quote:

ORIGINAL: Hobbsy

RF, here is the all up weight including the Tru-Turn spinner, adapter prop nut and prop. Also a shot of the .65 sitting in the plane with one bolt in it and the OS .60FP that I'm thinking of selling. PS, that 32 oz tank wouldn't fit.

PS #2, that .65 is not touching the scale anywhere. I had to place it very carefully to achieve that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiery

My example, AJC head fitted, including muffler, on the scales.

Weight is in grams.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hobbsy

That heftiness is most likey at least partly the reason for the smoothness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Recycled Flyer

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiery

My example, AJC head fitted, including muffler, on the scales.

Weight is in grams.


Well it is and it isn't too heavy for control line models. It depends on the model. If your not contest bound then there is a whole lot to use it on. I'm going to use mine on a 62.5 in Combat streak. It has a short nose and the engine is really not a problem. It probably doesn't need this much engine as it would certainly fly an 80 oz model in the classic 4/2/4 mode but like R/C models excessive power can be addictive. weight with tongue muffler is reasonable. A standard set up with a name engine and header and pipe would go about 15 oz on a standard stunt model.This is 900 sq inches and will fly excellently with the LA65. Now for the best part I got it at auction from a really reputable modeller with the venturi.super Tigre NVA and the hand fabricated tongue muffler for $35.00. Ran it the other day and it starts and runs with impeccable manners.Couldn't buy the conversion pieces for that price on the open market. some pictures are enclosed. I expect the finished weight to be 60 ounces

Just over 25 ozs  Derek.

Unfortunately just a bit too heavy for control line work.

Attachments

Click for fullsize

Click for fullsize

Click for fullsize

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiery

Hi Dennis


However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ffkiwi

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiery

Hi Dennis


However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.

Chris,

I ran all but the 45 Sportster as diesels for 10 years with excellent results. All still run well. All had serious lumber on them at times. Longevity is not an issue with any engine with proper care and handling.
As to the 65 for c/l. I seriously doubt that I would ever use an LA or FP 65 in anything for competition. However for fun and to try something different I'm always interrested in the unusual or the unacceptable just for the experience.

Dennis
Same with the K&B Sportsters-a lot of bulk (and weight) in the styling. for F/F use it was common to turn down the cylinder and crankcase in a lathe-the resulting engine looked quite different. Particularly common in the UK, with their Slow Open Power rules limiting engines to 3.5cc max and plain bearing. The Sportster 20 was top of the heap for a while (not sure what the current 'must have' engine is for that class......)
Make good diesels too-the 20/28/45/65-though I've never tried one as such. I wonder about the longevity though...............

ChrisM
'ffkiwi'

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiery
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Recycled Flyer

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiery
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.

Yes, adding 10ozs to the nose almost equates to adding 10 ozs to the tail and not only blows out the wing loading factor but also gives rise to the barbell effect when maneuvering.
(The resistance to overcome inertia followed by want to keep it going once initiated will ruin any pattern


Actually you would not add 10 ounces to the tail if it was 10 oz nose heavy. depending on tail moment for example a Proctor Antic can take up to 10 oz of noseweight for every ounce of tailweight That is the interesting part of a tail heavy model . It takes far more weight to overcome a tail heavy condition then a nose heavy model. And not to argue with anyone I maintain that any engine can have a model designed for it regardless of it's weight even control line. Want me to use a Fokker DR1 as a proving point. Remember I specified that I wasn't using it for competition and you have to be able to look outside of that very narrow competition window.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dennis

quote:

ORIGINAL: Recycled Flyer

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiery
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.

Yes, adding 10ozs to the nose almost equates to adding 10 ozs to the tail and not only blows out the wing loading factor but also gives rise to the barbell effect when maneuvering.
(The resistance to overcome inertia followed by want to keep it going once initiated will ruin any pattern


Actually you would not add 10 ounces to the tail if it was 10 oz nose heavy. depending on tail moment for example a Proctor Antic can take up to 10 oz of noseweight for every ounce of tailweight That is the interesting part of a tail heavy model . It takes far more weight to overcome a tail heavy condition then a nose heavy model. And not to argue with anyone I maintain that any engine can have a model designed for it regardless of it's weight even control line. Want me to use a Fokker DR1 as a proving point. Remember I specified that I wasn't using it for competition and you have to be able to look outside of that very narrow competition window.