mike109

G'day Jeff

We had a young kid with a 120 two stroke which always dead sticked so we did this little test -

Start the engine with the tank about 1/4 full and tune it.
Now fill the tank and start the engine. At this point his engine ran really rich and it was just too rich to fly.

The problem was the tank was too tall and the pressure difference between the top and the tank and the bottom meant that if it were tuned with a full tank, it would soon be lean as the tank emptied.

Solution would either be a regulator (Cline or Ironbay) or a Uniflow Tank setup. We tried the Uniflow tank and it worked. (See elsewhere for the details or PM me.)

You might like to do this experiment?

As for "fad" power sources, I am waiting for the new Nuclear Fusion motors to be invented. In the meantime, I will stick to my four stroke glow motors and some small electrics. When I want to play with a "fad" engine, I dig out a diesel.

Mike in Oz

JPMacG

My Feedback: (2)

Yes, those are the same symptoms I had with a Magnum XLS46A, and the same conclusion that I arrived at. Either the crankshaft fit in the housing is too loose and allows air to pass or the weep hole between the crankcase and front bearing is too large and allows air to pass. In 10 years of flying and 12 glow engines, that is the only one that gave me any trouble. All the others are flip and fly.

misterv

I started off on diesel powered then for many many years on glow. Now I fly some larger models (35cc.and above) on gas. However I am converting over to electric on most models including the larger models from 35cc.gas.
What has killed glow motors is the almost universal use of ARF aircraft. For years I was a builder only with heavy models with great looking paint jobs that lasted for years.
Although many builders will not admit it, the majority of ARF are built to a stage where we could only dream of, due mainly to laser cutting that produces an accurate and light airframe, and therefore great flying model. We are forever hearing of complaints of weak airfames with lack of glue and undercarriages being ripped out. If full size aircraft (from small Cessnas to Boeing 747 ) landed like most modellers land, there would be a mass of unairworthy aircarft lying around.
ARF models fitted with glow engines have a limited life. Fuel and oil get under the covering and the models get tacky looking very fast. Yes, there area few exceptions. Gas have problems with vibration that can destroy a model if not kept in check.Electrics definately have a limited flight time but a very extended life span.
I don't believe cost is a adeciding factor as I am sure (like me) we bury our head in the sand and we know what we can or cannot afford.
As F3A pattern and many scale and warbird modellers have found out, electric is a great alternative.

mwhar760

My Feedback: (18)

Just a fad!!!!  I don't think so!!!! neither does  SAITO and OS they are producing gassers now as well!!!! evidently they are seeing a trend toward gas fuel versus glo also!!!

kiwibob72

Oddly enough, OS are also producing electric motors as well .... perhaps they see merit in that "fad" also??

Still, I guess the proof is in the pudding, and while this is indeed at an extreme, the day anyone gets an electric motor to sound just like this normally, perhaps I'll look at them, until then ...... this exact setup will remain my 'dream' plane - 'fad' or otherwise!!

[link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0RQtnIKsV4&feature=related[/link]

Regardless of what way you want to go, each option be it gas, nitro or "spark's with no personality" is valid for you IF you decide on said option. Personally While I see electric as a great tool to get into the hobby re all the good and seriously cheap RTF models on the market (my first aircraft period was a RTF 450 electric CP 3D heli), it's also a bad thing as people get frustrated with the poor performance cheap kits offer and leave a hobby that could have offered them hours of fun IF they had gone with a slightly more expensive nitro introduction aircraft.
As I see it, these newer gassers are for folk like me who have used the other two, and after weighing up the pros and cons, found a suitable power source that ticks all their boxes in the right place - I do not see them as a valid introduction to the hobby as the trainer aircraft are too big by default, and while eaiser to fly, they still need to cut their teeth on cheaper models first - The thought of a foamie trainer coming at me as a result of someone biting off more than they could chew scares me a lot less than some 30cc powered 90" + wide monster doing the same thing!.
Still .... if you cut away all the passion about what specific power source you like or dislike like "spark's with no personality", they are ALL valid, were ALL fads at some point, and none of them will be going anywhere any time soon as they are all here to stay!

cutaway

Uniflow plumbing TOTALLY ROCKS, I've used it for decades on almost any engine that has a strong enough fuel draw to tolerate the slight negative pressure in the tank. There are a few engines that won't tolerate the slight negative pressure, an OS .40H and the old baffle piston Torp .40 pylon racing engine being ones I've encountered and remembered.

crash1ace

gasser bore me

Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

A YS 1.20 and an RCS 1.40 gas engine side by side. The gasser is a bit smaller. The RCS was sold about 10 years ago but no longer. At 22cc it outperforms any of the glow engines I have used up to the 1.60. Cost next to nothing to operate but it was not a cheap engine even by todays standards. The rear induction has posed a few problems with different planes but once I got that figured out it turned into an easy engine to work with. At the moment I have been having a debate with myself which engine to use in a big Bipe. I decided on the YS so I can use the RCS in my next build, the Ultra Sport 1000. he RCS can create a ground clearance problem too. It uses a 16 or 17 inch prop. Other then the price of this engine I wish they still made it. Easiest engine I have ever used in a plane.

tony0707

hi
the newer gas engine designs have a lot to do with the increased use of gasoline powered aircraft ,and seeing more of them at the field
the older weed wacker engines have there place in planes that need nose weight-,been around longer than i have been flying -do you notice how much less they sell for used these days
but the lightness and power the DA-DLE and DLA engines put out and there very reasonable cost have changed the way things are done over the last few years
it just seems every few weeks someone is coping and putting out a new brand engine of this same new design
i am flying for 22 years and the new gas engines are just that a new design that has improved the use of gasoline in RC aircraft the new design was long over due but here now ,who knows what is next but that is what is great about people never settling for the old style mouse trap ,its a good thing for us all
gasoline power is not a fad unless price makes it an expensive luxury item but the type and shape of engine we use to burn the fuel just might be
first it was the early gas ignition engines ,then the weed wackers and now the new gas design-just evolution as i see it and a very good thing
light and powerful is always a great thing in our hobby
all performance is based on a power to weight ratio
we all may be flying electric one day if the fuel cost just prevents its use only time will tell and somehow i am sure we will adjust what we do to suit our needs
cost of the fuels we use may be changing our lives and what we do the cost of just getting to the field has even become a factor for many i am sure
electric cars are in our future -you get the idea
HAPPY NEW YEAR TONY

kmeyers

Is it a fade? No!

8 lbs and up, you cann't beat gas. Glows range is 4 - 7 lbs right now. Yes, Pattern top flyers are EP at 11 lbs (the cost and complication they are willing to endure for the benefit they get is giant though).

October to April my main plane is a 60 Ultra Stick (slightly moddified for gas) powered by a 20cc Zenoah. Two landing gears that I can change wheels to skies in less than 5 minutes.

April to October my main plane is a 50cc Yak.

I have small electrics, medium glows, but, large planes just have to be gas hands down.

I have a 17 lb 1/4 scale Cub that I just don't fly enough simply because the 32cc glow is just a pain. Someday I will convert this to gas and enjoy it alot more often.

jimmyjames213

My Feedback: (2)

Nitro is not needed in most glow two strokes (it can be used in four strokes with onboard glow), learn how to tune and 0% nitro works just as well if not better than 15%
With some research methanol is not hard to find, mix in oil and 7$ per gallon fuel is very possible

Whichever power method you pick gas, glow, electric, diesel, ect….each have their “problems� that have to be worked out
Glow required experience to understand when the engine is too lean, rich, how to set the idle, mid range, high-end, ect as long as you have patience and problem solve getting a reliable glow engine that starts in one flick is not hard. I also find it funny how the gas guys say “don’t need the whole fieldbox� the only thing needed for a glow engine is the glow igniter, glow plug wrench, and possibly starter. Every other tool you also need for the gas engine or just the airplane in general

Gas engines can be just as picky as glow engines if not more, same tunings issues just different ones, just like glow once you learn how to tune it….your done

Electric is a whole different ballgame. Instead of tinkering it required careful calculation. Finding the perfect prop/esc/motor/battery/cell count and plane combo can be difficult but again once you understand the basics of how it all works it is not a big issue. Electric components are very picky and if you do not understand volts/amps/props/batteries you will fry some stuff. Battery life is not a huge issue…just buy more batteries and a field charger. I feel like battery safety is the bigger issue…..if a 10000 6 cell lipo goes off (or even a small 2000 3 cell) it takes your house with it.

I have flown all three methods and I feel .40 sized glow is by far the cheapest if you do it correctly, mix your own fuel, buy cheap engines and learn how to tune. Gasoline engines while cheap to operate, require more expensive props, airplanes, servos, equipment, the engines themselves are 250+ I can buy a 50$ glow .46 sized engine and run it for well over 100 hours before I ever reach 250 dollars. Now once you go bigger gas becomes cheaper. Hour for Hour of flying time .40 sized glow is cheaper than 20cc+ gas unless you fly everyday of your life, never crash and never break a prop

Electrics are awesome for smaller planes .25 and under but unless you take good care of your batteries, fly enough to get your money out of them, and have enough batteries to fly 5+ flights glow will be cheaper. This is not the case for everyone but in general for someone who flies 10 or so weekends in a year glow will be cheaper (or gas if you go big), electrics do have the advantage of…once the initial setup is selected and it works, it works 95% of the time with no tinkering required at the field. While gas and glow both require field tinkering.

Oberst

I have as well including a few Lipo fires. I'm a glow and gas person only, but electrics are perfect for park flying and aircraft that are .25 and lower. To me electric planes seem on the toyish side, and when I flew them the first year I joined the hobby, they don't handle or fly very scale like. Maybe that's because the aircraft are made on the light side because of the electric motor?

My new club is gas/glow only because we have a special field for electrics. That's to prevent the cheap foamies getting in the way of some of the $1,000-$4,000 aircraft and to prevent mid-airs with them. What's nice about the park flyers is you don't need a club to fly- just a nice open park or field. I guess there is a place for everything in this hobby.

I started on a cheap electric trainer and didn't start glow until I knew how to fly safely on the electric. When I crashed my cheap plane it didn't break the bank to fix it. By the time I had bought my first glow trainer there was no looking back for me. The smell, sound and mess got me hooked.

Pete

Jado 6

My Feedback: (1)

It seems amusing to me that all you gas/glow guys are debating & presenting your arguements for your power plant of choice. I'm an electric guy,& guess what?- We're everywhere. I was at the hobby joint today. Big one. Anyway, i was there for parts for my slider, trail rig, & p-51. I saw 2 dudes buying electric warbirds. They have three different counters:heli,elctrics, & gas/glow. Really, there's 2, because i've never seen more than 1 old dude at the gas counter, at once.  My pop has an old friend that preaches on gas-probably 50 gas planes in his garage. Helluva pilot too. But guess what's in the trunk of his old dude buick? Electric cub! He told me, he could just pull over, plug-in, & be flying. Same reason can be said for many of us lipo jockeys. I don't have the time or patience for anything else. Mostly time. I also refuse to tote around a damn bin with all the "stuff" needed to run the things. You can call it whatever you want. But know that us electric folks are like casual gamers-the hardcores hate us, but that problem is their own, cuz we're the ones that are truly evolving the hobby. Anyone can be a pilot now. & i think that knocks the cherry right off the traditionalists cigar! & you know, electrics are only gonna get faster, bigger, & better than they are now. Just ask the nitro car/truck guys about that. If you can find one.

CGRetired

My Feedback: (1)

Well, we are certainly glad to hear that.

As an "old dude", I prefer glow. And I am sure that there are some "younger dudes" out there that prefer either glow or gasoline. It is not limited to the younger crowd that prefer one over the other, it just happens to be their preference. It is neither good nor bad. What IS good is that they all fly RC and enjoy the hobby.

I don't have any gasoline powered planes, but I presume that I will sooner or later. I also have several electrics. Yeah, I like them, but right now, I prefer glow power. And as I said, sooner or later, I will progress up to gasoline.

I am a "casual flyer"... prefer to call my self a sport flyer. I do all the pattern stuff, and practice at it all, but when I go out, I go out to relax and just fly. A majority of the pilots at our field fly glow. A good number of the pattern guys fly electric. However, I can tell you this: I can buy three or four glow powered planes, completely equipped, for what these guys spend on their 2 meter pattern planes.

So, as amusing as it is to you about this discussion, well, as I said, it just comes down to preference. I am not amused by those that are interested in glow, nor am I amused about those that are intereseted in gasoline, and I am not amused about those that are interested in electric power. In fact, I am absolutely thrilled about the fact that pilots have a choice and make that choice based on their preferences.

To each his own and what floats your boat is what's ok for you. As I said, I do have a few electrics, in fact, my favorite is a Seawind EP. I love that plane. BUT, my overall favorite, I have two, are my glow powered Venus II and my glow powered Skylark 70.

CGr.

on_your_six

My Feedback: (11)

I will probably never buy another glo engine ever again. I have had too many dead sticks with that technology. Then there is dealing with the slimy mess created by the oil.

While I admit gas engines are a bit more complex, it is just not that difficult to move up. So there are two choices for me Electric or Gas.

I have some $27 per gallon 30percent nitro sitting on my steps...for a heli engine... how can you possibly say glo fuel is cheaper? Gas and 2 stroke oil is cheaper in anyone's book.

pdm52956

My Feedback: (1)

Good grief, it's a hobby and defending one's power choice to the death doesn't even relate to the question at hand.

TV was a "fad" once. Silly question.

Carry on.

davo580

people put alot of mystic voodoo of sorts on rurbine jets. really there is none. they fly like any other planes ,they take off they loop they stall turn they barrel roll etc. they only thing is the time lag in accel. little faster but have seen some prop jobbies go quicker there is such a thing called a throttle some land different than others i fly all three types of powered aircraft. in jets there are some people that can go straight to scale aircraft and some people to jet trainers insted.to me it is all in the mind set. there is a old saying if you don't want to crash don't fly...going from a prop job to a jet is a big step to some and could be quite exy but the same can be said about some prop jobs like a imac model. it is the starting outlay. now i do beleive that you should start out on a prop job and work your way up
any way just mt 2 cents worth

Oberst

Very true.

I'm one of those who do get amused when I read some of these posts.


Pete

rgburrill

You have to admit, though, that nothing beats the smell of napalm in the morning - I mean nitro.

CGRetired

My Feedback: (1)

The problem with jets is the initial expense, of course, but there are some fields where they are not allowed. Both of our fields are grass and owned by the public. In one case, it is owned by the county and in the other case it is owned by the state. In either case, the fear of starting a fire is there and that's what prohibits our flying jets at either of our fields.

Now, I know what you are going to say about this, but it's both the club's policy as well as that as stated by the public entities that own the property, so, ,like it or not, we're stuck with it.

I would love to fly one just to see what it is about, and I know I could handle it, however, it's a mute point, at least in our club.

As far as the cost of fuel is concerned, I don't know anyone that would say that glow is cheaper than gasoline.. it might have been said in this thread, but I didn't see it.. doesn't mean it's not there, it just means I didn't see it. But, nevertheless, if you burn a gallon of fuel each time you go out, well, then it becomes an issue. Personally, I may burn four or five gallons a season, so it's not a big deal to me.

Just my opinion.

CGr.

Johng

My Feedback: (4)

It's nitro power that's on the way out. For me, from now on, small planes are electric, bigger planes are gas. Within 5 years, batteries will be at least 5 times as powerfull.

That's not just my opinion. After not having been out to the club field very much the last few years due to work, I have been out to a few recent cookouts. The electrics, in everything up to .60 size ,and in jets now outnumber the nitro probably 2-1. These are not newbies to the club, but typical club members (retirees) who have spent their lives using nitro. Electric has surpassed the performance of nitro. Those that claim different do not know how to deal with the tehnology, much like those that gripe about tuning nitro motors do no understand the carb.

For me, in my shop I have a 118" span Super Privateer flying boat being converted to electric, next up is a scale glider getting a EDF power pod, and a T-38 being converted to electric powered dynamax. I have an 80" Yak ARF in a box that will fly with 50cc gas whenever I get around to that build... Unless it takes me so long (quite likely) to get to it that electric becomes preferable in that size range too.

It hasn't been a fad, but nitro is starting to fade.

PS: I have a nice fresh-rebuilt OS .91 DF with new ceramic bearings I can sell, K&B 1.0 DF available, as well as tuned pipes, and handfull of K&B 61's and Im sure a few other nitro motors. Lemme know if interested.

Oberst

Amen Brother! Let us now go to chapter 2-verse 3 in our religous O.S. handbook.




I use up about 3 gallons a year. It all depends on how many events I attend and weather permitting etc.

And your right, Jets are very expensive. Plus it is recommended that the jet engines be taken apart every so many hours for inspection, that can cost money as well. I don't know if that's true, (thought I read it somewhere) but it does sound like a good idea.

Hope you had a great Christmas CGR!

Pete

ES CONTROL

This past season was my first to go gas      71" AJ Slick   30cc DLE    I benched By the book.      Around every 7 flights Ing. cuts out  DEAD STICK!

dash3riprock

My Feedback: (10)

Ok guys what about power!? I dont care if it burns wood, I want go go!

Oberst

Glow or gas. Most people have glow engines and parts are mostly always available. I don't know why a few people think glow is fading away. Every where I go just about everyone has one or-a few and is getting one? I own 7 glow engines including one in the box brand new. I might trade that one in for a new gas engine.

Now if you only fly in a park or non-AMA field, then electric is the way to go.

It's all about personal choice, everything has its plus or minus. What I like about glow and gas is my flying time is longer than most electric aircraft, plus when I run out of fuel I just land, refuel and I'm ready to go again.

With electric if you don't have a handful of batteries on the trickle charger, you can't do that.


Pete