Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
06-13-2006, 01:47 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
Well,
for only 85$,i think this is a very competitive engine!!!
So,
anyone that owns one of these candies?
Any impressions?
[link=http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXUR77&P=7]Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine[/link]
for only 85$,i think this is a very competitive engine!!!
So,
anyone that owns one of these candies?
Any impressions?
[link=http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXUR77&P=7]Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine[/link]
06-13-2006, 04:58 AM
#2
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Enid,
OK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
I've got 2 of the TH 75's, and happy with them. The size and weight of the 75 is virtually the same as the 61, as far as I can tell.
Clint [8D]
Clint [8D]
06-13-2006, 07:29 AM
#4
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
Do a search. I think you will find that they are extremely powerfull, and will out preform engines costing twice as much from OS.
Kostas,
I think you have even posted in threads about the .75. The .75 is just a little more money(same case) than the .61. These engines really turn out the power. My .75 in my GP Shoestring turns an 12-8 APC @ 11,400 richened for flight running on WC 10% with a Bisson Pitts muffler. I could not ask more any better perfromance, or handling characteristics. I have never ever had a dead stick (3 gallons so far) with this engine. I get questioned about the engine every day I fly the plane. Just sunday, I was asked if I had a 1.20 in the plane, I just turned to them and said no, just a $90.00 TH .75. They just scratch there head and walk away.
Kostas,
I think you have even posted in threads about the .75. The .75 is just a little more money(same case) than the .61. These engines really turn out the power. My .75 in my GP Shoestring turns an 12-8 APC @ 11,400 richened for flight running on WC 10% with a Bisson Pitts muffler. I could not ask more any better perfromance, or handling characteristics. I have never ever had a dead stick (3 gallons so far) with this engine. I get questioned about the engine every day I fly the plane. Just sunday, I was asked if I had a 1.20 in the plane, I just turned to them and said no, just a $90.00 TH .75. They just scratch there head and walk away.
06-13-2006, 07:48 AM
#5
Thread Starter
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
Well,
hehe
that's good to hear.
But,
i think the 75 will be a bit large for my Tower Uproar 40 kit.
Also,
i can only setup a 10 oz. tank.
So running time won't be much
That's why i asked for the 61 ( more power that a 46 ).
hehe
that's good to hear.
But,
i think the 75 will be a bit large for my Tower Uproar 40 kit.
Also,
i can only setup a 10 oz. tank.
So running time won't be much
That's why i asked for the 61 ( more power that a 46 ).
06-13-2006, 08:18 AM
#6
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
The tank that came with the Shoestring is 14 oz's. When I land, I allways have about 3 or 4 oz's left. The .75 seams to be very gentle on the tank. I think you could easily fly for 10 minutes on a light plane with a .75.
06-13-2006, 09:08 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Madrid, SPAIN
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
TH .75, tank size: 14 oz, fly time 15 min. There remain enought fuel for several minutes more.
I think 10 oz tank will be OK for 10 minute´s flights.
I think 10 oz tank will be OK for 10 minute´s flights.
06-13-2006, 09:32 AM
#9
Senior Member
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
Kostas,
Your Uproar needs a .40-.53 size engine. Any strong .40 will hover this model.
Most .61 engines, the Tower included, weigh 4+ ounces more.
Adding nose-weight requires adding tail-weight to balance, or extensive nose modifications, to preclude this need.
Only a .61+ engine that weighs 14-15 ounces can successfully substitute a .40-.53.
Some possibles are Webra #1024 and K&B Twister.
Heavy 3-D planes fly like anvils and don't maneuver well.
If you bothered and bought a 3-D plane, you don't want a heavy .61 in it, believe me...
Your Uproar needs a .40-.53 size engine. Any strong .40 will hover this model.
Most .61 engines, the Tower included, weigh 4+ ounces more.
Adding nose-weight requires adding tail-weight to balance, or extensive nose modifications, to preclude this need.
Only a .61+ engine that weighs 14-15 ounces can successfully substitute a .40-.53.
Some possibles are Webra #1024 and K&B Twister.
Heavy 3-D planes fly like anvils and don't maneuver well.
If you bothered and bought a 3-D plane, you don't want a heavy .61 in it, believe me...
06-13-2006, 10:38 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waterford,
PA
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
I use this TH61 in my 4*60 bought for something else and so why not use it. It pulls the star around with ease of course I may step up to the TH75 later. As for the TH61 it’s sweet, starts easy an Iam still breakin in and on third year Hee hee. The sound of TH muffler gets everyone’s ears at the field they come over an check it out. 12x6 prop APC is just over 10,000… 10% SIG champion on the rich side no dead sticks or and problems as to any negative comments.
Rich
Rich
06-14-2006, 03:28 AM
#12
Thread Starter
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
Hei,
10.000 with a 12x6?
Isn't it a bit low?
Even in the rich side.
Dar,
maybe you are right!
But,
it's not only hovering,it's from the view of how much power you need to pull out easily.
I think that even a 50 size engine,
won't be so strong to pull out easily.
Maybe a 60?????
Am,
also,for the extra weight,
don't think that i am a 3d guy.
Actually,
i am a sport flier.
But i would like to learn some extreme LOL maneuvres with my Uproar.
Enjoy.
Kostas
10.000 with a 12x6?
Isn't it a bit low?
Even in the rich side.
Dar,
maybe you are right!
But,
it's not only hovering,it's from the view of how much power you need to pull out easily.
I think that even a 50 size engine,
won't be so strong to pull out easily.
Maybe a 60?????
Am,
also,for the extra weight,
don't think that i am a 3d guy.
Actually,
i am a sport flier.
But i would like to learn some extreme LOL maneuvres with my Uproar.
Enjoy.
Kostas
06-14-2006, 04:09 AM
#13
Senior Member
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
Kostas,
Since the common expression is "there is no replacement for displacement", many modelers want to put a bigger engine in any model.
But the first thing that one must remember is that a bigger engine will first have to pull its own added weight (+ a bigger fuel tank and more balancing weight in the tail...). So, there is very little of the large engine's extra thrust left (if any at all), to pull the model better.
A good .49-.53 weighs like a .40, but will be very comparable, power-wise, to a .61. With a tuned silencer, like the MVVS, Weston, or a mousse can pipe, it could even make more power than a muffler equipped .61 engine.
So in about 97% of all cases, using a .61 in a .40 size model is good money thrown out for bad.
Even when a .75-.91 is installed and does have a power advantage and the model does achieve a better power-to-weight ratio, than with the original design engine size, the model will never fly as it was designed to and I don't mean in just having better 'launch power'...
When one buys a model; isn't it because he/she likes the way it flies in stock configuration?
So, why would this person destroy these likable attributes, in advance, by using a much heavier engine?
In this case; more is less...
Since the common expression is "there is no replacement for displacement", many modelers want to put a bigger engine in any model.
But the first thing that one must remember is that a bigger engine will first have to pull its own added weight (+ a bigger fuel tank and more balancing weight in the tail...). So, there is very little of the large engine's extra thrust left (if any at all), to pull the model better.
A good .49-.53 weighs like a .40, but will be very comparable, power-wise, to a .61. With a tuned silencer, like the MVVS, Weston, or a mousse can pipe, it could even make more power than a muffler equipped .61 engine.
So in about 97% of all cases, using a .61 in a .40 size model is good money thrown out for bad.
Even when a .75-.91 is installed and does have a power advantage and the model does achieve a better power-to-weight ratio, than with the original design engine size, the model will never fly as it was designed to and I don't mean in just having better 'launch power'...
When one buys a model; isn't it because he/she likes the way it flies in stock configuration?
So, why would this person destroy these likable attributes, in advance, by using a much heavier engine?
In this case; more is less...
06-14-2006, 07:49 AM
#14
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
Dar, you work from theory, others have their opinions based on a real world, hands on, try-it-and-see approach. Recall the 1.08 fitted to my son's 40 trainer. Compared to the way it flew in it's original configuration it's now brilliant! Don't knock anyone wanting to try something just because you think it won't work.
06-14-2006, 08:21 AM
#15
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
Kostas,
My TH .75 turns a 12-8 APC @11,400., and that is richened for flight. I have never ever had a dead stick "knock on wood" with the TOWER .75 and during brake in it would turn a 12-6 over 12,500 rpm. I say, if you really want a hand full of power, go for it and put the .75 on there. but make sure you post a video, so we can see the ballistic rocket.
My TH .75 turns a 12-8 APC @11,400., and that is richened for flight. I have never ever had a dead stick "knock on wood" with the TOWER .75 and during brake in it would turn a 12-6 over 12,500 rpm. I say, if you really want a hand full of power, go for it and put the .75 on there. but make sure you post a video, so we can see the ballistic rocket.
06-14-2006, 11:19 AM
#16
Thread Starter
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
Hehe!
Very nice to hear for that "extreme" power.
That's good to me!
Ofcourse,
one of the reasons i've started this thread was to find out if the 61 and 75 are better than the 46!
I 've read many posts that facing bad behavour.
Very nice to hear for that "extreme" power.
That's good to me!
Ofcourse,
one of the reasons i've started this thread was to find out if the 61 and 75 are better than the 46!
I 've read many posts that facing bad behavour.
06-14-2006, 11:51 AM
#17
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
Kostas,
I have not read any post about bad behavior. If you are trying to stuff a .61 or .75 in a .40 size plane, you will have some bad characteristics like, the wing loading of a brick.
That is not the engines fault. The Tower engines either one of them run just as sweat, and are just as easy to tune as any OS out there. I hope that is not the kinda of thread you are turning this into. If that is the comparison you are trying to make, I have not seen any threads that list the bad behavior that you are talking about. The TH .61 will stomp all over a OS .61FX for half of the cost. It has been proven in different engine comparison articles in the magazines. There is not one engine out there that has not had someone complain about it, and it useally it is just total lack of experience.
I just picked up a Like New OS .91FX from a RCU member last mounth for $80.00, because it supposibly does not run correctly (rich mid range with flame outs). I have not even touched it since I bought it because the Tower .75 is running so well.
I have not read any post about bad behavior. If you are trying to stuff a .61 or .75 in a .40 size plane, you will have some bad characteristics like, the wing loading of a brick.
That is not the engines fault. The Tower engines either one of them run just as sweat, and are just as easy to tune as any OS out there. I hope that is not the kinda of thread you are turning this into. If that is the comparison you are trying to make, I have not seen any threads that list the bad behavior that you are talking about. The TH .61 will stomp all over a OS .61FX for half of the cost. It has been proven in different engine comparison articles in the magazines. There is not one engine out there that has not had someone complain about it, and it useally it is just total lack of experience.I just picked up a Like New OS .91FX from a RCU member last mounth for $80.00, because it supposibly does not run correctly (rich mid range with flame outs). I have not even touched it since I bought it because the Tower .75 is running so well.
06-14-2006, 12:15 PM
#18
Senior Member
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
ORIGINAL: downunder
Dar, you work from theory, others have their opinions based on a real world, hands on, try-it-and-see approach. Recall the 1.08 fitted to my son's 40 trainer. Compared to the way it flew in it's original configuration it's now brilliant! Don't knock anyone wanting to try something just because you think it won't work.
Dar, you work from theory, others have their opinions based on a real world, hands on, try-it-and-see approach. Recall the 1.08 fitted to my son's 40 trainer. Compared to the way it flew in it's original configuration it's now brilliant! Don't knock anyone wanting to try something just because you think it won't work.
I also learn from my own experience, which is not in small amounts.
However, any engineer will 'calculate' a plane and it would practically fly off the board.
In an engineered model (even a full-size one), very few changes are made between the prototype and the production version of the same plane.
So what exactly do you find wrong in my 'theoretical' posts #7 and #11?
Is there anything which is misquoted, or miscalculated?
And as to your son's trainer, it is a one-of, which even if you're right and it flies brilliantly, it surely take-off, stalls and lands at higher speeds (by the square root of 1 + the percentile weight increase), since you have not written that you increased the wing area, or changed to a higher Cl wing profile...
Is my calculation wrong, or would you care to reinvent physics so you would be right?!
Lighter models fly better - Fact!
06-14-2006, 03:47 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 1,324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
Dar. I don't think Downunder is challenging the accuracy of your theories; he's merely pointing out that there is a big practical element to modelling that can, when explored, disprove many of the "can- and can't dos" that theories on their own would dictate.
For example, I recently put a 730 gram YS 1.1 into a .40 trainer, where an engine nearly half that weight is recommended. The reason? We race these trainers around pylons and it was a quick and dirty attempt to produce something competitive, and besides, it was an interesting experiment to see if this standard airframe could handle so much power. I ended up with a CofG 10mm forward of the recommended band. I wasn't concerned if it flew like a dog, because it was only put together for one day's competition and would be decomissioned thereafter.
As if to confound all the theories, this aircraft, which probably weighs nearly a pound more than it ordinarily would, flies really well. It flies so sedately at low throttle, I use it to buddy box my newbie students.
This is one of the fun elements of modelling many of us enjoy - just trying stuff out to see if it works. Like the guy in our club who put a two pound plus GMS 1.20 in his Uproar .60 - contrary to what the theorists would have us believe, he really enjoys the model!
If we were to do everything in accordance with the theorists' dictums, life would indeed be very boring.
Edited: Grammar, spelling
For example, I recently put a 730 gram YS 1.1 into a .40 trainer, where an engine nearly half that weight is recommended. The reason? We race these trainers around pylons and it was a quick and dirty attempt to produce something competitive, and besides, it was an interesting experiment to see if this standard airframe could handle so much power. I ended up with a CofG 10mm forward of the recommended band. I wasn't concerned if it flew like a dog, because it was only put together for one day's competition and would be decomissioned thereafter.
As if to confound all the theories, this aircraft, which probably weighs nearly a pound more than it ordinarily would, flies really well. It flies so sedately at low throttle, I use it to buddy box my newbie students.
This is one of the fun elements of modelling many of us enjoy - just trying stuff out to see if it works. Like the guy in our club who put a two pound plus GMS 1.20 in his Uproar .60 - contrary to what the theorists would have us believe, he really enjoys the model!
If we were to do everything in accordance with the theorists' dictums, life would indeed be very boring.
Edited: Grammar, spelling
06-14-2006, 04:05 PM
#21
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
Kostas,
We are not talking about the .46 now. You posted about the .61. You seem to be up to your old tricks again. You start a thread about a different engine, and then start bashing and promoting OS. I though after your last absence from RCU you might have changed your ways.[8|] I thought you were actually looking for help this time!
I am not wasteing anymore time on this.
Kostas,
Check this out, this one of your old threads inquireing about the Tower engines. Why are you starting this all over again.[sm=confused.gif] I think if you would only read the replys you had we would not be here now.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.a...ower%2Chobbies
We are not talking about the .46 now. You posted about the .61. You seem to be up to your old tricks again. You start a thread about a different engine, and then start bashing and promoting OS. I though after your last absence from RCU you might have changed your ways.[8|] I thought you were actually looking for help this time!
I am not wasteing anymore time on this.
Kostas,
Check this out, this one of your old threads inquireing about the Tower engines. Why are you starting this all over again.[sm=confused.gif] I think if you would only read the replys you had we would not be here now.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.a...ower%2Chobbies
06-14-2006, 10:41 PM
#22
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
ORIGINAL: Harry Lagman
Dar. I don't think Downunder is challenging the accuracy of your theories; he's merely pointing out that there is a big practical element to modelling that can, when explored, disprove many of the "can- and can't dos" that theories on their own would dictate.
If we were to do everything in accordance with the theorists' dictums, life would indeed be very boring.
Dar. I don't think Downunder is challenging the accuracy of your theories; he's merely pointing out that there is a big practical element to modelling that can, when explored, disprove many of the "can- and can't dos" that theories on their own would dictate.
If we were to do everything in accordance with the theorists' dictums, life would indeed be very boring.
Dar, I'm not saying your theories are wrong, they're not. But when it comes to putting them to practical use the difference can become insignificant. Take that trainer for example. All up with the big engine it weighs 6 pounds. Now I don't think we ever weighed it with the original small engine but I'll be generous and say it used to weigh 5 pounds. That's a 20% weight increase. Going by your formula (square root of 1 + the percentile weight increase) the stall speed is increased by a factor of 1.1 so where it used to stall at 20mph it now stalls at 22mph. I defy anyone to pick that out using Mk1 eyeballs
However, I'll agree it makes a difference on take-off even by the above mentioned Mk1 eyeball. Taxi out, open the throttle and it's instantly flying. First on the prop and then on the wing
So that 1.1 factor is outweighed by the fun factor which is now 10
06-14-2006, 11:07 PM
#23
Senior Member
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
Brian (and Harry),
We don't disagree about this.
I was not saying, at any point, that with a heavier engine, the plane won't (is there really such a word?...) fly.
I am not against experimenting either. My own 'trainer' was a Top Flite Contender 40, with an HB.40PDP... It rolled faster than any 3-D model I know, even with its puny ailerons and made 6' diameter loops at top speed...
I am just pointing out the obvious differences that would differ the 'modified' model, from its design attributes. And I am saying more power is manageable (until your left thumb (mode II) becomes 'trigger happy' and the wings are pulled off...), but excess weight is the enemy.
Keep on flying!
We don't disagree about this.
I was not saying, at any point, that with a heavier engine, the plane won't (is there really such a word?...) fly.
I am not against experimenting either. My own 'trainer' was a Top Flite Contender 40, with an HB.40PDP... It rolled faster than any 3-D model I know, even with its puny ailerons and made 6' diameter loops at top speed...
I am just pointing out the obvious differences that would differ the 'modified' model, from its design attributes. And I am saying more power is manageable (until your left thumb (mode II) becomes 'trigger happy' and the wings are pulled off...), but excess weight is the enemy.
Keep on flying!
06-15-2006, 02:02 AM
#24
Thread Starter
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
I have not seen any threads that list the bad behavior that you are talking about.
i am not trying to compare anything here!
If you can see your previous response,you say that you haven't heard about bad behaviour of the TowerH 46 engine.
Because,
i've heard many things about it,
i attached the link that is still active here in RCU!
Saw that?
So,
please,
respect people who are trying to KNOW from the forum.
Thank you.
Harry Lagman Date 6/15/2006 6:47:08 AM
Dar. I don't think Downunder is challenging the accuracy of your theories; he's merely pointing out that there is a big practical element to modelling that can, when explored, disprove many of the "can- and can't dos" that theories on their own would dictate.
For example, I recently put a 730 gram YS 1.1 into a .40 trainer, where an engine nearly half that weight is recommended. The reason? We race these trainers around pylons and it was a quick and dirty attempt to produce something competitive, and besides, it was an interesting experiment to see if this standard airframe could handle so much power. I ended up with a CofG 10mm forward of the recommended band. I wasn't concerned if it flew like a dog, because it was only put together for one day's competition and would be decomissioned thereafter.
As if to confound all the theories, this aircraft, which probably weighs nearly a pound more than it ordinarily would, flies really well. It flies so sedately at low throttle, I use it to buddy box my newbie students.
This is one of the fun elements of modelling many of us enjoy - just trying stuff out to see if it works. Like the guy in our club who put a two pound plus GMS 1.20 in his Uproar .60 - contrary to what the theorists would have us believe, he really enjoys the model!
If we were to do everything in accordance with the theorists' dictums, life would indeed be very boring.
Edited: Grammar, spelling
Dar. I don't think Downunder is challenging the accuracy of your theories; he's merely pointing out that there is a big practical element to modelling that can, when explored, disprove many of the "can- and can't dos" that theories on their own would dictate.
For example, I recently put a 730 gram YS 1.1 into a .40 trainer, where an engine nearly half that weight is recommended. The reason? We race these trainers around pylons and it was a quick and dirty attempt to produce something competitive, and besides, it was an interesting experiment to see if this standard airframe could handle so much power. I ended up with a CofG 10mm forward of the recommended band. I wasn't concerned if it flew like a dog, because it was only put together for one day's competition and would be decomissioned thereafter.
As if to confound all the theories, this aircraft, which probably weighs nearly a pound more than it ordinarily would, flies really well. It flies so sedately at low throttle, I use it to buddy box my newbie students.
This is one of the fun elements of modelling many of us enjoy - just trying stuff out to see if it works. Like the guy in our club who put a two pound plus GMS 1.20 in his Uproar .60 - contrary to what the theorists would have us believe, he really enjoys the model!
If we were to do everything in accordance with the theorists' dictums, life would indeed be very boring.
Edited: Grammar, spelling
Hey,
Harry!
Well,
i would like to see a video of this trainer,really!
It sounds really good.
But,i wouldn't have tried it!
The 110FZ is a real POWERHOUSE!!!!
06-15-2006, 04:01 AM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Madrid, SPAIN
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Tower Hobbies .61 Ball Bearing ABC engine?
TH .46 is not the same as TH .75 and it was mentioned in numerous posts.
I have bought my first TH .75 about one month ago and fly it in Razzle (3d) with 13x4 or 13x5 propelers. Wonderful engine: powerfull, reliable and easy starting. When I close the carb, it shut down: NO AIR LEAK.
Yesterady I receved the second one...
For it´s price you would be better to purchase one (euro/USdollar ratio will make it even cheaper) and give it a try. You spend much more money (in form of time) asking here on RC universe the same think over and over again.
I have bought my first TH .75 about one month ago and fly it in Razzle (3d) with 13x4 or 13x5 propelers. Wonderful engine: powerfull, reliable and easy starting. When I close the carb, it shut down: NO AIR LEAK.
Yesterady I receved the second one...
For it´s price you would be better to purchase one (euro/USdollar ratio will make it even cheaper) and give it a try. You spend much more money (in form of time) asking here on RC universe the same think over and over again.