Originally Posted by
FlyerInOKC
I guess I'm of the old "If it ain't broke don't fix it" school, why all this mania about modifying heads and adding spacers to a perfectly good running engines for such a small gain in RPM? Seems to be it would be better if the engine is not producing enough power for the airplane its on to just switch it out and use the current engine on something else? I still believe Enya knew what they were doing when they designed it and it will run longer and more reliably left original.
Good point. You echo my late father who was an aircraft engineer. His motto “Leave well enough alone” was often heard when my brother and I had scattered our motorcycle parts all over the basement. At one point he even chained my motorcycle and refused to unlock it before I had refitted mudguards, chain-guard, muffler…etc. However, he was very supportive when we had technical problems. We learned a lot from him.
BUT..!!!
- Item 1) in #2630 again. On a good flying day I must carry three fuel cans. I therefore try to “harmonise” engines to make them feed from the same can. A minimum number of cans and with a minimum % of nitro.
- The engine was in fact “broke” - and severely so - when I acquired it. The previous owner had overtightened the valve cover screws to the extent that both valve spindle standoffs were cracked. Already at break in after only 15-20 minutes runtime. I felt sorry for such a fine engine being thrown on the scrap-heap and bought it “dirt cheap”. Stabilized the standoffs and made a new rocker arm spindle. Still holds together after 10 years of service in two airplanes and now approaching 20h runtime. R.H.pic in #2646 shows the outward signs of said “patch up”.
- “…this mania..” Strong word. Working on my engines/airplanes on a rainy October night while sipping coffee, eating cookies and listening to Dolly Parton is something I enjoy. It is my hobby. Must I defend that..??..And at this RCU Forum of all places.!
- Thank you for posting #2582..!