Gee Bee Y is no 3Der but it's top speed is impressive at 15 pounds,, but on the other hand SV is no MVVS,,

I could see a well made 30cc 3Ding well in the right plane..

pe reivers

break point actually is about 25cc. In the class 20cc to 35cc, both types will be competitive, though glow design becomes harder as cylinder size increases. 25cc or upward, there now are so many good gas engines, that I would not even consider glow anymore. For more power, just fit a larger engine, gas of course. For racing, go for best power to weight, which is glow fuel on spark ignition in the large sizes. You need to be in controll of the ignition timing in those larger engines. A glow plug just will not cut it, unless the engine design is adapted to it.
Just think how long it took OS to get a good 26cc engine, and it barely outperforms the MVVS 25.8cc, albeit on less weight.
Weight to be considered with the full required fuel load of course, when the advantage of glow over gas dwindles quite rapidly as engine size goes up. My 1.60 gas does well with a 15oz tank. The OS needs 30oz, so total plane weight is not that different.

Rcpilot

My Feedback: (78)

Ryobi 31cc gas engine runs 7000RPM at full throttle for over an hour on just 12oz of gas. Strapped a plane down, started it, full throttle, walked off. One hour and a few minutes later it quick due to a dry tank.

Show me a Saito 1.80 (same size) or a Super Tigre 3000 that runs that long on 12oz of fuel at full throttle. Not happening.

Pe Reivers is dead on with his point about smaller fuel tanks with gas engines.

I still say this 17cc engine is a good deal. I'm so anti-glow these days, I'll do just about anything or buy just about any motor to convert a plane to gasoline power. Glow just sucks. [:'(] I can see this 17cc engine on a 60-90 size Decathlon, Taylorcraft, Cub, Mustang, profile, 4*60, Skybolt, GeeBee, pretty much ANY general aviation scale model. About the only thing it WON'T work on is a lightweight aerobatic plane.

People get too hung up on wing loading. Yes, there are limits, but in the overall big picture a few more ounces on the nose doesn't amount to a pinch of poop. All you guys who fly at sea level with standard size engines should try flying at 6000' with 1.5x or 2x the recommended engine on the firewall. Not only is the plane heavier, the air is thinner. Snaps happen faster and landing approach speeds would scare many experienced pilots half to death. But somehow we manage to fly airplanes up here.

Ih82crash

I'm right there with you buddy! I fly at 5300 ft but during the summer the density altitude averages between 7 and 8000'. If we have a day where the density altitude is below 6000 we think really have good air to fly in. Up here a 50 cc plane needs a MINIMUM of 58 cc to 3d. You will not hover with anything less! It seems above that engine size is all right, but 58cc is the starting point for 3d when it comes to gas. I would love to go to sea level and fly. When people come here from sea level they have trouble landing, because the plane stalls and drops out of the sky. At altitude wing loading is EVERYTHING.

Antique

My Feedback: (4)

The plane is heavier ???

mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

"I'm so anti-glow these days, I'll do just about anything or buy just about any motor to convert a plane to gasoline power. Glow just sucks."

I'm with you.

Rcpilot

My Feedback: (78)

Yes and the air is thinner, so airspeeds must be higher to maintain enough lift to fly.

Ih82crash

to clear up the confusion, The plane is heavier because you have to have a bigger engine. It is not the air that makes the plane heavier

mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

The thin air does not give the lift of thicker, sea level air, so the plane "feels heavier" in the air, right?

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

The price is right.

Now, if they could twist the cylinder 90 degrees so that the carb is facing forward, placing the muffler behind and bore out the cylinder to give 26cc of displacement - all while keeping the price the same...


Ed Cregger

Rcpilot

My Feedback: (78)

Yes. Exactly. Thinner air = less lift.

The point I was making is that 90% of modelers fly at sea level or extremely low elevation compared to me. But guys are always worried about wing loading. Most really have no clue how hard it is to fly and land at 6000' elevation. The air is significantly thinner here. Lift is reduced DRASTICALLY. Landing speeds are MUCH higher here. We fly heavier planes than most of you because power output is also reduced. We compensate for that reduced power output with larger and heavier engines. It's a compounding problem. But some how, despite all those issues, we enjoy the hobby and fly just fine here.

On PAPER the wing loading on my Brand X plane with Model X27G engine is the same as a guy with the exact same setup in Florida. But the REALITY is I'm seeing much lower performance. My engine puts out less RPM here. The RPM I do see equates to lower thrust because the air is thinner. The prop may still be turning 98% of the RPM's the guy in Florida is turning, but my prop is actually putting out alomst 20% LESS thrust.

For somebody to claim this engine is too heavy at 2.6lbs and that it is a boat anchor is just misleading. Again, 90% of the modelers who would ever buy that engine would be flying at sea level.

Stop worrying about wing loading. You'd have to reduce your wing area by 20% and hang an extra 2lbs of dead weight on the firewall just to get close to experiencing the performance we see at this altitude. You'd see much lower vertical performance, higher landing speeds and much more tendency to snap in loops and higher G maneuvers. Then you'd be on a level playing field with a guy flying at high altitude.

A 2.6lb gas engine in the nose of any 90-120 size general aviation or sport plane anywhere under 2500' elevation is going to work out JUST FINE. Stop worrying about it. Trust me, you got ZERO concerns about wing loading.

Antique

My Feedback: (4)

A five pound plane weighs five pounds at any altitude...................

Ih82crash

Proof that people who do not fly at altitude don't understand

It still weight five pounds but it will land like it weighs 7 or eight. The stall speed is increased and the prop is less effective due to the thinner air. rcpilot is exactly right when he says the problem is a compounding one

Rcpilot

My Feedback: (78)

Ditto that!!

Feels like I'm talking to a brick wall. Why do I bother? [sm=spinnyeyes.gif]

flatspinjim

My Feedback: (3)

I'm with you Rcpilot. I'm just north of you and the altitude does make a difference. Just ask the sports teams that come from low altitude then come up here and try to run and can't breath!

rmh

The math on power/ wing loading /etc., is pretty straightforward.
For those who cain't spel mathh
just remember this:
It's impossible to make your model too light or overpower it -at the same time.

take anything noted on the kit box and figure the REQ'd power requirment is always too low and the ADV weight is always too low.

This new little engine is fine - IF you use any common sense.

It is best utilized in a simple ,light, sport type model.
Which by the way, is desireable for most occasional flyers.
You simply can't compare it to a alky/ nitro setup.

Just like ANY gasser - the alky nitro setup will eat em alive
It ain't the engine- it's the fuel

"He who burneth the most fuel maketh the most power "
No exceptions .