RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting  
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 >> Glow Engines >> RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting
Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 5/10/2007 7:12:06 PM   
bob27s



Posts: 4736
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Cleveland, OH, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Not24
I gave up on that engine after too many dead sticks. Anybody have any ideas as to why a lighter prop load would cause flameouts? I am baffled.


One theory (proven in fact with other installations and engines, but a theory here to consider)

The prop itself, lighter prop load and combined engine dynamics may have created fuel foam. Just hit a bad note at some rpm, and buzzed the fuel in the tank. Does not take much of an air-bubble to goof things up and shut down the engine. Often enough the condition does not recreate itself on the ground, but manifests itself in the air. Fix is to ensure the fuel tank is isolated from the airframe - serious foam wrapping on all sides.


_____________________________

Bob Brassell
Jett Engineering - Engine Mfg Support Forum Host

(in reply to Not24)
       Post #: 551

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 5/10/2007 7:20:16 PM   
bob27s



Posts: 4736
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Cleveland, OH, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trollmaster


quote:

ORIGINAL: buzzingb

If you were running the 18X6 prop on the plane through all this you didn't even get it up to good operating rpm. This engine can handle all the rpms you can throw at it with .



Try a 14/8 APC and a Jett ......


Just out of curiosity I looked back at some of my application and user notes, and found the following. Might serve as a reference...

"The ST2300 with a stock muffler will turn a APC 16x8 at 9,400 rpm, 16 pounds of thrust.
The ST2300 with a Jett Stream will turn a APC 16x8 at 9,900 rpm, 21-22 pounds of thrust.
Not a lot of rpm increase but what a difference in thrust!
I like to let the motor rev up and with the 8 pitch prop it really moves out with authority."


I found about the same thing.... the 16x8 ran well with the jett-stream - really made power as it approached 10K rpm. The engine liked the bigger props with the stock muffler or turbo-jett installations. The 16x10 and 18x6 worked nicely.


_____________________________

Bob Brassell
Jett Engineering - Engine Mfg Support Forum Host

(in reply to Trollmaster)
       Post #: 552

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 5/10/2007 10:04:09 PM   
Not24



Posts: 999
Joined: 12/7/2002
From: Gloucester, VA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kweasel

Some good things about running an APC 16-10 around 8300rpm is that they are very quiet and below the resonance of most airframes. However the stock carb may be a little too big for that rpm range unless you have good muffler pressure. Im using a smaller than stock carb with a 10oz tank on 5%Coolpower for 10+ minute flights. While not 3-D quality, an APC 16-10 will still pull my 10lb plane from hover out of sight. The small carb has the most linear throttle of any R/C engine I have ever ran.

I think I'm getting much closer to 9000 with a 16-10. My 11 lb Sukhoi has plenty of vertical performance.

_____________________________

Fly it till you break it!

(in reply to Kweasel)
       Post #: 553

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 5/15/2007 1:11:01 AM   
Kmot



Posts: 7710
Joined: 6/11/2003
From: Northridge, CA, USA
Status: offline
I'm dropping in here because MikeRuth is a friend of mine.

I cannot believe, just cannot believe some of you are telling another modeller to not take their engine apart! Needlessly? Their is no such thing as needless when it comes to a mechanic wrenching on their engine. Is this not the Glow Engine Forum? What are you going to suggest? Everyone send their engine in to some "tech" at a warranty station? Come on! Where is the "take it apart and figure it out" mentality? Anyone who cross-threads is a hamfist and needs to learn to do it better anyway. No experience like practical experience.

Instead of suggesting someone not take their engine apart, we should be suggesting they in fact tear it down and give advice on how to do it and what to look for.

Over and Out.

_____________________________

Ahhh......screw it!

(in reply to Not24)
       Post #: 554

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 5/15/2007 1:48:32 AM   
Oldbob


 

Posts: 158
Joined: 6/29/2005
From: georgetown, TX, USA
Status: offline
KMOT, well said

Bob

(in reply to Kmot)
       Post #: 555

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 5/15/2007 1:55:49 AM   
buzzingb


 

Posts: 1507
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Bruce, MS, USA
Status: offline
I heard a little noise in my 1996 Crown Victoria so I think I will take her apart to see what could be causing it. Some of you won't to come over with some tools? Who knows what we will find.

_____________________________

Buzz

(in reply to Oldbob)
       Post #: 556

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 5/15/2007 2:28:16 AM   
Kmot



Posts: 7710
Joined: 6/11/2003
From: Northridge, CA, USA
Status: offline
Whaddya expect? It's a Ford!

_____________________________

Ahhh......screw it!

(in reply to buzzingb)
       Post #: 557

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 5/15/2007 4:47:08 AM   
MikeRuth



Posts: 289
Joined: 3/6/2006
From: Tarzana, CA, USA
Status: offline
Well some follow up on my G2300 issues, I did inspect the engine and all is well.
I bought a Perry 5002 Pump carb and a VP-30 pump.

Kind of a chore to get that pump in behind the engine but it's in there. Was trying to maintian the suggestion of (1)keeping the vent hole down and (2) the nipples at or about the same height as the carb nipple.

the carb fit sunggly into the case, I figured that would happen as they spec the carb body about .0070 over what ST uses.

when drilling and tapping the back plate they nicely casted the word "CHINA" dead center, so it takes a mill end to grind out a small amount of that flush if you want to put the pressure fitting dead center. I see no reason why you could not mount it a tad below or above. The nipple protudes into the back a small amount and you have to caefully file that down smooth to the back plate. Install with lock tight.

I plumbed it with no return to the tank. So I am using a clucnk and vent only now.

Intital running with it proved a tad bit testy, I think that the factory setting is a bit low on the fuel flow, as I was coming up lean, so I turned the adjuster in a bit (2) turns and had a good top end, but not just right, then I moved the blue disc a bit toward the rich side and bamm it was so rich it wouldn't clear out.

Backed the regulator back out a turn and from there was able to start getting a high speed tune. Once that was set, I was able to set the low end. The disc setting is a bit touchy, but once set holds true.

On the next morning I was able to test fly it. The first flight proved to be so much better than with the OEM carb, but it was loading up a bit on the low end.
On the next flight I leaned the disc one click and it was better but still not quite there, loading up a bit on long down lines and slow passes.
on the next flight we hit it on the money, A steady 2100 rpm idle and 8150 on the top end with an APC 16 X 10 pattern prop, 15% powermaster w 18% oil and a Magnum 4 stroke plug.

I flew two more times, each over 15 miunets and never once did that engine so much as hickup.

I am to say the very least most satified with this combonation. sure I have now invested an additional $80.00 but in my book, it was well worth it.
I need to do another weigh in, but I'm guessing my all up weight right now at 10.25lbs. With the above combonation, it will climb straight up vertical as long as you want it to with no loss of speed. AWSOME.

large loops and other moves that require some grunt are just great now.

so in my book, this is definetly worth the expense if you can not maintain the suggested alignment and tank distance recomended.


Also since I nicked my APC prop I threw on a Zinger 18 X 8 to run it dry and just for kicks tached it, 7100.

Mike R


(in reply to Kmot)
       Post #: 558

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 5/15/2007 1:04:49 PM   
buzzingb


 

Posts: 1507
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Bruce, MS, USA
Status: offline
Looks like you have done much better than me with the pump, congradulations. When you get a chance give some 3D manouvers a try and let us know how it transitions after extended idling in the air.

_____________________________

Buzz

(in reply to MikeRuth)
       Post #: 559

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 5/15/2007 1:25:30 PM   
Ed Cregger



Posts: 7644
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Ringgold, GA, USA
Status: offline
Mike, I'm a sucker for stories with happy endings. Good for you and thanks for letting everyone know of your success.


Ed Cregger


_____________________________

Artisan

"Flying models since the Fifties - I'll get the hang of this yet!!!"

(in reply to MikeRuth)
       Post #: 560

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 5/15/2007 2:53:08 PM   
MikeRuth



Posts: 289
Joined: 3/6/2006
From: Tarzana, CA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: buzzingb

Looks like you have done much better than me with the pump, congradulations. When you get a chance give some 3D manouvers a try and let us know how it transitions after extended idling in the air.



Well I didn't build this (excelleron90) for 3D flying at all, but...I did hang it on the prop once and it did ok, not great and the plane is not trimmed for that as well.

As for transition from hover, it was under propped for that. Although the motor did respond to my inputs without hesitation.

I'd say for that I would need to change to a 17 X 8 or 18 X 8 even a 18 X 6. But I'm not going there.

I built this purely for pattern flying and best I can tell from these first successfull flights the APC 16 X 10 will probably stay there.


Mike R



(in reply to buzzingb)
       Post #: 561

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 5/15/2007 3:56:28 PM   
vasek



Posts: 1974
Joined: 1/24/2002
From: centre, QC, CANADA
Status: online
Hey guys, what tank size is needed for 12 to 15 min flights with this engine? (stock )

Thanks

_____________________________

I am a proud Canadian >living in Europe;-)

(in reply to MikeRuth)
       Post #: 562

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 5/15/2007 6:06:38 PM   
MikeRuth



Posts: 289
Joined: 3/6/2006
From: Tarzana, CA, USA
Status: offline
My tank is 420 CC's or 14 Oz and I could have run for 17 minuets maybe a bit more. But that is not flat out wide open throtle.

MIke R

(in reply to vasek)
       Post #: 563

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 5/15/2007 9:30:37 PM   
buzzingb


 

Posts: 1507
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Bruce, MS, USA
Status: offline
One thing about the 2300 is that is sips fuel.

_____________________________

Buzz

(in reply to MikeRuth)