Side by side non scientific comparison...  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       



All Forums >> Glow Engines, Gas Engines, Fuel & Mfg Support Forums >> RC Fuels >> Side by side non scientific comparison... Page: [1]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Side by side non scientific comparison... - 8/22/2002 12:12:27 AM   
quint-rcu



Posts: 657
Joined: 6/10/2002
From: Ocean Springs, MS, USA
Status: offline 		We had a discussion going at our field last month about Wildcat vs. Omega/Cool Power in Saito engines. After much jaw-boning We got three of our Morgan fuels users to run two tanks of Wildcat in their Saitos (1 - .91, 1 - .72, and 1- .56). Each engine was run with the original fuel and optimized 200 down from full RPMs and tached. The the fuel was changed to the Wildcat and the engines were re peaked and tached.

All three gave higher RPM readings on Wildcat with the same nitro content and the .91 and .72 gave longer run times. None of the guys in our club that tried it were connected with either manufacturer and two of the guys were die-hard Cool Power users. - One switched and the other just told us off

Has anyone else tried this comparison and can share their results?

quint
       Post #: 1

Side by side non scientific comparison... - 8/22/2002 1:17:07 PM   
DerFly



Posts: 230
Joined: 3/11/2002
From: sydney, AUSTRALIA
Status: offline 		All else being equal, the fuel giving more RPM and a longer run must have less oil in it! Are you willing to make this sacrifice?

(in reply to quint-rcu)
       Post #: 2

Side by side non scientific comparison... - 8/22/2002 9:12:19 PM   
quint-rcu



Posts: 657
Joined: 6/10/2002
From: Ocean Springs, MS, USA
Status: offline 		That's a good point, so I searched the oil contents: Cool Power 17 - 18% Castor and Wildcat 18% Klotz. Could it be that since Castor doesn't burn at the Saito's combustion temperatures and Klotz synthetic does that we're seeing that extra bit of energy?

Still would be curious to see if other Saito owners get the same results.

quint

(in reply to quint-rcu)
       Post #: 3

Side by side non scientific comparison... - 8/23/2002 2:01:56 PM   
DerFly



Posts: 230
Joined: 3/11/2002
From: sydney, AUSTRALIA
Status: offline 		Quint,

Really can't comment on the fuels you used for this test as I exclusively mix my own. My comment was basically an aside from my own experience, that is, displacing the combustible in the fuel with oil will certainly give less power and a shorter run/worse fuel economy.

I believe that synthetic oil will burn, I am not convinced that it will produce power when burned. Is one oil a better lubricant giving more RPM? Does one fuel have better quality nitro? Is the methanol a higher grade in one of the fuels?

Good experiment with conclusive results. The question remains, "Why does one fuel give higher RPM?" I don't think it is possible to claim one fuel as being "better" on RPM alone without answering the other questions.

regards,

(in reply to quint-rcu)
       Post #: 4

Side by side non scientific comparison... - 8/23/2002 6:34:48 PM   
quint-rcu



Posts: 657
Joined: 6/10/2002
From: Ocean Springs, MS, USA
Status: offline 		Right again, I didn't want to imply one was a better fuel than the other, just sharing an interesting result and wondering if it was just our conditions or if it would repeat somewhere else.

A second point is that old geezers will do many things when they get bored at our field... :

quint

(in reply to quint-rcu)
       Post #: 5

Side by side non scientific comparison... - 8/23/2002 8:07:10 PM   
jharkin



Posts: 270
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Newton, MA, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by quint
That's a good point, so I searched the oil contents: Cool Power 17 - 18% Castor and Wildcat 18% Klotz. [/QUOTE]

Are you referring to cool power or omega? Cool Power is (according to the label) all-synthetic.

(in reply to quint-rcu)
       Post #: 6

Side by side non scientific comparison... - 8/23/2002 9:08:35 PM   
quint-rcu



Posts: 657
Joined: 6/10/2002
From: Ocean Springs, MS, USA
Status: offline 		It was Omega we were refering to as containing Castor oil. The locals mix some Castor into their Cool Power and that threw me off into combining both types from Morgan into one category. Have you compared the Morgan to Wildcat on the same 4-stroker? I'm wondering if the results we got were peculiar to Saitos or if they would repeat with other brands?

quint

(in reply to quint-rcu)
       Post #: 7

Side by side non scientific comparison... - 8/24/2002 12:46:15 AM   
Elwood



Posts: 1512
Joined: 12/11/2001
From: Wayne, NJ,
Status: offline 		I did a little test on an AP .09 Hornet. Omega ran 100 RPM slower at peak than PowerMaster. The Omega was opened for a long time, but stored in the basement closet, sealed tight. The Cool Power was just opened. I bet they would have been the same if both were fresh.

_____________________________

Born in the U.S.A.......Not quite as long ago as Art!!!!!!!

(in reply to quint-rcu)
       Post #: 8

Different fuels - 12/18/2002 9:05:56 PM   
POWERMASTER


 

Posts: 46
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Elgin, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Quint,
Check the [url]www.powermasterfuels.com[/url] web page and click on PwrPak on main page.

_____________________________

Wendell Hammond

(in reply to quint-rcu)
       Post #: 9

Side by side non scientific comparison... - 12/19/2002 4:44:57 AM   
tdriver



Posts: 185
Joined: 11/9/2002
From: Athens, GREECE
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by DerFly
All else being equal, the fuel giving more RPM and a longer run must have less oil in it! Are you willing to make this sacrifice? [/QUOTE]

on first thought this would be a logical conclusion,
but,different oils have different results.

i'm mixing my own fuel,and the oil i use is motul micro (synth model oil) and exxon 2380 (aviation turbine oil).
i mix both 85%/15% (no nitro).

motul micro has a noticeable better performance (throttle response,and higher rpm, 100-200 revs.) than exxon2380.

exxon is much thinner than motul micro,and the main needle needs to close 1/8 to get peak performance,compared to motul.

before somebody say the methanol quality was different,i have to say that i mixed both with the same methanol.

(in reply to quint-rcu)
       Post #: 10

Side by side non scientific comparison... - 12/22/2002 11:52:02 PM   
hauckf


 

Posts: 188
Joined: 3/1/2002
From: Decatur, AL, USA
Status: offline 		"The locals mix some Castor into their Cool Power .."

Did the Morgan fuel you were testing against the Wildcat have some extra castor mixed in? If so, then the oil content in the Morgan may have been greater than the oil content in the Wildcat, and that could account for the difference in performance. Just a thought.

(in reply to quint-rcu)
       Post #: 11

Page:   [1]
All Forums >> Glow Engines, Gas Engines, Fuel & Mfg Support Forums >> RC Fuels >> Side by side non scientific comparison...
Page: [1]





Jump to: