Mr67Stang

Okay I know .10 don't really qualify here but I have a kit that I got at FlynRog's CC event. It's a Jr. Falcon that I want to be a very reliable and predictable flyer. The classic lines sold me on this plane. It says it is designed for a .061 - .074 so an OS .10 LA is not a far stretch. Maybe a little more weight but well withing the wingloading capabilities of this bird. I have a Norvel .061 that has only been bench run a few times not even broken in yet. But with the availability of these engines quickly fading I was thinking I would save it for Rog's Rivets I got from him and maybe put a .10 LA in the Jr. Falcon. The advertised power output on the .061 is higher than the .10 but the .10 should have more torque and the .061 power is rated at 22,500 rpm, about 7,000 more than it will ever run. What I want to know is there anything I am not concidering here that I should be made aware of before commiting either project to a specific engine. Your opinions on the matter are greatly apreciated.

Clean

It's the weight thing that I'd worry about. I'd put the Norvel .074 on the nose. It isn't much heavier than a Teedee, at least not as heavy as a .10 is. The power is the same as most 10's out there. I stuck a 10 on the nose of my 1/2A quickee and had to put the battery pack back behind the wing. It was a blast to fly, but Norvel wasn't on the market yet. I had a choice between a TeeDee going full out, or a .10 or 15. The 15 wasn't much heavier than the 10, it was a lot more fun. 10's basically had the same output as you noted, but at much more weight. But they throttled and didn't wear out as fast either and didn't have some rediculous ball socket to reset.

Norvel .074 would be my choice.

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

One thing that plays into this is that with a .10 you will have a wider usable throttle range, which makes flying more interesting and puts less wear on the engine than constant full throttle.

Mr67Stang

As noted the Norvel engines are getting hard to find... and pay for.

flyinrog

My Feedback: (1)

One thing..the rivets is designed for a cox reedie tanked model ie. blackwidow. goldenbee,,its a small plane and you will be hard pressed to put any sized tank in it..Id go with the .061 on the jr falcon it should be plenty...Rog

dennis

My Feedback: (90)

An 061 is almost overkill for a 1/2A Falcon. We flew them on reed valve motors when the plane came out and that was with single channel rigs. With todays equipment your not really getting into any additional weight over the origional equipment we used. It's not designed to do 3D or precision flying of turnaround pattern.
If your field is rough and you think that you need the power to get off, it takes only a push out of your hands to be airborne. Come to think of it thats how we launched them back in those fields that we flew then in, you know, back in the day.
Dennis

lildiesel

The OS .10 LA is way to heavy for a Jr. Falcon and would definitely over power it. I put a PAW .049 TBR R/C into a rudder, elevator, and throttle Jr. Falcon a number of years ago and had plenty of performance for civilized sport flying using half throttle most of the time. A Norvel .061 ought to be fine.

supagloo

I'm glad to hear that the PAW 049 works well on the Falcon Jr.
At this moment I am building one and I wanted to use the PAW 060 RC on it.
Same size and weight and it runs like a dream.....

rrragmanliam

My Feedback: (1)

Here's mine,

If you put the .10 on the Falcon you will ruin it. A good .049 will fly a Junior Falcon. The biggest engine I would put on it would be the .074 Norvel and that will be WAY overpowered. If you put the OS on it it will be an overpowered BRICK. It will fly but not like it was designed to. In time I think you will regret the OS option.

Darren

fritzke

My Feedback: (1)

How about the Thunder Tiger .07??
http://www2.mailordercentral.com/qua...tem=2&mitem=28
Dave

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

I've said this before.....I don't understand the .10 sized engine market. Very limited with your choices of airframe IF you are after outstanding performance. The Norvel .074 is the SAVIOR for 1/2A planes that need more oomph, but the .10 kind of gets left out in the cold. Not enough power to justify its' 4 ozs of weight. For $5 more, you can get a .15 that will give a guy way more choices for planes to fly, and fly with authority.

Instead of using a TT .07, you would be getting the same thing by using a worn out .10

Bipe Flyer

The TT .07 isn't has heavy as a .10. It's nowhere near the Norvel .074 for power, but it throttles well. Here's a clip of my Mini Bipe Stik when it had a TT .07 "Thunderkitten". I think it would be a nice fit for a Jr. Falcon.

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

cp, you make a good point about the .10 market slot. No one seems to design for that displacement anymore. As I'm sure you know, a long time ago I believe .099 was a cutoff for a competition class. .10s were manufactured for the same reasons that .051s and .21s were made - class straddling models.

It's an anachronism, a leftover. The 10cc engine is on it's last leg, too. Most current sixties are under-bored ninety castings. When displacement limits were part of all competitions, manufacturers squeezed every drop of power out of a given engine size. Today, it's easier and cheaper to just up the displacement instead of trying to engineer higher performance. The forty is pretty much dead, having been replaced by the .46. Now .55s are replacing the .46s. I think the days of engine designers trying to wring every possible hp out of an r/c engine are gone. Want a more powerful .61? Just buy a .75 and be done with it. It's sort of a shame. I liked it when we got to see the latest pumped, supercharged, piped monsters featured in the magazines. A mediocre, boring, sport .55 swings a bigger prop than yesterday's hot .40; which is better, I don't know.

SGC

If the model will fly on a Cox reedy, then a CS061 should fly it, there both available and cheap
Stewart

dennis

My Feedback: (90)

For what it's worth, 09/10 sized motors are a carryover from a generation ago and were quite popular in the early days of R/C. The example would be an esquire for an 09/19. I saw many of them with K&B 09's and early OS10's. They put out enough power to carry the equipment of the day but didn't overpower the plane to cause trim problems.
There is another problem in that todays modeller has been conditioned to ues the biggest motor that can be stuffed into the airframe in the belief that it will only make everything better. As you know such is not always the case. But as long as flying today is consistant with hanging a plane on a prop we're stuck with this mentality.

mylamo

My Feedback: (1)

I like hot rod engines, whether they are small or
large. There is a great deal of satisfaction in the
reply"No,really its only " fill in the blank.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Darn tootin'....hot rod engines, stuff 'em in there!! After flying in circles for about 10 years, getting introduced to prop hanging opened up a whole new world of RC for me. It takes supreme control and a very well set up and straight plane. Plus you can't build a small 3D light enough, so they challenge your designing and building skills, too. I can say that I mastered flying around in circles, but will never master 3D.

The marketeers of those .10 engines must know what they're doing.....I would be very interested in knowing what the sales figures are per size for companies like OS and others who offer engines from .10 on up.

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

I have to say I really prefer the bygone race for horsepower. But, the bigger displacement/lighter case philosophy is what we have now. Sure, there are Jett and Nelson, but almost every manufacturer once had a high performance series, Super Tigre, OS, K&B, Enya, for example. It's just easier and cheaper today to develop and manufacture a docile, sport .75 or .90 than it is to push a .61 to its absolute hp limits.

hogflyer

Well, I for one feel there is enough talent in the 1/2A forum to compensate for the lack of .099/.10 - .15 designs by just designing some. I wouldn't mind finding a home for my Arden .099 (with only 1 run since new, back around 1945 ). I'd be willing to risk running it just to see how it really performed. Anybody have any experience with the Berkley Bootstraps "A-RC" for .09 - .14?

As far as all out performance being tweaked out of an engine, don't let Dub Jett know this isn't being done any more. I have my eye on a Jet .61 at the LHS for not to much more than an OS .61.

Hogflyer

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Fewer service department headaches, too. OS has a pretty strong line of higher than average performance engines, but they are pretty expensive. I guess the best kept "secret" for cheap power is the TOWER .75 and a Macs' or Ultrathrust muffler. The turbines have killed the DF engine market, and the pylon racers mainly flock to only one or 2 builders, which is fine because they are independent Americans building those beauties, not some megalithic company doing it.

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

hogflyer, scaling is the way to go. I don't think I've built a kit in 12 or 13 years. All my current planes are from plans or scratch built. With my computer I can take almost any design and scale it to whatever engine I want. I have four scaled models sitting next to me right now: a 1/2A Miss Martha and Sun Fli IV, a .20 size Kaos, and a Jr. Skylark scaled up for a .15. There are just too many great designs out there. Take your Arden, pick a design you love and scale it to that engine. I recently scaled down the Taurus plans to 46" specifically for an LA .10, whenever I finally get one (remember the 70" original flew on a .45).

D Bronk

.OK.How about pics ,of a plan/plane ,and a wingspan, that would need to be scaled to, for the LA 10.Something that would make a decent combo,what should a person shoot for,for Max. Weight also.I`m putting together a Simple Series Corsair, and will use that LA 10 on it.I want to try, and use ,a Multi blade prop.on the plane.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

I'm not sure which plan service carries this plane, but the NICKLE is a plane that flies well with everything from a .049 to a .15. It is a very agile but stable R/E model. I used to see how low and slow it could fly laps with a G MARK .061. Look for lightly built designs in the 36 to 48 inch span range.

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

Dave, here's my Sun Fli IV plans I re-drew in cad at 36" and pics of the model with an AP Wasp .061, auw is about 14.75ozs (heavy, I know).

I would enlarge these plans to 39" for an LA .10. I drew two noses: a long one for 1/2A engines and the original nose for standard r/c engines.

flyinrog

My Feedback: (1)

Nice work Dave, you should have AKS lazer cut out a few of them for you, its not that expensive to do...Rog