The 46AX

The 46AX (Full Version)

All Forums >> [RC Airplanes] >> [Pylon Universe - RC Pylon Racing] >> Q-500 Racing

Message

splatt -> The 46AX (4/15/2004 6:28 AM)
Just got to tell you folks that 46 AX is a real power house. I got one on a RacerII and it goes, goes, goes. Easy to tune, easy to fly, sounds a bit different than our older FX, and runs like a charm. Look out world, papa gota' new pair of shoes 8)

daven -> RE: The 46AX (4/15/2004 6:32 AM)
I'm glad I ordered one, but I am concerned about how it will effect all of the existing .46 FX engines that already exist for our local racing class..... We will see. If its too much, it might not pass the vote after the big race.

diggs_74 -> RE: The 46AX (4/15/2004 6:30 PM)
I hope it's not too much of a power house..... I have 3 FX's. Splatt, what are you running for a prop and RPM?? Lee

Mluvara -> RE: The 46AX (4/15/2004 8:59 PM)
From what I understand, they are significantly more powerful than the FX. One of the motor gurus around here already took it apart and analyzed the timing, etc. Definitely a different beast. We're impacted with T-34 racing because FX's are no longer made and are the required motor. The decision was made to the FX this year because there still are many around and then migrate over to the AX. Michael

splatt -> RE: The 46AX (4/15/2004 9:31 PM)
Well, as far as RPM's were I saw a peak of 15,600- 15,800 on a APC 8.75x9W. I put one tank through at work during my lunch hour, then scurried out to the field after work. I put on one of those wooden blank props that Darryl sells to make Q40 props out of, I think it's a rev up 9.5x7.5 went good, Then I put that same prop on Scott H.'s Predator with a FX and it was a dog. Ran the APC after that and was a happy camper. I did take the restrictor out of the muffler before final asembly. The big differance in the motor is that the slot for the front intake is shaped like a bowl in the crank and the passage way in the crank in .040 smaller and the front schurnule port is 25% bigger. To me the total timing appears to be the same by comparing the slots in the sleeve and the slot in the crank as compared to the throw on the crank. The piston is totally different. I did a thread in the engine section back in December called "OS 46AX vs. 46FX with pics" , do a search for it and look at the pics It does have a different sound to it. Our first quickie race is the 24th so we'll know more by than.

daven -> RE: The 46AX (4/15/2004 10:04 PM)
Your RPM is similar to what I would see on my best FX engine (which seems a little stronger than most). I hope mine gets here quick so I can get it broke in. I'd hate to be chasing you all day :)

LADAWG -> 46AX WEIGHT COMPARED TO THE 46FX (4/16/2004 1:30 AM)
Has any notice a 4 oz difference in weight difference...I have notice no comments on that yet....this two engines perform about the same...Is the weight coming from the new muffler?...I just bought a 46ax and haven't ran it yet but I own a 46fx....it would seem os would want to make the engine lighter not heaver for improvement.

splatt -> RE: 46AX WEIGHT COMPARED TO THE 46FX (4/16/2004 1:38 AM)
It's the muffler, it's square, but the inside is round. So all those corners are DEAD weight. The sleeve is also longer which accounts for the weight too since it's brass. Someone who looked at the AX said "wow, looks like a super tiger sleeve" with regards to how the sleeve mates to the cylinder head.

daven -> RE: 46AX WEIGHT COMPARED TO THE 46FX (4/16/2004 5:06 AM)
If its 4oz heavier, you can have it. You can chase me after the first lap after you struggle around the course :) Whats our rules say about an .46AX with an FX muffler????

diggs_74 -> RE: The 46AX (4/16/2004 4:59 PM)
You wouldn't think they could put 4 oz in just the muffler would you.... That's a pile of weight when you talking about a total of 17oz for the FX... They must have done something with the case too.... Anyway, I have a hard enough time trying to get to 3 1/2lbs. without adding another 4 oz into the mix. Lee 33w

diggs_74 -> RE: The 46AX (4/16/2004 5:17 PM)
I went up on Tower and the weight difference reported there was about .75 oz difference with the AX being heavier. That's just what Tower says of course. Lee 33w

splatt -> RE: 46AX WEIGHT COMPARED TO THE 46FX (4/16/2004 5:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daven If its 4oz heavier, you can have it. You can chase me after the first lap after you struggle around the course :) Struggle my butt, your mine this year. My partner & I will be victorious over the forces of all oncomers

diggs_74 -> RE: The 46AX (4/16/2004 5:54 PM)
And the trash talking begins............. Funny, I thought that wouldn't start until at least part way thru the first race [:D] Lee 33w

LADAWG -> Sorry for the panic fellows read the website incorrectly (4/16/2004 11:45 PM)
I just read the info on the Fx incorrect....the weight with the stock muffler comes to 16.45 oz compared to the 17.20 with the AX...but there almost a 1.0 oz difference in the the two mufflers......the out put the of the two engines comes to 1.62 for the fx and ax is 1.65 which makes me feel a little better.....I think I will take my old fx muffler and put it on the ax....ozs add up fast.

splatt -> RE: Sorry for the panic fellows read the website incorrectly (4/17/2004 12:15 AM)
No apologies necessary, Daven and I race against each other and he has been past champion for the last few years and it time for him to go down. I'll have a tough time though, he builds straight and flies good so I need to get in his head, maybe offer him a cocktail before hand.

daven -> RE: Sorry for the panic fellows read the website incorrectly (4/17/2004 12:57 AM)
Did someone say Coldies ??? :) Thats for after the race. If Jesse would stop cutting #1, he'd win more races :) If you look closely at the HP ratings of the two engines, they are virtually identical. If I recall the FX is 1.62 BHP, and the AX is 1.65. However, the AX is not reporting Brake Horse Power. Its some metric "almost" equivelent that converts into nearly exactly 1.62 BHP so there is no real difference in the stated HP.

daven -> AX has arrived (4/18/2004 6:06 PM)
I saw Splatts AX go yesterday, and it did look quick. Could be the engine, or it could have been the plane (which looked pretty good despite the Meatballs). The only way we'll find out is if we get some readings on a specific plane with an AX on it, and then swap engines out with an FX and take more readings. I had a nice package in the mailbox when I got home, my AX just happened to arrive. What timing, I think I will have to get a few tanks through it before Saturdays race... If you check with Chief Aircraft, they have a great deal on these motors. $85 for the FX and $92 for the AX.

splatt -> Today's lesson (4/18/2004 7:24 PM)
Alright class, today we learn the difference between Daven and myself. Confusing green stripes , BAD Easy to see bright circles, sometimes referred as "meatballs" , Gooood

daven -> RE: Today's lesson (4/18/2004 8:09 PM)
:)

daven -> RE: Today's lesson (4/18/2004 10:37 PM)
Well, this conversation has caused me to run two tanks of breakin fuel through the engine, and at this point I am impressed also. First tank was run with my "top secret" .46 break in prop, and the second I used the 8 3/4" x 9W just to reference against "meatballs" numbers. I was suprised that the low end needle was set nearly perfect from the factory, unlike the FX which usually tended to be quite rich. Engine starts easy, and runs well. I still don't like the goofy remote needle, and the spaghetti lines you gotta run to make this work with a back plate, but it did run quite well. On the second tank, I cruised at about 15,700 rpm with the 9W pinching it about every 10 seconds where it would jump to about 16,200 rpm. In comparison, my good FX that I flew yesterday turned a 8.8x9.5 at 15,500 and would hit 16,000 on the pinch. Although the 9.5 looks great in long sweeping passes across the field, it tends to loose a bunch of speed in the turns. It will basically come down to how much this engine unloads in the air. Ground RPM gets you in the ballpark, but doesn't really tell you a whole lot other than that. This engine may need a completely different set of props than what we are use to.

diggs_74 -> RE: The 46AX (4/19/2004 6:33 PM)
I wonder how many AX's I'll have to race against this year in the "novice" class?? Hopefully there aren't too many or I'll have to auction all the FX's and get a couple AX's.... Dave, does Chief Aircraft have a website?? Lee 33w

daven -> RE: The 46AX (4/19/2004 6:46 PM)
Yes, its www.chiefaircraft.com However, I see that they don't have the AX listed anymore. They still have the FX for $85, but I don't see the AX on there this morning. Its kinda a tricky website thats tough to navigate so I may have missed it this time. Most of the fliers in Standard will be using the FX, the only people I am aware of now with an AX is myself, Jesse, Elert, Pat, and Del. After the 4th race, we will have a vote on weather we will continue to allow the engine. If it gets voted down, I think we have an even bigger problem because what are we going to do when we can't get anymore FX engines??

Randy Etken -> RE: The 46AX (4/20/2004 9:25 PM)
Why so much bench racing? It still comes down to thumbs, plane, eng, caller and a little of luck to be the winner. And don't forgett, daven and splatt, you still have to get by me and the new and improved R200!!!!!!!!!!

daven -> RE: The 46AX (4/20/2004 10:49 PM)
Whats an R2D2 ? LOL

Randy Etken -> RE: The 46AX (4/21/2004 12:34 AM)
The plane in front of yours! Ha Ha Randy

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

SITE MAP! : : FORUM RULES

RC Universe is a service of Internet Brands, Inc. Copyright © 2001-2012.

0.34375