av8tor1977

My Feedback: (6)

Ok guys. Thanks again for all the feedback. We'll have fun!

AV8TOR

Dan Vincent

I started out with an Atwood Wasp .049 in 1951, built an all-balsa CL model and couldn't get it off the ground. After that I went to an OK Cub .099, McCoy .098, McCoy 09 diesel, K&B Greenhead .09 and many others.

Most half-A models flew fine with early .09 engines but one of my favorites was the slightly larger Sterling Ringmaster Jr. The McCoy Diesel was a perfect match.

I haven't flown CL for many years but I'm sure the newer schneurle-ported .09 or .10 engines would easily fly older .15 size models.

ffkiwi

I've just dug out the full size plan (which i downloaded a couple of years back from Hippocket and printed out full size-I'm inclined to the view that it will work admirably as a trainer with the Max 10 up front.....BUT I would advise using thicker wood for some parts-I'd suggest 1/4" for the wing and 3/8" for the fuselage.....I really don't like wafer thin wings...

gcb

Hi Dan.

So that Cub .099 started your quest for .09 size engines?

George

Dan Vincent

Hi George,

Yup and then I found the McCoy .098 which started easier, had good power and looked great. I eventually ended up with several hundred .09 engines but sold a bunch of them off on ebay. I still have quite a few but haven't run one in few years now.

Looking back I think the McCoy 09 diesel and K&B Greenheads were probaby my favorites to fly.

My main interest these days is 22 rifles and handguns.

GallopingGhostler

Found an interesting article by Joe Wagner in:

http://www.antiquemodeler.org/sam_ne...sh_2012_10.pdf

Veco made the 32 in wingspan 247 square inch Papoose specifically for the McCoy .098 "9". Performance wasn't sufficient enough for this slightly larger airplane and Veco lost their shirt on the deal, as other engines would not fit as designed and kitted. Joe salvage their situation by his Dakota and another FF plane, which allowed Veco to use up the wood they had stockpiled for the Papoose.

DeBolt designed the 26 inch wingspan 140 square inch All American. One of the engines that fits it is the McCoy "9" on 40 foot lines.

http://www.outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=347

Dan Vincent

There were actually two versions of the "Papoose" I have a plan for the original and a Veco kit for the second one. The second one had a bubble canopy and was shown with a NAVY paint job.

Joe's article mentioned the original trapped glo element head on the original McCoy .098 being a failure but once they went to a conventional plug it was a great engine. Early ones had ringed-pistons and thin "Bump" mounts.

The rings would leak compression and the thin mounts would break. Around 1951 McCoy beefed up the beam mount and went to a lapped piston. These later engines ran great for me.

GallopingGhostler

The A.C. Gilbert .11 side port Thunderhead is similar in power to the original McCoy "09", hence my interest in the earlier designs. The Dumas Papoose would be great for a more powerful .09 or .10 like the modern sport Schneurles, Enya .09 III or IV, and legacy .15's.

Yes, if I were to put the Gilbert in the Papoose would be a poor choice. In the DeBolt All American, it would be a natural.

dennis

My Feedback: (90)

These 2 Jr Ringmasters have been shown a few times before both are powered with an OS10 FP. They are capable of flying the pattern loosely and can use up to 55 feet of 012 lines. They are not new, the one with the yellow tissue being about 10 years old and the red Ultrakote about 5/or 6. They are capable of flying any of the old 15 sized models from the 50/60's with ease. Your problem is getting a decent needle valve assembly and venturi.. The venturi can be obtained from lee machine shop and Pat King designs kits the Ringmaster jr

ffkiwi

I will shortly be able to answer the question on how well the 'Too Up' flies on an OS Max 10FSR as I've nearly finished the model. I'm awaiting some .012 wire to arrive but can try it on .015 x 52' combat lines initially. Being by nature suspicious ;-) ....I've spaced the bearers a bit wider than the .10 requires-to allow fitting a .15 glow or diesel (both of which I have in abundance) should the 10 FSR prove inadequate. I'm quite looking forward to its maiden flight, as I expect it will prove to be an excellent C/L trainer-and since it has a very stunt like profile in plan outline I imagine that with a symmetrical wing section (as built it is flat bottomed) it might perform quite well as an entry level stunter. [Not being familiar with Price-Rite Engineering's model range (they've been out of the model business for some time-about 20 years or so) it is quite conceivable that the same basic layout might have been used for both a trainer, a racer and a stunt model-with suitable changes to power plant, wing section and control movement-that would certainly make good design and production economics sense...] Just a few days more work required-still have to bend up the undercarriage, then assemble and cover.....note it is scratch built-I only had the kit plan to go by, which as usual with kit plans doesn't show all the needed info to complete-I don't have access to the kit instructions-nor any info on whether any parts were preshaped-such as wing and tail components, fuselage, doublers etc. This one was built the hard way, marked out and cut by hand. The only notable deviation from the plan is the fuselage is laminated from strip, rather than from a single piece of 3/8" sheet. This of course allows the judicious insertion of a decent spruce strip spine. The undercarriage wheel spacing I'll just have to guess at.....or guesstimate by extrapolation/interpolation from similar designs....




ChrisM
'ffkiwi'

ffkiwi

Well I can now report that the 'Too up' had its maiden flight yesterday (it's taken a while-see the date of the post immediately above!)and despite my misgivings about whether the OS Max10 FSR would have enough power, I am pleased to report that it flies like a dream on 52-ft .012 lines-rock steady and with plenty of line tension, on a 5% nitro mix and a Kavan 7x4 nylon prop....so my hopes for it have been fully confirmed. Hopefully after I've given it a good sort out (I didn't fly it on its maiden I left that to one of our better stunt fliers) and explored its performance envelope a bit, it can do duty as our club C/L trainer. Nice and quiet too-even compared with the PAw 149 and 249 models we also flew yesterday. As you can see in the pics below, its proportions seem to be those of a stunt model rather than a trainer-did Pricerite Engineering (who were the original kit manufacturers) also do a stunt model based on the same planform? No doubt one of our Australian members can provide an answer

.

ChrisM
'ffkiwi'

Dan Vincent

I loved flying my .09's in CL models. You'll be surprised at how good they really are.

Have fun.

fiery

My Feedback: (2)

Here is a lovely little ship very adequately powered by a PAW 149. Wish I could build like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ0dKEDbPBs

jaka

Hi!
The ABN FP .10 and LA .10 is more powerful than the old FSR .10 engine.
A 60-70cm slab-sided /wing balsa model would be suitable for the OS. FP/LA/FSR .10 and a suitable prop either a 7x4, 7x5 or 8x3 APC prop.

ffkiwi

I'm going to challenge you on this Jan Karlsson-I think you're wrong-simple as that! There is no published engine test (at least in english) showing the 10FP or 10LA are more powerful than the FSR-and the OS website rates both the latter at 0.27 BHP-the same as delivered by the 10FSR-for which there is extensive published test data. Both the FP and LA are ABN fine-but that is a cheaper technology to manufacture-not a performance enhancing trait in its own right.The 10FSR was an expensive engine to manufacture. The FP and LA ranges represent a lower cost solution to production not necessarily a performance improvement over the preceding models (in fact there is a reduction in performance in some displacements between the LA and FP models-the LAs lacking the 3rd boost port in some sizes. I would like to see some BHP curves before I accept your assertion-simple comparative rpm figures aren't enough-given engine to engine variation-and the possibility that the succeeding10 FP and LA 10 models may peak at a different rpm to the 10FSR. Show me a table of rpm figures from all 3 versions on a range of standard props (preferably APC whose torque absorption coefficients are known), on the same day -on the same fuel, and we have the basis for a comparative assessment....

ChrisM
'ffkiwi'

aspeed

Cool, now I know what the Ja Ka means. I'll throw in some results for the LA .10, TD .09, AP .09. I used the 7-4 MA prop, NO muffler and 10% nitro. The 7-4 is the recommended one, and I agree with that. Different prop brands, I don't know. With the .15s that I tested, I noticed the LA outperformed the previous FP by a slight margin, and was lighter, probably because of the cost saving on the 4 bolt head and plastic backplate. I found the .10 had a very thick head gasket, and I switched it out to a .005" one that I had to make up, as it was too much head space, and was almost hitting without one. AP .09 16,900 rpm (18,200 with a turbo head) 12,800 with a 7-5 MA. The AP muffler was quite a bit slower, and I opened it up with a much large stinger at 6mm. It helped a lot on the .09 but even more on the AP .15. OS FP .10 17,200 and OS la .10 17,500. ( 18,100 with a turbo head and 16,200 with muffler, and 17,000 with an opened muffler. The Picco .12 I checked with a 7-5 prop and it was 18,300 and 22,000 with an Ucktam pipe and a 4mm venturi size. The standard Cox TD .09 was 16,400 with a 7-4. I think it was a bit skinnier than the other 7-4 I did the other tests on. I wish I had an older FSR .10 to test. Maybe someone else can test with the same prop and fuel. I found the older pre schnuerle .15 was almost a match for the FP. Pretty good really. Lots of windy days I like to go out and make some noise and test stuff. I write everything down because I forget. :-) I wish I had APC props to test as they are all the same, and I noticed MA props have different widths on different series. I use them mostly though because they spit the ground away better than the brittle APC, and are easier to find around here.

GallopingGhostler

Been mostly lurking, enjoyed reading the discussion here. Out of curiosity I went to http://www.sceptreflight.net/Model%20Engine%20Tests/ . Yes, there is not much info for comparison. FSR in larger sizes like the .40 were considerably more powerful, but then were ball bearing crank supported. .40 FP timing was milder, to swing larger props slower for good sport performance. CL guys like the FP and LA, some have actually gotten them to do rich 4 cycling to lean 2 cycling in maneuvers.

Seems the OS Max .10 FSR according to Peter Chinn was a decent beast, considerably more powerful than the cross scavenged engines of the day. Speaking of oddities, I've got 2 odd cross scavenged Fuji .099S-II engines, which are ABC. It was produced during the downturn of the Fuji Corporation. An internal copy of the Enya .09-IV TV, it's lower compression afford slightly less in power, probably akin to the 1966 OS Max .10R/C. As stated, back then one would opt for the OS Max .15R/C for roughly equivalent power to the more modern Schneurle .10's. Anyway, I'm deviating a little off topic.

Enjoy the topic, keep these small engine discussion going.

Mr Cox

That is an interesting battle between .10 engines, and I would like to give some of my own experiences with the FSR and FP.

The FSR is a little low on the compression ratio for the fuels that we are used too, i.e. no more than 10% nitro. The FP on the other hand seems to be set up for about 10% nitro, so a direct battle is not so easy to do actually...

I one removes about a head shims distance from the head (on a lathe) on the FSR engine it will improve on 10% and actually match the FP on an APC 7x4 prop. That is assuming that both engines have their stock mufflers (the FSR one is less restrictive without a baffle). Here are some numbers on an APC 7x4 prop and their respective stock mufflers (and 20% all castor fuel):

.10 FSR, 0% Nitro: 14800rpm
.10 FSR, 10% Nitro: 15300rpm
.10 FSR, 10% Nitro, higher compression ratio: 15800rpm

.10 FP, 10% Nitro: 15800rpm.

The FP with stock muffler is also about 1/2oz heavier, so the FSR would win in terms of power/weight ratio.


Here is also my latest build for an OS .10 FSR engine;

ffkiwi

I'll try and generate some figures of my own this coming weekend-but it will be utterly weather dependent! (and the weather this week has been pretty appalling!) -I have an FSR and an FP in the inventory-and I can also contribute a Magnum 10 plus an original Max 10 to the series. APC props so we have a common basis for comparison. BTW -nice model Mr Cox.........!

ChrisM
'ffkiwi'


PS Is it feasible for you guys to test in open exhaust condition? This at least removes one other variable-the muffler effect.

aspeed

I did all of mine with no muffler. I have a T Tiger .10 around somewhere but can't seem to find any numbers for it. I may have to check it over again. It was very disappointing in the air. It would barely take off on the field, but was fine with the FP that I used later. Full size servos were some of the problem, but it was pretty slow. Of course when the stronger motor was used, the wing folded up. Years later though.

ffkiwi

A quick trawl of the 'net found a pdf of the Magnum GP10 instruction manual.......which amongst other things.....rates it at 0.27HP-exactly the same as the FP and LA.......interestingly the Magnum box is labelled " 10/GP ABC-R/C Schneurle" on the small label on the side and 'GP ABC' in large letters on the lid........on stripping the engine I can find no evidence at all that it IS ABC....which suggests that Magnum were telling fibs.....and used ABC as a buzzword-or that it's not ABC but ABN or one of the other less durable variants. I've never in all my years encountered an ABC or AAC liner that was plated on every single surface-you can usually see brass or aluminium on the outside and often on the flange or rim. This motor is one I picked up on Ebay at least 15 years ago-and is unrun (confirmed by internal inspection)-but not unmounted.... by the previous owner. I have never run it, so we will have a new GP 10 to test along with a new FP and a fairly new FSR. I don't own any LA's. As regards the Magnum 10 I do note the manual is a generic one covering the 10GP through to the 44GP models......it may well be that the larger ones ARE true ABC.... my GP10 has the 'old' style 'straight' carb not the angled NVA version-so is probably mid to late 90s era. 'KW' is stamped on the underside of the left lug-this may be a batch number-as used by OS or simply done by a previous owner-the letters are a little larger than I would associate with a typical batch number designator....[FWIW the FP10-also unrun- has the batch identifier 'GD' stamped on the underside of the right lug]

ChrisM
'ffkiwi'

Mr Cox

I think TT couldn't be honest and had to call their engines ABC too, since that's what OS used at the time. OS then later "explained" they had meant "ABC-technology" but had to shorten the text on the box...

TT somehow managed to mess up the timings on the .10 engine. The exhaust and transfer timings are a little on the "timid" side (at 145° and 113°, respectively) but the boost port is only open for about 60° (!).

aspeed

Does the Magnum .10 say where it was made?. It may just be T Tiger if it was made in Taiwan. Without checking I think I had some Magnums from Taiwan.

GallopingGhostler

Don't know about the latest, but my earlier plain bearing TT .15GP, .25GP and later early GP-07 instructions state made in Taiwan. Both the .15 and .25 look like copies of the OS FSR series. Haven't put the .25 to use yet, but the .15GP seems a decent engine, hauls sport RC aircraft of 45 inch (1,150 mm) wingspan with authority at my 4,300 feet (1,311 m) elevation. I can't tell you whether it is hard nickel plate or chrome, but so far haven't had problems with plating flaking off. I might convert the .25 to CL use with a custom aftermarket venturi for powering legacy .35 cross scavenge CL planes.

aspeed

I am not a fan of TT. The .10 and .15 are slowest of my stack. The .15 is interesting in the fact there is a window in the piston. My .07s (3) all have too much play in the crank to case fit, and don't run steady unless you use a lot of oil and nitro. With a new turbo head 2 of them are actually quite good, but the other is a dud. I have a Magnum Pro .28 that is really a renamed TTIger. The crank was too tight of a clearance. It would run quite good, heat up and be quite irritable until cooled off. The crankcase was very hot to touch. After freeing up the crank by polishing, it is running like crazy now and throttles good too. No problems flaking on any of them. Only a used OS SX .32 Heli motor of unknown origins out of my stack had the flaking so far.