The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate  
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 >> RC Airplanes >> "1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes >> The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate - 5/15/2008 1:02:56 PM   
GrahamC


 

Posts: 525
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Ottawa, ON, CANADA
Status: online
I subscribe to a Yahoo group called "049 collectors". There was an interesting post today about a proposed test to compare Castor to Synthetic oil in our 1/2a engines. Copied and pasted below is the original email plus my response.

I don't have any sure starts let alone new ones. If I had I would donate them to the cause.

I posted this here as there are those who read this forum who have these same questions and may be able and willing to lend a hand in support of this initative.

His name is Aaron and it appears he works for Novak Performance (car guys) and uses the email of novakperformance @ yahoo.com

quote:


Aaron,

I think this is great idea and if I had 2 new unrun surestarts I would donate them to the cause.

There is much in the way of old wives tales about the pluses, minuses, and virtues of castor oil versus synthetics and even about the need for these engines to use high nitro fuels (ie 25+%) but lets leave the variable of hi nitro out of the equation as after all you intend to only try and measure the difference between two types of oil.

I would suggest a third combination - a 50/50 blend of castor and synthetic. And this could be taken even further with 25/75 and 75/25 blends but lets not get carried away.

As to props, a 6x3 is as good as any and should represent a "decent load" on the engines under test. My preferred prop for 1/2a sport flying is the APC 5.7x3 or the APC 6x2 as I think the 6x3 is a wee bit much. However, just pick one and go for it.

Also, before even starting to break in the engines, tear them down (as I am sure have already planned), give them a good cleaning and ensure the piston ball joint is properly set before running the engines.

You might also consider replacing the Cox plugs with Galbreath heads and Nelson plugs. This should not have any impact on the results but reduce ensure consistencly between the engines and would let you save the Cox plugs for anytime you really need the Cox plugs.

I have taken the liberty of posting your proposal in the 1/2a forum on RcUniverse. There are many there who would be very interested in your results and you may find donors for the engines needed for the test.


cheers, Graham in Ottawa Canada


At 04:28 5/15/2008 -0000, you wrote:
>Good Day,
> My name is Aaron Novak, been watching this group for a bit and grew
>up flying 1/2A CL airplanes. Now I work in engineering as a "big"
>engine company. Ive always read the disputes between synthetic and
>castor oils in our small engines, but never saw any kind of
>scientific testing. So I have a proposal:
>
>2-Identical new COX surestart engines
>1-run on 25% Nitro 25% Castor oil fuel (Bakers AA)
>1-run on 25% Nitro 25% Synthetic oil fuel (Cool Power Blue)
>Fuels to be accurately blended by myself from virgin materials.
>Engines run side by side with 32oz fuel tanks propped with 6-3 APC
>props ( balanced ). Engines will be broken in for 30 minutes using
>the intended endurance fuel using the standard rich-lean-rich
>procedure. Both engines will be run 25-50 rpm rich of peak and
>allowed to run the entire endurance of the 32 oz tank. Peak RPM will
>be recorded at the beginning and end of the run to check for any
>loss of performance. The engines will then be torn down and a full
>inspection for wear done and pictures of the parts taken for all to
>view and posted in this group. I would also entertain a
>castor/synthetic blend depending on the results.
>
>Is this something anyone would be interested in?? If so I am willing
>to donate the time, facility, fuel ingredients and all if someone
>can donate the engines.
>
>Thanks!!
>-Aaron Novak
>



Seems like a good cause in need of a couple of "cheap" surestarts to get it going.

So what say ye Denizens of this corner of World 1/2a ?


cheers, Graham

< Message edited by GrahamC -- 5/15/2008 1:03:47 PM >
       Post #: 1

RE: The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate - 5/15/2008 1:43:49 PM   
Mr Cox



Posts: 280
Joined: 7/20/2007
From: Gothenburg, SWEDEN
Status: offline
Funny idea...

For a good test one should run both engines on a small tank so that they always end with a lean run. Preferably the conrod slop should also me measured in a good way before and after the test.

I think I've seen enough castor to know that it works and I can't see much reason to change into synthetic stuff....

(in reply to GrahamC)
       Post #: 2

RE: The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate - 5/15/2008 1:45:46 PM   
SGC


 

Posts: 1020
Joined: 12/8/2004
From: OAKEYQueensland, AUSTRALIA
Status: offline
Graham ,
With the inconsistancies in quality of the current offerings of sure starts just running 2 engines would not give true results. I have purchased several sure starts and noticed the difference in hardness of the pistons during the prerun ball socket setting, others have posted finding same.
I also feel such a test is a mute point, as many competition 1/2A guys have posted that castor not only extends life but useually yeilds higher perfornces too - Larry Driskills tests with the VA to mention 1.
Stewart

< Message edited by SGC -- 5/15/2008 1:54:44 PM >

(in reply to GrahamC)
       Post #: 3

RE: The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate - 5/15/2008 1:50:22 PM   
MJD


 

Posts: 1509
Joined: 5/27/2003
From: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamC

I subscribe to a Yahoo group called "049 collectors". There was an interesting post today about a proposed test to compare Castor to Synthetic oil in our 1/2a engines. Copied and pasted below is the original email plus my response.

I don't have any sure starts let alone new ones. If I had I would donate them to the cause.

I posted this here as there are those who read this forum who have these same questions and may be able and willing to lend a hand in support of this initative.

His name is Aaron and it appears he works for Novak Performance (car guys) and uses the email of novakperformance @ yahoo.com

quote:


Aaron,

I think this is great idea and if I had 2 new unrun surestarts I would donate them to the cause.

There is much in the way of old wives tales about the pluses, minuses, and virtues of castor oil versus synthetics and even about the need for these engines to use high nitro fuels (ie 25+%) but lets leave the variable of hi nitro out of the equation as after all you intend to only try and measure the difference between two types of oil.

I would suggest a third combination - a 50/50 blend of castor and synthetic. And this could be taken even further with 25/75 and 75/25 blends but lets not get carried away.

As to props, a 6x3 is as good as any and should represent a "decent load" on the engines under test. My preferred prop for 1/2a sport flying is the APC 5.7x3 or the APC 6x2 as I think the 6x3 is a wee bit much. However, just pick one and go for it.

Also, before even starting to break in the engines, tear them down (as I am sure have already planned), give them a good cleaning and ensure the piston ball joint is properly set before running the engines.

You might also consider replacing the Cox plugs with Galbreath heads and Nelson plugs. This should not have any impact on the results but reduce ensure consistencly between the engines and would let you save the Cox plugs for anytime you really need the Cox plugs.

I have taken the liberty of posting your proposal in the 1/2a forum on RcUniverse. There are many there who would be very interested in your results and you may find donors for the engines needed for the test.


cheers, Graham in Ottawa Canada


At 04:28 5/15/2008 -0000, you wrote:
>Good Day,
> My name is Aaron Novak, been watching this group for a bit and grew
>up flying 1/2A CL airplanes. Now I work in engineering as a "big"
>engine company. Ive always read the disputes between synthetic and
>castor oils in our small engines, but never saw any kind of
>scientific testing. So I have a proposal:
>
>2-Identical new COX surestart engines
>1-run on 25% Nitro 25% Castor oil fuel (Bakers AA)
>1-run on 25% Nitro 25% Synthetic oil fuel (Cool Power Blue)
>Fuels to be accurately blended by myself from virgin materials.
>Engines run side by side with 32oz fuel tanks propped with 6-3 APC
>props ( balanced ). Engines will be broken in for 30 minutes using
>the intended endurance fuel using the standard rich-lean-rich
>procedure. Both engines will be run 25-50 rpm rich of peak and
>allowed to run the entire endurance of the 32 oz tank. Peak RPM will
>be recorded at the beginning and end of the run to check for any
>loss of performance. The engines will then be torn down and a full
>inspection for wear done and pictures of the parts taken for all to
>view and posted in this group. I would also entertain a
>castor/synthetic blend depending on the results.
>
>Is this something anyone would be interested in?? If so I am willing
>to donate the time, facility, fuel ingredients and all if someone
>can donate the engines.
>
>Thanks!!
>-Aaron Novak
>



Seems like a good cause in need of a couple of "cheap" surestarts to get it going.

So what say ye Denizens of this corner of World 1/2a ?


cheers, Graham


- For $6.99 a pop. why doesn't he just order two, wouldn't that be easier than trying to score two on the forums? Or is that deal no longer available?

- 25% oil? I would say run less than that - who runs 25% synthetic in 1/2A's? Nobody, and few run 25% castor unless they blend or juggle their own fuels.

20% oil might be a more representative test. Otherwise, results could be skewed by the disproportionate amount of oil.

- If a castor/synthetic blend is going to be tested, I would recommend one of the more common blends on the market - say 80/20 syn/cas? An additional test that would be of real practical value is to run one on 32oz of off the shelf regular old syn/cas sport fuel, i.e. 18% total oil 80:20 syn/cas blend, compared to the two above fuels. It would be a useful data point to know the relative wear rate. This way, one would know more about the sin or virtue level of using those fuels.

- One thing I would say is that in normal operation they either get launched on the rich side then go comfortably lean towards the end of the tank, or they get tweaked a little closer to peak and run like gangbusters until the end of the tank when they go a bit too lean. How much difference that type of cycling will make versus pure endurance testing at near peak, I dunno. Comments?

In terms of pure longetivity of the piston/cylinder and ball joint, I guess this will tell a fair bit.

Alan @ Weston UK says he's run a TD .049 flat out on (Weston's..) Prosynth fuel with much less oil than we would normally consider .049-worthy, and recorded lower cylinder head temps and better peak rpm than with traditional fuel. Then again, he also said that the factory team has has had West .50 powered Magnums flying at 240mph. At least one of the above two claims is bogus.. . If I am not mistaken (and I easily could be) cylinder head temp doesn't really tell the story about wear rate that one might think anyways.

MJD


(in reply to GrahamC)
       Post #: 4

RE: The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate - 5/15/2008 2:56:24 PM   
combatpigg



Posts: 9255
Joined: 11/22/2003
From: arlington, WA, USA
Status: offline
It might take buying a batch of Surestart engines to find 2 that match power.
Bench running is also meaningless, unless that's all you plan on doing in this hobby.
I would run the tests on either RC or C/L planes with the engines set as close to each other in rpm as possible.
It's already a closed case AFAIAC, I ruined a lot of stuff before learning about castor.


_____________________________

Led Zeppelin is NOT "old fogie" music.

(in reply to MJD)
       Post #: 5

RE: The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate - 5/15/2008 3:10:35 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 3082
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline
I agree (big suprise ) with the comments above, in points


  • Large Tank benching doesnt represent the variable leans encountered in the field.
    From prop haninging fuel draw leans, to general low tank leaning, hispeed unload... and the mandatory leanout at the end ofthe ride. Running on a 32oz or 5gallon tank at a constant perfect rich wont really test the lube's ability to protect during the unavoidable leans.

    To this point I say the tanksize is almost not important, if we put a required number of Line Pinch Kill & Restarts. Just toss a clothespin on the line every 2 mins & restart.

  • 25% Oil may be high for general population.
    Folks in general aint buying 25%oil 1/A fuel. But then you pour 4oz of castor in some off the shelf 18Blend and you get closer to 21. I could see this with either 18% or 20% being a more valuable test. It is asking to see different effectiveness of the different oils, and as such having plenty of oil would not accent the oils performance as well as running minimum lube to put more work on the oil. The balance would have to be heat, this is not about burning up engines on the bench from lack of oil exhaust cooling

  • I concurr test subjects should be All Synth, All Castor, and the mid ground should be an off the shelf 18%blend (or maybe "20/20" like I used to run)


_____________________________

Optional MA is part of AMA history, we can go optional AGAIN if we just say so

(in reply to MJD)
       Post #: 6

RE: The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate - 5/15/2008 3:43:12 PM   
combatpigg



Posts: 9255
Joined: 11/22/2003
From: arlington, WA, USA
Status: offline
KE, it's pretty simple....you can either agree, or disagree then live in fear of the FSOD

_____________________________

Led Zeppelin is NOT "old fogie" music.

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 7

RE: The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate - 5/15/2008 4:01:32 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 3082
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline
Do we need to get another SureStart on the bench with 100LL?

_____________________________

Optional MA is part of AMA history, we can go optional AGAIN if we just say so

(in reply to combatpigg)
       Post #: 8

RE: The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate - 5/16/2008 2:04:56 AM   
lildiesel


 

Posts: 444
Joined: 11/18/2005
From: Cincinnati, OH, USA
Status: offline
How about that small white plastic tank shown underneath some Sure Starts? That way the tank set ups would be assured to be identical.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr Cox

Funny idea...

For a good test one should run both engines on a small tank so that they always end with a lean run. Preferably the conrod slop should also me measured in a good way before and after the test.

I think I've seen enough castor to know that it works and I can't see much reason to change into synthetic stuff....


(in reply to Mr Cox)
       Post #: 9

RE: The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate - 5/16/2008 2:26:17 AM   
rainedave



Posts: 4760
Joined: 7/21/2005
From: Greensboro, NC, USA
Status: online
This debate comes up on a regular basis in the RCU engine forum. Usually Europeans who have access to superior synthetic oils like Coopers, Motul, Aerosynth and Aerosave argue that you don't need castor oil in your fuel. I run a lot of 30+ year old engines - several with lapped iron pistons - and I live in the US. So, I use a lot of castor oil in my fuels. But, I still think this would be an interesting experiment if enough engines were used (as others have suggested).

David

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize

(in reply to lildiesel)
       Post #: 10

RE: The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate - 5/16/2008 2:34:10 AM   
jessiej



Posts: 1793
Joined: 7/6/2003
From: STATESBORO, GA, USA
Status: offline
I wonder how many thousands of posts on castor vs synthetic there have been on the various internet forums?

jess

(in reply to GrahamC)
       Post #: 11

RE: The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate - 5/16/2008 3:21:35 AM   
combatpigg



Posts: 9255
Joined: 11/22/2003
From: arlington, WA, USA
Status: offline
I wonder what the Europeans run in their $150 FAI .15s?

_____________________________

Led Zeppelin is NOT "old fogie" music.

(in reply to jessiej)
       Post #: 12

RE: The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate - 5/16/2008 8:03:31 AM   
vauxhall


 

Posts: 439
Joined: 4/27/2003
From: SydneyNSW, AUSTRALIA
Status: offline
After quite a few years building, tuning and repairing kart engines, as far as I'm concerned it's no contest for engine durability, castor oil wins on all counts. Engines run on the synthetics that I've encountered, are usually very dry inside when dismantled. Engines run on castor, everything inside is still nice and slippery. It has been well documented elsewhere how castor oil will not break down under extreme heat conditions.
If synthetics are so good, we wouldn't be having this debate. If you can get castor oil, then use it, end of story.
Just my opinion of course.........John

(in reply to combatpigg)
       Post #: 13

RE: The Great Castor vs Synthetic debate - 5/16/2008 9:11:00 AM   
supagloo



Posts: 103
Joined: 2/3/2006
From: Den Haag, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: combatpigg

I wonder what the Europeans run in their $150 FAI .15s?


Standard FAI Fuel (80% methanol/20% castor) where it is obligated.
In all othe cases every self declared engine specialist has it's own blend.
Some use the available ingredients