RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engines, GAS is better in every way :)  
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
       


O.S. Engines O.S. FS-120 III Surpass (Pump)
Seller:  RCadmin
Details:   $350.00   |  8/25/2008   |  Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

All Forums >> Glow Engines, Gas Engines, Fuel & Mfg Support Forums >> Glow Engines >> RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engines, GAS is better in every way :)
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engin... - 10/1/2006 8:44:11 AM   
wildchild45177



Posts: 463
Joined: 7/19/2005
From: wilmington, OH, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JettPilot

Those of you that are talking about the DA engines and others being lighter. You are forgetting the WEIGHT of the ignition battery and system on those engines. Those extra weights are NOT listed in the weight of the engines. The Zenoahs do not have this extra weight, when all is said and done, the weights are very close.


Not hardly. What's a battery and switch weigh? How about 3 or 4 ounces. The Zenoah has what about a pound of flywheel and a coil the size of a D cell?

Lets compare a BCMA 40 to a G-38 they are close in displacement.

G-38 weight is listed as having a total weight of 71 oz.

BCMA 40 is listed as having a total weight of 51 oz. Now add a 4.8v 1200Mah NIMH 3.32 oz, and a switch 1.25 oz. Total weight is 55.57 oz.

A difference of 15.3 oz. That's almost a pound, not to mention that the BCMA will swing a larger prop and develop more thrust, making the thrust to weight ratio even further apart.

As you pointed out earlier, in instances where extra weight is needed, they might be a good choice. But, for the man that likes a light plane they are as I stated earlier, a boat anchor.

Bob

(in reply to JettPilot)
       Post #: 26

RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engin... - 10/1/2006 4:27:20 PM   
JettPilot



Posts: 1151
Joined: 4/18/2005
From: Paradise, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wildchild45177


Lets compare a BCMA 40 to a G-38 they are close in displacement.

G-38 weight is listed as having a total weight of 71 oz.

That's almost a pound, not to mention that the BCMA will swing a larger prop and develop more thrust, making the thrust to weight ratio even further apart.

Bob


No Bob,

You said power was a consideration, so the correct comparison would be the G-45 to the BCMA. The G-45 is 74 ounces, but it puts out the same if not more power than your BCMA 40. The G-38 is heavy and low on power, the G-45 has much more for only 4 ounces of extra weight.

Why would you take the heavy low power Zenoah, and then complain about it ??? Can you say DISHONEST and misleading ?

The G-45 is a better matched engine to the BCMA 40. A pound heaver, but I will by flying while you are at the benches. I will be enjoying my life at home... You will be maintaining your engine and charging ignition batteries, etc. etc.

If you must have light, and are willing to put up with the extra BS, then great... But do NOT post misleading and dishonest comparisons by chosing the heaviest Ounce per HP Zenoah and then biatch about it. He honest and compare the similar power engines.

JettPilot

_____________________________

THE TRUTH ABOVE ALL ELSE...

(in reply to wildchild45177)
       Post #: 27

RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engin... - 10/1/2006 4:36:40 PM   
Ed Cregger



Posts: 7736
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Ringgold, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JettPilot

As I stated before, the Zenoah G-20 is a DOG of an engine, there are problems with the ignition unit and the total weight is the same as the Zenoah G-26, which has no issues and puts out more power for the same weight.


Those of you that are talking about the DA engines and others being lighter. You are forgetting the WEIGHT of the ignition battery and system on those engines. Those extra weights are NOT listed in the weight of the engines. The Zenoahs do not have this extra weight, when all is said and done, the weights are very close.

If you like cracked cases, reed problems, and a million other things, get a ZDZ, or a 3W or any of those other exotic engines. You will save a few ounces, and do a lot LESS flying, and more tinkering and maintenance. Sacraficing reliability for a couple ounces is just stupid, unless you are in serious competition.

JettPilot



----------------


I will look into that. Thanks for the tip off.



_____________________________

Artisan

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

(in reply to JettPilot)
       Post #: 28

RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engin... - 10/1/2006 4:36:49 PM   
WycheG



Posts: 143
Joined: 1/10/2004
From: Mission Viejo, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Bob,

Horizon's website says a Z-38 without a muffler weighs 67 oz. (not the 71 oz. you quote). RCSB says your 51 oz figure for the weight of a BMCA 40 is without a muffler. Why compare the weight of a Zenoa with a muffler to a BCMA without a muffler????

I only say all this to point out that this is all basically a matter of personal preference. But if you want to go spouting off about how your personal preference is right for everyone then at lease compare apples to apples and be up-font about it.

I fly two Saito FA-450's (one in a H9 Sukhoi and one in a scale model) and they do not burn a lot of fuel (if you know how to set a low-speed idle correctly -- they burn a ton of fuel until you get the low speed correct) but they work well for me. May not work well for you but to each his own (and I won't try to techno-babble -- based on false comparisons -- you into one choice or another).

Greg

(in reply to wildchild45177)
       Post #: 29

RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engi... - 10/1/2006 4:40:20 PM   
Hobbsy



Posts: 10678
Joined: 12/2/2001
From: Colonial Beach, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Thankyou Greg, I've been preaching for years that Saitos with the LowSpeed needle set correctly are not fuel hogs and they don't vibrate.

_____________________________

"I have gone faster backwards, upside down and on fire than most people have gone at all" Don Garlits

(in reply to WycheG)
       Post #: 30

RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engin... - 10/1/2006 4:57:43 PM   
wildchild45177



Posts: 463
Joined: 7/19/2005
From: wilmington, OH, USA
Status: offline 		Jettpilot

I simply was trying to take two engines close in displacement, and I believe 2cc is closer than 5cc. But if you want use the G-45, it's still much heavier, and power to weight the BCMA 40 will beat the pants off it. I have run about 3 gallon through this engine now without a single problem. Starting is a breeze. I simply put my finger over the stack, flip it through 3 times, turn on the ignition and flip it over once sometimes twice, and it fires every time.

WycheG

Do a little more reading. the figures posted are correct and include everything. Your Satios may not burn alot of fuel but it is $15 a gallon fuel. I don't think what I like is for everyone, however my point about the engines is correct.

Bob

< Message edited by wildchild45177 -- 10/1/2006 5:03:41 PM >

(in reply to WycheG)
       Post #: 31

RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engin... - 10/1/2006 5:50:02 PM   
WycheG



Posts: 143
Joined: 1/10/2004
From: Mission Viejo, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Maybe you should do the reding there, Bob. Here, I'll help you ...

Real (as opposed to Bob's) BCMA SPE40 specs:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/product_guide/enginespecs.cfm?engine_id=1375

Real (as opposed to Bob's) G-38 specs:
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=ZENE38A

4 oz of "your" G-38 weight is muffler. 0 oz of "your" BCMA weight it muffler. They probably didn't put a weight for the BCMA muffler 'cause they figure guys will get their own cans for it.

And, while I'm talking about reading ... maybe you should read the title of this forum.

Here's a hint.

It says G L O W Engines. Maybe you should post your drivel in the other forum -- you know ... the one that reads G A S Engines. Both links are in close proximity so I'll assume that (instead of not being able to read and comprehend independently) you simply clicked the wrong link to get here. Maybe it will find more appreciation over there.

Greg

(in reply to wildchild45177)
       Post #: 32

RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engi... - 10/1/2006 6:11:16 PM   
bla bla


 

Posts: 1580
Joined: 9/19/2002
From: Oslo, NORWAY
Status: offline 		I don't know why folks would want to compare a light wieght gasser against a Zenoah...they're just so far apart. Zen's aren't produced as a BMC, DA or similar competitor, they're a completely different case... stilll produce and sold and used throughout the world for the 1000's upon 1000s of modellers that demand functional simply and reliable power in a self contained package. Companies like DA, BMC collectively can only dream of similar world wide sales numbers. They're my definate choice for scale gass power. It's the self generating ignition, no batteries, no boxes to worry about. Great stuff. Sure they aren't quite as powerfull as some (MOST!) and yes they're heavier that most (ALL!) but thats not a problem. That weight as mentioned earlier is functional in many scale applicationsand they have enough of the "right sort of power". The G23 for example has got to be the ideal power plant for 1/4scale Cubs, Taylors etc. Just so perfect thats it's beyond beleif untill you've tried it, as all your years of experience and common sense is telling you a 4 banger glow " has... just has" to be the way to go. How wrong can you be.

The G62 has got to be flying more war birds that any other engine, The G45 happily flying civil scalies in a similar fashion. One of the most memoral RC moments I can recall was a 3rd scale Tiger Moth, with G38, typical superb German muffler system and a Tony Clark reducion drive/36" prop. Just without doubt the most convincing model available. The sound is just so fantastic it gives you goose pimples.

Yep there are many many more powerful engines out there and if you're looking to compete in IMAC you would be well advised to stay clear of the Zen's, nobodies questioning that! The problem is that they are just so tempting as an all round engine they're hard to put aside. For instance I've been looking for a 50cc ish gasser for my almost completed 1/4 scale Cessna 195. Now all rational would say that because I fly F3A, (albeit in the humble classes) I'd be better of with a light weighter like a DA because I could use it on an IMAC if I so desired at a later date. And they're be right,but It just had to be a G45. Why?
Because folks would just smile if I truned up with a scalie and a DA... and so they should... it's completely the wrong choice. I specially designed light weight power house over powering a scale model with a great lump of lead in the nose!
Just like some of you quys would have a quite sarcastic smile if somebody turned up at an IMAC Comp' with a G62...wouldn't you? Of course you would. Great thumping heavy and underpowered engine.
Hummm...mind you, I've seen quite a few exotic aeroplanes and engines minced by a simply Zenoah powered Extra.

< Message edited by bla bla -- 10/1/2006 6:33:45 PM >

_____________________________

BR blabla

(in reply to wildchild45177)
       Post #: 33

RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engi... - 10/1/2006 7:18:23 PM   
Rcpilot


 

Posts: 6555
Joined: 3/20/2002
From: Arvada, CO, USA
Status: offline 		Myself and lots of other modelers use the G-62 in IMAC and 3D planes. They work fine. YES, even for 3D in the 80--90" planes. For guys who fly at higher elevations, the 60cc size engine is the only way to go. It's a fact that a 50cc engine won't hover a 17--19 pound 30% plane up here. They just can't put out enough thrust. So, we jump to the next size motor. The 60cc engine. And the Zenoah G-62 is the perfect choice in this class.

Ya know what? Never mind. Everyone sell me your junk Zenoah engines. I'll give you 20% of retail for any engine with less than 10 gallons through it. Thats all I can offer--because they are just junk boat anchors.

With the advent of the new gas engines in the little tiny sizes like the .90 from BME and the 1.40 from RCS or the 25cc and 35cc from Roto, I see gas engines making a huge entrance into the 90--120 size planes. You could even put a BME .90 in a 4*60 if you wanted. Yeah, a gas engine in a 4*60!! Wouldn't that be cool? The planes are so light, the weight of the ignition wouldn't kill the wing loading. It won't have as much power as a .90 size glow engine, but it's gonna cost you 1/5th the fuel money. Why wouldn't you do it? A .90 on the 4*60 is insanely powered.

Look at the 25% size aerobatic planes. People are putting the RCS 1.40 and 1.80 engines in these planes. Now with the Roto 35cc engine available--it just makes sense. More reliability. Cheaper fuel. Why not?

< Message edited by Rcpilet -- 10/1/2006 7:19:43 PM >

_____________________________

Airplanes have expiration dates. It''s just not printed anywhere on them.
I''m not really an airplane pilot; but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

(in reply to bla bla)
       Post #: 34

RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engi... - 10/1/2006 7:35:44 PM   
Hobbsy



Posts: 10678
Joined: 12/2/2001
From: Colonial Beach, VA, USA
Status: offline 		My next building project is going to be a Bruce Tharpe Super FlyinKing, no way is it going to get a chainsaw engine, it's gittin a Saito 4.50 radial.

_____________________________

"I have gone faster backwards, upside down and on fire than most people have gone at all" Don Garlits

(in reply to Rcpilot)
       Post #: 35

RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engi... - 10/1/2006 7:52:19 PM   
WycheG



Posts: 143
Joined: 1/10/2004
From: Mission Viejo, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Hobbsy,

GREAT to hear that!

That's a great engine and I been seriously looking at the Super Flyin' King for a while now (was just on the site yesterday drooling over the Super Flyin' King and dreaming of how it would fly with a 450 in the nose). I jsut got too many things in the works right now (and for the last little while) to go for it. Maybe I'll break down and pull the trigger on a SFK for myself after I see yours with a 450 in it.

My newer one turns a Bolly 22x10 at 7,500 rpm on Red Maxx 5% Premium 2-cycle fuel (using flex pipes). I was able to get more rpm using the scale exhaust ring on my Bates George. But, alas, the George (number 1) is no more. Now I'm working on Bates George #2 (got the fuse, fin, and horiz. tail done and covered -- working on the wing as we speak) and can't wait to get my first 450 back in the air where it belongs.

P.S. -- anything larger than a 24 oz tank is a waste once you get the low speed needle leaned in. I got a 32 oz tank in my H9 Sukhoi and I'm getting tired of landing with over half a tank left ...

Greg

(in reply to Hobbsy)
       Post #: 36

RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engi... - 10/1/2006 7:58:16 PM   
bla bla


 

Posts: 1580
Joined: 9/19/2002
From: Oslo, NORWAY
Status: offline 		Ahhh the Bruce Tharpe Flying king, possibly one of the most asthetically pleasing, sexy lookin' mamas ever penned.
Those curves, those aerodynamic lines... internationally recognised as one, if not the hotest looking bit of RC fanny on Gods own earth!
I urge everyone not aquainted with this flying sex object to check it out.

Indeed a Marvelous home for your Saito.

_____________________________

BR blabla

(in reply to Hobbsy)
       Post #: 37

RE: Considering a large Glow engine ??? For big engi... - 10/1/2006 8:00:56 PM   
Hobbsy



Posts: 10678
Joined: 12/2/2001
From: Colonial Beach, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Mine would have to have a Keleo ring on it also, that's a given. I'm confident it will run on Fox Miracle Plugs and no on board glow power.

_____________________________

"I have gone faster backwards, upside down and on fire than most people have gone at all" Don Garlits

(in reply to WycheG)
       Post #: 38