142088

I am returning to R/C after 25 years.
I currently fly wooden sailpalnes and a 40 Sport trainer.

I used a K & B 61 and was well satisfied with it. It lasted thru 3 planes and was sold in working order when I quit in 1991.
This Cub kit is about to be built. (the anniversary kit)

I want to buy the engine before I start it and I would like to spend my money when I can to individuals and small businesses rather than corporate firms when I can.
I fly sport and have no need or desire to go as fast as the aircraft/airframe would allow. It is a Cub fer pete's sake.
Reliability is my goal not rpm.
Please folks any advise would be appreciated.
I Thank Y'all Kindly
142088

142088

706jim

Your K&B will be fine so long as the bearings are not rusted. It will have plenty of power to fly your Cub.

Sport_Pilot

Well I would recommend buying the engine before starting it. You might have a bit of trouble starting it before buying it, and even more trouble if you steal it before starting it!

Do you need to know were to buy one? You could buy one from Mecoa if they ever make them again. https://shop.mecoa.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=22 You can buy the Twister and Sportster engines right now and for less than the list on the .61.

If its the fact that its American made that you like, a better engine from a company that will give you better service is Fox. In fact if you have an old worn out engine sitting around you can trade it in for half price.

http://www.foxmanufacturing.com/inde...62f4eb445ef1f6

142088

Thanks All.
I intend to buy a new 61 from Mr. Lee directly per the ad in MAN.
Given the way the one I had ran and lasted it is cheap at the price.
I wondered if the new ones fromMr. Lee are like in durability and so forth.
I guess they are from everyone's comments.
I have a high opinion of Mr. Lee dating from 78 and RCM columns.
Without RCM I never would have tried R/C, I had no instructor and only C/L experience.
Sadly MAN seems to be mostly ARF RTF review oriented now, I won't renew that subscritpion.
Flying Models will get the nod.
I do kits and scratch build, I prefer it and learn more than from buying somebody else's airframe.
Last winter I scratch built Ken Bates' Windlord wing and I really enjoy it.
Thank the Master that someone still provides plans. AMA and RCM are thanked here and now.
I miss Model Builder and RCM very much.
Again thank all folks that replied or will reply.
142088

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

Wish I'd seen this sooner. If you haven't made the order, I'd suggest a 4-stroke engine. A Cub with a squalling 2-stroke on its nose just isn't a Cub to me.

CR

142088

Agreed.
I would prefer a 4 stroke.

But dollars are dollars. $130 for a K & B 61 wins over a 300 dollar 4 stroke.
They do sound neat in low and slow birds but that is life.
My first full scale airplane ride was a J-3 at age 4 and I do remember it vividly.
I fell in love with the sky right then. And a commercial ride in a Connie hooked me forever in '59.

Those of us on fixed incomes have choices to be made.
Moreover these days of bailouts for the damned 1%.
Poor folks have poor ways.
Even when I could afford anything in R/C I still limited the hobby.
The most shocking thing I found upon return was the paucity of kits available.
I built from scratch in 2007 and bought a Bird of Time kit.
What no Sagitta kit? OMG.

Now the board has another scratch sailplane floater woody I have to finish
and then scratch build of Lee Renaud's Sagitta 900
I wish Airtronics still made that kit. A wonderful aircraft.
Or maybe the Cub will be built first.

It is the time to fly not build, repair maybe, hopefully not.

How much engineering does one learn or apply from ARF RTF and etc?
I can understand if lung issues hinder using glues, paints etc.
Just not my way. Not yet anyway.

Satisfaction is the reward to me. Enjoyment when asked what kit is that?
Thanks again I have rambled and ranted more than long enough.
142088
waxing nostalgic again
A Windrifter riding up - that's flying. Gemini? Aquila?

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

I have been in the past a prolific user of various K&B eingines .40's, 61's, Screaming 48's and even a pair of the last ditch Screwhead .61's also known as the Twisters. I don't beleve I was ever disappointed in any of them for the times.

However most are gone now and I have discovered a marvelous new line of two strokes (which I love and get a lot of grief for recomending them over a four stroke in many instances). That line of engines are most of the OS AX's and the perfect one four your Cub is this one:

http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...55AX&search=Go

Just last week I tested a Goldberg Cub with that engine which I recommeded to the fellow. It is a wonderful combination. These AX's are simply the most user friendly two strokes ever with plenty of power.

By the way welcome back to the Hobby/Sport/Passion.

John

Tarasdad

Buy it, you'll love it.

142088

Interesting. And informative. I owe you all a nod and thanks.

OS engines I have used in the 1980s with also complete satisfaction.
Sig 71" Cub w/ OS 35 was more than enough power. Way more. One of those dumb "I had the engine already" ideas. It did fine on a Kadet. Doh.
Do not jump open the throttle on the runway unless you intend to drag a tip and ground loop it.
Let it roll get the tail up and let it establish response then just a little more. Taste of rudder to keep it on the CL.

A 52" scratch designed/built Zero with an OS 20 was a better match except for the balsa cowl.
Nobody had a kit I liked. A not so dumb idea helped along by Mr.Chuck Cunningham's and Mr.Ken Willard's articles.
I don't recall the series for either engine but both were 'sport' versions of some nature. (FS FX ?) memory fails me.

The K&B 61 started out in a Bipe Skylark I bought from a flying friend and then a Top Flite P-51B and then ah I forget.
I sold everything in 1991. Dumb Move. No a really dumb move. Should have listened to my Pop.

One and all, when and if you ever take a break lube the engines up and pack it all away. No joke folks.
I might have even been "good" at it by now.
Knives and incidence meters and control deflection meters cost a whole lot more now.

Ah man the memories are worth every minute of effort though.
Like an informal loop on final right before touchdown competition I had with a friend inSailplanes, that one I "won".
Not as brave as my friend.
But it was fun in the middle of an alfalfa patch.
Or "lets see what happens when we tie both histarts together. Oh man I didn't hook up the spoilers!"

In that the OS 55 AX is only very slightly more cost than the K and B 61 this will get much thoughtful consideration.
Two recommendations are hard to not give due time.
Parts availability is important also! very much so.
This answers the real thing I was asking but not getting into words. A common issue'fer' me.
John Thanks a BUNCH also for the link to data.

And thanks for the welcome back.
Model Airplane folks are some of the best people I have ever known anywhere.

Also I want to thank Tarasdad.
Hope to meet some of you folks at the Nats (I watch the real stick jockeys).
There is no more rewarding hobby than flying models except flying full scale and it is way too expensive now.
142088

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Hey fourteentwentyeightyeight If this is important to you spending that thirty bucks on the modern engine is a better bet.

As much as I love the AX's there is one that I would avoid and that is the .46AX. This is not because its a bad engine its actually a fine engine however it does not have the new carb system that needs no remote needle valve (look at the picture) and it uses an entirely different midrange system. This I beleve is what makes the AX so much better than the previous FX series. The .46 being the first to hit the market it used the older conventional double needle type carb.

Throttling is much improved and I,ve never had a dead stick with an AX. I think I am up to eight now and mulling over ordering another pair for a new project and can,t decide yet between the .65 and the 75AX's.

One curious point is the .35AX is averaging about five to ten bucks cheaper than the .25AX 'Go Figure'.

Here is a vidio a couple years ago with my Senior Kaydet that I put together specifically for training my students and it has a little old .35AX and remember this is an eighty inch airplane and more bulky than your Cub. It might answer your power questions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-ipvqIs8C8&feature=plcp


John

142088

John,
WOW.
I am impressed. Senorita more than proves the point.
AX data noted and I WILL buy the 55AX engine.
OShas a reputation for a reason.
The only thing I have qualms about is the nylon back plate on the other series LA.
I avoided those even back in the day.

I note that the tower 40 trainer I inherited from my Father is powered by the .46 AX. It is a keepsake and I haven't flown it. He is passed.

All three of his sons got one such keepsake. A WACO (OS4 stroke) a Cub (OS AX) and the Tower 40 all ARFs he finished.
I wish I had been active again before he passed, but I figure he watches now.
I fly a Malibu 40 kit he asked me to finish with a Magnum XL 32AII. He knew better than I how much I wanted to fly again.
The glue and such he couldn't go so the ARFs RTFs were there for him, electrics were a bust and rip off by Salesmen for him.
Ethics of the commissions.
Neither one of 2 flew but crashed well. I couldn't help as I knew nothing of them.
Underpowered and gear reduced junk is what they turned out to be.
He was an electrician by trade and figured neither had "the poop" to fly before trying.
Where was the local hobby shop when you need it?

It was the Sailplanes that drew me back in. Sadly after he passed.
I know he would have all three sons FLY his airplanes, but the loss is too fresh in heart.
So the Malibu is OK by me. It feels like my airplane because I finished it.
It flys like a Kadet 2 I had.
3 wood Sailplanes and the Malibu is the fleet now.
The Malibu 40 got me back into power planes.
Oh and the Senorita is impressive and the Stearman is Beautiful and Sweet.
Kudos to you
and Thanks

turbo.gst

My Feedback: (8)

While considering parts availability for a new engine, look at cost. I don't see a ABC/ ABN/ ABL engine as a cost effective rebuild. You can keep a ringed engine going ( ring & bearings) for less than $20. The Lee Custom is ringed and parts are avialble through Mecoa. Rings are also available through Frank Bowman and bearings from several sources.

With that being said, I have an OS 55AX and several K&B / Lee Custom 61's. I like both of them. If noise is a concern, the OS will win hands down. The Lee Custom is loud ( Modified Muffler) and a replacement will easily cost more than $30.

I have a sentimental / nostalgia connection to the Lee Custom engines. I have some NIB K&B / Lee Custom engine that are 20 years plus that parts are still available for. I have some OS Fsr/ SF/ FP engines NIB( same age or newer) that you can't get parts for.

Sport_Pilot

The K&B .61 is out of production and is showing a full retail price. Th OS price in tower is discounted. If the original K&B .61 is made again it will likely cost about the same as the Trister or slightly over $100.

Or is this compared to Mr. Lee's cost which is unknown to me right now?

IMO I would still go for a Fox. .74.

blvdbuzzard

I have had the same Cub with a K&B .65, K&B .61, Super Tigre 45, O.S. 70fs, O.S. .48fs. The one I liked the best was the four strokes. If I pull my crashed one down and rebuild it, I will use a Magnum .70 in the nose.

I have a handful of K&B's still in my planes. I enjoy the .28 Super Sortster in my old Jet Fire 20.

http://www.hobbypeople.net/index.php...ke-engine.html

It would fly on this little motor. It would not be a rocket by any stretch, but if I flew mine with a .48, this should also fly it.

http://www.hobbypeople.net/index.php...g7lsmtktphoem7

Buzz.

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

Here's a 4-stroke that will fly it and doesn't cost more than the OS .55 AX. We have lots of Magnums in our club and they perform quite well. I have this engine.

http://www.hobbypeople.net/index.php...ke-engine.html

CR

Edit: It happens that Hobby People is having a sale this weekend.

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

SP the hundred and thirty bucks the op mentioned for the K&B .61 is not from Mecoa and has nothing to due with their pricing. It is I beleve what C. Lee charges for his Custom modified version of that engine and as the orginal designer I am sure its probably is an improvement.

I think you can even send your own .61 in for his mods.

My opinion of course still lies with the .55 AX particularly for the OP as a returnee. It makes much more sense that is unless he is a motorhead (and thats fine) and simply has to have something rare or exotic. I do some rare and exotics also but I find most returnees are really looking for the most user friendly engines possible and that is the AX line in my opinion.

I have had many returnees show up with all manner of old engines that are not in their best interest and I sure you have seen this too. Which always seems to end up one struggle after the other. Its even noticible in these forums at times.

Also although I do have some four strokes, I prefer using two strokes for many missions but feel the mission of the 'returnee's journey back into the sport' is much smoother with a modern two stroke.

John

energyman

My Feedback: (2)

I bought two new Clarence Lee 61s last year, one was the twister, and one was the traditional 61. Both were supplied with the new muffler that has a baffle, and is quieter than the old one piece muffler. The price was $125-130 each. I also sent Mr. Lee a Veco 61 and a K&B 61 to be modified. As I recall, the cost for these was approximately $30 each.

As mentioned, the new engines have the new baffled muffler as well as the metal K&B carb. If you send him an older engine to modify, he does the work and returns it with whatever carb and muffler that was on it originally unless you specify otherwise and choose to pay for new parts. I have been very satisfied with the engines that I have run to date. They are very user friendly with good power. Good luck with your choice.

Energyman

Tarasdad

If you haven't bought he .61 yet give serious consideration to the Magnum .70 linked above. They're great engines and a perfect fit for the Goldberg Cub. My Saito .80 used to live in one. At 1/3 throttle that Cub was a beautiful thing to see, puttering along with a wonderful 4-cycle grumble. Open the throttle up and it was an absolute blast, doing hings no Cub should be able to do! The Magnum won't be quite as powerful but will still give you all the power you could ask for.

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

I suspect you're selling the "returnees" short. Likewise the current crop of engines.

CR

142088

Gentlemen,
Let me thank you ALL. I really appreciate all advise and know the spirit all of it is intended.
I surely do wish this kind of community had been around in 1981 when I started.
Thank You all,
Also I did not know of 4 strokes so inexpensive as the ones note above. WoW.

I am no gearhead as per glow engines but I built a few mouse motors in the 1970s. A not exactly applicable thing.
I know the truth of Duke Fox's thing about keep 'em clean and never lean.

a couple of years ago I tried in vain to stop a R/C car jockey from leaning out his engine so far.
I watched helpless as he fried his motor shortly after rejecting my input with the reply
"But look! Its doing wheelies now. And you fly planes."
No exhaust mist had to be too lean I thought and the fuel was airplane fuel not car fuel. Hey I tried.
Sure enough the book wanted a much richer mix, 2 MORE turns if I recall correctly. This individual checked the book after wrecking the motor.

I only know to keep the breakin slobbery rich at first and try to feel the engine being ready for a little less fuel in the mix.
A gallon or so of fuel later it should be ready to go into the airframe.
Suppose a tach and temp gauge are both in order to be bought too.

I follow whatever the manufacturer says to do. The engineers usually know better than I do.
Like breaking a new cam in a 350 Chevy.
Read the flipping book first man. See what Ed Isky says to do. Back in the days of a real 400 hp streeter anyway.
Keep the rpm up for a hour or two and the engine will let you know when all the molecules get friendly for those bygone cheap hi octane gas.
10:1 compression was a big difference and life used to begin at 140 mph - real mph not speedo lies.

My reasoning is that the manufacturer is acting in their best interest to guide the customer to successful break in and long life for their engines.
It make sense to me to use the fuel and glow plug they specify and follow the methods they recommend.
The engines I have now were broken in that way and all still do fine. Granted I don't fly as much as I used to do. (a .10 and .32. Magnums inherited from my Father)

I suppose a very good investment would be to buy Mr. Lee's and/or the MAN books on R/C engines before I go much deeper.
Knowledge is power.
As for my budget this month it is shot in the rear buying 2 mini servos for the Sagitta 900's spoilers and etc. Auto plates and property taxes finished off the expendable $$$ for now.
I hope there will be more like sales above next month.
142088
aka Jim

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Sorry Charley I will not engage further but we all have a right to our opinions and indeed that is exactly what forums such as this are for with the OP's seeking those opinions perhaps even those that may conflict with yours.

And my opinion remains the best possible engine for the OP and his airplane, that is the combo I just last week did a maiden and testing of is the OS 55AX and by the way How can you not consider any of the AX's "Not the Current Crop" or how can I be "selling it short" by recommending one?

I am still confused Charley why you PM'd me with a link to your favorite four stroke, I suspect you never really paid much attention to my previous posts in this thread or who said what anyway.

John

142088

Gentlemen,
Come on now,

I hold this to be true: I may not agree with any opinion but I will fight to the death to defend your right to hold your opinion even if I don't agree with that opinion.
The last thing I expected when I posed this original question was any point of contention. No need for that.
I do favor a sport 2 cycle engine because I have some limited experience with those.

Disagree or agree that is not the issue, advise asked and advise given is the issue.
I have been informed and that is all I wanted.
I can make a more informed choice now.
I learned about 4 cycle airplane engines being cheaper than I had imagined. In the day (80s) they were expensive. Very much so.
I learned that OS still makes good engines but some cylinder peel the sleeve lining on cheaper/older series (from another thread here).
I learned that Mr.Lee does fine work on his engines,
and I may buy a used K & B 61 (metal carb) I saw in a local hobby shop for him to recondition, the price is right,
and I may also buy the OS 55AX for the next project. Most assuredly there will be other new projects some successful and some not.
Just another great though painful part of this hobby.

Now that Sig is back in business I can't think of any better than a "my scale" conversion from J-3 to the Taylor Cub and 4-stroke for putting around as the 60 hp plane did.
Contests are not my thing, neither is impressing anyone.
This hobby is fun and it should stay fun.
I am here to learn and listen not promote disagreements.
No one sold me as a returnee short, IMHO.
As for the engines let me fly a season or two and then my opinion maybe valid and I might try to help a returnee with a power plant choice.

In the absence of the local hobby shop owner and informal meetings at the shop this forum and those like it have a huge void to fill.
Where did the next generation of shop owners go?
No one took up Dale's and Tom's and Barb's etc. places,
they were replaced if replaced at all by owners only interested in dollars to my view.
So the "mail" order houses filled the gap. In the days of COD.

Local shops of stripped inventory and no local informal meetings that I know of any more.
The point is that these i'net informal meetings need to take that role or the hobby will continue to decline.

What if the Wright patriarch hadn't bought his sons the toy helicopter from a "toy store"?
What if D.Douglas and Dutch Kindleburger hadn't been fooling around with FF balsa "toys" in youth?
No doubt some other American that fell in love with the sky would have flown and wanted to do more with the knowledge.
We all can encourage and assist each other as opposed to anything else.
Hell, I grew up thinking I wanted to be John Glenn. I wanted to go to Mars.
Above all I wanted to fly.
FF silk covered wire-framed rubber powered airplanes were the RTF of my youth.
But it was a start and a way to learn trimming the thing.
I would love to find one of those 'made in Japan' planes now just to hang over my building board. Thanks again Pop.
It would cost more than a dime now, eh?

If anyone knows of a non corporate hobby shop in the Indy South or Southwest area I would really like to know.
142088

David Bathe

I have to agree with the two stroke Idea.
I'm a great 4 stroke fan but for those starting/getting back after a couple of decades... a simple 2 banger is the way.
I'd even question the CUB. Cute and fun... mine is, but there are many far better "lets get you back in the grove" models out there that are simpler to handel, deal with the wind better etc etc. Any decent sized high/mid wing trainer (with the wing built flat) would work far better IMO.
Forget scale/cowls/tail draggers/ or what ever. Just get a decent intermediate trainer with tricycle UC and a cheap 40-60 2 stroke and burn some hours. The quirky thing about a Cub is that it flys like a Cub... and nothing else! I'd go for something that flys/ takes off/ lands (and just about everything else)... in a far more general manner.
Keep everything simple... theres less to go wrong or scratch you head over.

142088

Mr. Bathe,
Greetings and thanks,
please keep up the help.
Yes the Cub is not a great choice for a first trainer. Near total lack of dihedral I suspect affects so called stability. Is there such a thing really?

I am flying a Midwest Malibu 40 (kit) with a Magnum 32 in it now. It is a high wing trainer of 4 ch that I fly on 72 freqs.
I also try to keep the thumbs tuned with the GP RealFlite Sim over the winter. It is my opinion that it helped some in the opening of the season this year as opposed to last year. The TX in the box matches with the ones I use.

 Eighty percent of my flying is R/C Sailplanes with no engine at all. All of them Woodies, the only ones I can afford. For Sailplanes I am a purist. Power would take the challenge out of it. Anyone can buzz up to speck altitude and fly around.
Flying Sailplanes will always be my favorite. Most of my flying will always be of the old thermal duration kind as promoted by the LSF.
I can't bear to dork landings on purpose.It goes against my grain. I break things enough without that. So contests don't play for me except watching the Nats in Muncie.
Flying thermal duration in the country fields is the only way I had as that was where I lived then.
This led to a habit of taking a landing where ever I can get it. Walking beats epoxy as John Beech said. Can't go around again in a real Sailplane.

Also of note is that 90 percent of my flying has been not at "club fields" because I can't find a Soaring club as yet.
Power planes clubs have no room for Sailplanes usually. The launch system is the issue most often. One in particular or members there of were ***holes about Sailplanes circa 1985. Who needs the BS? Not me. All I had done was ask.
I never joined that club, not even to fly the half dozen power planes I had built and flown then. Dollars lost to them. They are gone now, little surprise to me.

I was a AMA member from 1984 to 88 or so, now since 2008.
I hear rumors of Sailplane pilots flying in the area but haven't been able to make contact, therefore I soar in the country many miles away from my inner city home alone. And fly the Malibu alone also.
Alone is not the best idea and others can catch a bad servo or hinge coming loose and etc that I missed on pre-flight.
I will be joining a local club this summer Indy South R/C most likely. Both for instruction and common participation and I hope Sailplane soaring too. I can help mow too. Besides I already wear their T-shirts and have met a few members.
Best Regards
142088