Linkan2

[QUOTE=Mark Bartley;12467100]Hi Guys:

I guess it doesn't matter anymore.
I was trying a few more break in runs at 1/3 to 2/3 throttle when the engine abruptly stopped, and threw the prop, driver washers, nut, and "C" clip about 60' down my driveway.
The engine is now locked up solid and feels like something has mechanically let go inside and jammed the internals from rotating.
My dream of owning and running a radial has come to an abrupt end after investing $2,000+ in the engine, carbs, fuels, glow drivers etc.

Thanks to everyone on this forum for your support and efforts, but I'm tapping out. I've spent too much time and money on this, and lost lots of prime flying time this summer.
If I can't unload it as a parts engine then I'll just hang it by a noose in our club house.

Note to those reading this thread and considering the purchase of a 7-35:
- I've been running and flying glow engines for over 40 years without any problems;
- I'm a tinkerer and I admit to getting caught up in the romance of running a radial engine;
- I had no idea of the commitment to make this dream a reality;
- I have spent many many hours reading forums, buying all the required accessories, mixing fuels, lubing valve trains and judiciously following the break-in regimen; and
- I have lost uncountable flying hours and become very frustrated trying to be successful.

Please be absolutely sure that you're fully prepared for any outcome, and totally committed before putting down your hard earned cash.

Thanks again everyone and best of luck with your Evolution radials.

Mark[/Q Hi Mark
sad to read.
But is your engine so old you do not have warranty left.
Contact Horizion or UMS directly
That's not how it should be.
Lars

bpotter

Mark:

How frustrating and sad! I like BobH's comment - it would be interesting to know why the engine siezed. I would also be interested in see what Horizon and UMS have to say about this situation.

Brad

Maxam

My Feedback: (62)

To Brad, the carb is the OS for the FF240/ 320. Mark, that is tragic. I have put so much of my time in these engines over the years and I have witnessed a steady decline in the quality of these engines and yet the company has been dismissive with my concerns. Too bad,,,,,,,,,Tom

bpotter

Tom:

Thank you!

Brad

okcrcpilot

Greetings Tom,

I just found this tread today and am interested to know about the redesign of the UMS 260 gas radial. I assume you have received the new radial and have had time to check it out properly. Are you able to explain what was is new/redesigned with this engine. I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Gary

Maxam

My Feedback: (62)

Gary, check your PM's -Tom

okcrcpilot

Tom,

PM replied to. Thanks!

Gary

EQ1

Mary, found your socks. Thanks!

Hyjinx

Hi All
New to forums and this one. I have a radial collection from Morton to Moki (soon on the Moki). I dont fly them as they are older and parts availability can be scarce. Just love staring at them on stands. I just traded a UMS 7_35 for a UMS 7-77. The 7-35 flew a 1/5 scale Stearman ok, but i felt it a little underpowered, nice scale flight but not a lot left for emergencies.
Mine was hungry for the glow driver and ran superior with it, not so much without, but the 9000 mah cad battery was a boat anchor. Question is, Lars mentions a glow driver from Microsens that runs a lipo. Major improvement in power and weight and obviously run time. Havnt seen any 7 or nine cylinder units running on lipo power till this. Does any one know where to get one (or more) of these things? My net searches havnt found this Microsens lp7 driver anywhere in the States, but have found a smattering of Microsens products on European sites, just not the Glow 7 LP mentioned.
Anyone in the states using one and where did you get it?

cymaz

BernardW

Hi guys, I'm only an occasional user of RCU. I'd very much like to be using radials in RC models, I have been tending towards Saito but I've also been interested in the Evo's. But I've seen some posts talking about a gradual decline in quality and reliability and Mark Bartley's post is just a recent example (very sorry to hear of this Mark). Are the current production engines just a big risk or are they OK? ie does it depend first and foremost on the user, or are some of them just bad? And I hear that it's generally the practice to ditch the carb's and substitute Saito. BTW I'm particularly thinking of the Evo 7-35. None of that is very encouraging. A Saito glow 3-cyl FA-200 sounds like a safer bet, but for scale and interest's sake I'd really hoped to run at least a 5 cyl and a 7 would match some of the projects I had in mind. But is it safe to spend money on, for someone like me who has to save hard to buy something like this? I do not have the kind of disposable income to buy these engines on a whim. I've been running Saito singles and a couple of twins with great results (all glow, maybe I'll do gas one day... don't really care), and I'll eventually convert my FA-182TD to spark, still methanol.
Is the complexity of a 7- or 9-cylinder simply too much for Evo's quality standards nowadays? As I understand it Evo licenced the Siedel designs for their radials, but I don't understand the relationship to UMS... sorry guys I don't have time to study 2000+ posts in this thread and a ton of others to find out about this, I'm new here. If I understand the current situation, UMS equals EVO equals this is who is making the Siedel designs now, and people got burned when Siedel collapsed. Are people getting burned by Evo now too? Doesn't sound like when you get one with mfg problems that the maker is real big on after sales support... I would only go for it through local distribution if I had a good guarantee of repair or replacement. I like the idea of the design, but can I trust it? Any guidance gratefully received... Bernie

Linkan2

hello Bernie
I bought my UMS-Seidel 7-35 2010.
and certainly they have been a lot to make the engine run well.
The first carburetor is just junk, then an updated carburetor arrived.
It's a lot better, but not completely satisfied.
After I switched to the Saito FA 120r3 carburetor, there was a good engine.
The engine is very reliable now, and I do not need to adjust the carburetor every flight now.
Now, UMS has come with a new serial engine Both methanol & gasoline http://umstech.in/radial-engine-7-35.html
I can also see that I have many Saito an FA182 with CDI & methanol.
And the FA170r3 sitting in a greate lake runs very well
Lars

BernardW

Hi Lars, thanks for the reply. That is good, helpful information. So the reason your 7-35 UMS is so reliable now is because you switched to the Saito 120r3 carburettor, or is it a new type of UMS carburettor? It does sound like you had to invest some time and effort to make the engine run well.I have heard other people say the same. Some people have a hard time with their UMS or EVO, most say they are fine. I will probably get an FA-200r3 instead of the 7-35, but later when I have the Saito I would like to try the UMS too. I would really enjoy any 7 cylinder engine. The price difference to the 7-77 is only about 15% here.
Now, sorry if this is a stupid question, but is UMS the same as Evolution? I still don't understand this. Are they the same design made by different companies, or are UMS and Evo the same company?
Really looking forward to using the FA-182, and later adding CDI. This engine, then later an FA-200r3, will go in a Black Horse Sea Fury 35cc, but also models I build myself. Probably just scaled up versions of an Ugly Stik modified like an Ultra Stik, so I have something to fly them in while I work on a scale project. Ideally I would love to use two radials in an F7F. A guy here built a beautiful 3.8 meter DC-3 with 2 FG60r3's, that sound was fantastic with 2 Keleo exhausts.
EDIT - . The video is a little confusing, but TAA was an old Australian airline, now gone. Notice "Sasha" standing sidewars to the camera This is the field near me where I go, WAMASC. It's excellent.

Linkan2

The engine now runs with saito carburettors and they are the best altenatives.
UMS makes engines for evo and it's the same engine.
I think evo & UMS has separated now.
so if you are going to buy a 7-35 go for the new UMS 7-35
yes, it's nice engines and I now have 210 starts on it.

jeremyilj03

My Feedback: (14)

I have an Evolution E999 Radial and am unsure if I am getting the proper RPMs out of the engine.

I purchased the engine about three years ago and performed the required break-in about two and a half years ago. At that time I didn't think to use a tachometer. After completing the break-in, the engine sat for approximately 20 months (in my house with after-run oil throughout the internals).

A few weeks ago I finally completed my Ziroli Dauntless and attempted to maiden the plane a week ago. Prior to the maiden I ran the engine on the plane at my house and thought the engine sounded good. However, once again I didn't think to use my tachometer. At the field, the engine was only producing 4,100 RPM on a 24x12 prop (2-blade) which sounded lower than when I ran it at my house. Using an IR Thermometer I was able to determine that two of the cylinders were not firing. After a few hours of starting and stopping the engine, I had completely drained the onboard glow system battery (McDaniels onboard glow systems with the recommended 4.8v, 5,000 mAh NiMH battery) and headed home.

Once home I performed a quick charge of the onboard glow system battery and ran the engine. This time, I was able to reach ~5,000 RPM. The only change I made to the engine was swapping out a glow plug on one of the cylinders which was previously identified as not operating. I used an O.S. "F" plug since I did not have any spare Evolution plugs on hand. At this point I figured I have eight out of nine cylinders running.

Two days later I obtained two new Evolution glow plugs and two O.S. "F" plugs. I ran the engine several times swapping plugs on the two cylinders which were thought to not be operating. Following this I was able to reach ~5,200 RPM.

I then performed the valve lashing procedure and found several of the valves to have slightly excessive valve lash. After performing the valve lash procedure I ran another tank of fuel (32 oz) through the engine and seemed to average ~5,250 RPM on the top end. Throughout these recent runs I have taken numerous temperature readings and find that the cylinders at the '4' o'clock and '8' o'clock position typically run 30F cooler than other cylinders (this is the case on the plane and on my test stand). It may be worth noting that these cylinders are closest to the exit pipes on my collector ring.

When I attempt to tune the engine, I get very little response when adjusting the needle vale. In fact I can open the needle valve 3, 4 or even 5 turns with little response from the engine. In fact, I once hit 5,300 RPM with the needle valve 4 turns open. However, if I lean the engine the engine quickly dies.

When I attempt the old trick of pinching the fuel line to the engine, the engine immediately looses RPM giving me the impression that it is lean. However, I'm not sure if this trick is applicable to such a large glow engine.

Having said all of this, does anyone know if the RPMs I am obtaining are normal for this engine? The manual states the RPM range as 1,000 to 6,000. However, the manual doesn't specify if this is ground RPMs. The manual recommends a 24x12 or a 26x10 prop of which I have tried a 24x12 (2-blade Menz), 23x10 (3-blade Biela) and a 26x10 (2-blade Mejzlick) all with similar results. Is there a possible obstruction in my carburetor or is the tiny carburetor inadequate for this 99cc engine? The carburetor is about the size of a Super Tiger 90 carburetor. Any help would be very much appreciated. (Additional info: I am running 7.5% nitro with 9% full synthetic oil)

Thanks,
Jeremy

Linkan2

Hi Jeremy
try that with less oil mixture type 6 or 7%
Lars

jeremyilj03

My Feedback: (14)

I ran two tanks through the engine today with the fuel containing approximately 7% oil (~6% Nitro). I reached 5,300 RPM on average. My 26x10 Mejzlick resulted in the highest RPMs (~5380). All I can think to do now is take the carburetor off and make sure there are no blockages in the fuel path.

Linkan2

Hi Jeremy
I have 210 flight passes on my 7-35 with 7% oil
Sure I have had problems and those with the carburetor.
If you look back in the history of these engines.
where Maxam writes about the carburetor to 9-99 & 7-77.
I have written about 7-35 when fine carburetor took a fron saito FA120r3.
Lars

Maxam

My Feedback: (62)

Jeremy, the stock carb on the 9-99 is not capable of delivering fuel. Get an OS FF240-320 carb for the pegasus flat four. Due to cam track wear I now will never run less than 10% oil. You will need to make an adapter for the carb to fit the engine. I hope you have a friend with a good metal lathe. -Tom

jeremyilj03

My Feedback: (14)

jeremyilj03

My Feedback: (14)

I tried the recommended O.S. carburetor today and unfortunately it didn't help the engine perform any better (engine continues to run ~ 5100 RPMs). While it did provide more fuel to the engine, I had to adjust the needle valve to 3/4 of a turn open to get the engine to run properly which is an odd setting for a needle valve. Furthermore, the throat on the O.S. carb is significantly smaller than the already small EVO carburetor. Interestingly enough I gave the evolution carburetor a thorough cleaning and can now get the engine to run rich with the stock carburetor. Oh well, only thing left to do now is maiden my Ziroli Dauntless... As long as the engine is reliable I think things will be okay. The Dauntless doesn't need to scream around like a fighter.

okcrcpilot

5100 RPM on the ground does not equate to that same RPM in the air and one must be careful not to let the prop unload in flight. This will result in losing push-rods and/or bent/broken valves. I use a throttle curve and adjust max on-the-ground RPM to less than or equal to 4200 RPM. I have found that this will insure I do not exceed 5200 RPM in the air.

jeremyilj03

My Feedback: (14)

okcrcpilot,

The manual for the EVO 999 states 1,000 - 6,000 RPMs as the engine's RPM range. However, it doesn't say if this is on the ground or in the air. I'm accustomed to picking up a couple hundred extra RPMs in the air (~300). I sure wish someone could tell me the RPMs they are getting out of their EVO 999 and with what prop. I have tried a 24x12, 26x10 and a 23x10 (three-blade), all of which have produced the same RPMs.

Maxam

My Feedback: (62)

Jeremy, I wrote the directions for Horizon for the 7-77 and 9-99. I personally feel 5100 rpm is demonstrating excellent power. I would also never have a ground RPM above 4500. I am amazed you could get the stock carb to run rich unless your oil content is low. Pay attention to the midrange of the OS carb, it is now not overly rich when the full throttle setting is correct. After many years of use and observing wear issues of the cam track I stick with 10% oil.

jeremyilj03

My Feedback: (14)

I finally flew my Ziroli Dauntless with the E999 radial. It sure did sound amazing and the engine is more than enough power for the Dauntless. I'll take your word that it won't and doesn't need to be anywhere near 6,000 rpms on the ground. I've gone back to ~9% oil mixture as well (7.5% nitro). I'm tempted to go to 2.5% nitro (5% nitro fuel mixed 50% with methanol) in the future since I don't need the power and would think this would ensure a long life for the engine. Any thoughts?