Now that Magnum is introducing a very small gasser the .52, who will be the first to try gasoline on their CL ship?

With electronic ignition and a battery pack I don't see it happening. too much weight and space requirement.

There is the Fox .50 gasser as well. Should be lighter, and a bit more appropriate for CL.

What advantage do you see in this?

It would be of no interest to me - but then my largest motor in use is a .25.

While the Magnum is a .50 (.5 cu. in.), the Fox 50 Gas is not .... This is from the 'front page' of the Fox Mfg. site:

"SPRING SALE ON FOX ENGINES

We're pleased to offer our famous Fox CL engines and Fox RC engines at super low prices and YES, this sale DOES include our NEW FOX 200cc Gas engine and our NEW FOX 50 Gas (12cc) Engine.

THIS SALE also offers FREE SHIPPING."

A 12 cc engine is a .78 cu. in. - so a little large for MOST control line, although I'm sure that there are some applications for it.

In trying to find out more about weight, fuel, price, or any other details, I spent a while poking about on the Fox site and can find NO other mention of this engine. So I don't know if it is actually available yet anyway.

As to what advantages this would offer, I'm also not sure. Probably somewhat lower fuel costs.

Oh, I was thinking the novelty of it. I love the CL guys, always so serious about competition and such. If there is no advantage for stunt or something we will avoid it. No, it was just something I though of. It might be interesting to see how a pumped carb with a large prop turning low RPM might work on a sport aircraft.
Now that small Fox 50 is very attractive to me and I had not heard of it. I have a scale FW190 that has a 69" wing that I need an engine for. This might be perfect.

I don't think greggles meant "advantage" in the competitive sense - since he then stated that he doesn't use anything that large anyway. I think his question was more rhetorical - as in "Why?". I have to agree that I see no reason to invest in a totally different technology at this point in my modelling life. I can't think of any reason to spend the money or time on the novelty factor, and as for large props at low RPM, there are already 4-stroke glows and electrics proving that it can be an advantage in many applications but neither is really displacing 2 stroke glow power on that basis alone.

The complications, at this point, don't outweigh any perceived benefits.

If you DO look into the Fox I would appreciate your passing on anything you learn. And pix of your 190 would also be interesting.

(edit to add) Just took another look at the Hobby People site - the other day, there wasn't much about their .50 either but now they have a regular "catalog" page for it. Cost from them will be about $200, which isn't that bad. Power will be more like a .70 4-stroke (13" prop @ over 9000). Weight (including muffler and CDI) will be about 23 oz. (and add in the weight of a battery - I think you can get by with a battery that weighs about 1.5 oz.). Oh, and it is ALSO on backorder so at THIS point there still aren't any gassers available in that size range.

U-Control guys Serious? Are you kidding? Iguess you never saw a "Bi Slob" hanging on it's prop or the original flying lawnmower which was a U-control project before the R/C version existed. Ifly sport exclusively for the variewty of designs and odd things that can be done with a physical mass sometimes barely controlled at the end of two wired. Serious my semi-scale profile push me-pull you Arado A-335 arse. (grin)
That big FW begs for a gas engine, m'boy! Bring the pictures on!

There is a curious side to this:

In CL Stunt, the Old Time events include 'spark ignition' with a 10 point score bonus to make up for the 'difficulty' of getting a spark engine to run consistently and well. (Diesel engines get a 5 point bonus, too.)

Most of the suitable engines for this event haven't been manufactured for dozens of years, although RJL in Califonia does offer several replicas of 1940's spark engines. Coils, plugs and electronic ignition devices are available. (The electronic circuits 'switch' the spark timing using a very low current through the mechanical breaker points, triggering a higher current through the coil to the spark plug. That saves a lot of spark erosion at the breaker point surfaces.)

Gasoline is a lot cheaper than glow fuel, but you still have to run at least 25% oil to keep the engine going. If you use a petroleum-based oil, it needs to be about SAE70 weight racing oil, NOT a gear lube. Such is fairly scarce, and not as cheap as ordinary engine oil. Castor works well.

Gasoline fuels don't produce as much power as methanol-based glow fuels. Even though gasoline produces more heat per unit of weight, it has a trickier fuel-air ratio tolerance than methanol. The amount of air the engine can "process" is limited by its displacement. Methanol can burn productively at a much richer needle setting than gasoline, so we CAN burn twice as much or more in the same volume of air the engine uses at a given RPM. ...Which gets at least the same power output...

Mixture settings for a gasoline/oil blend have to be leaner - consequently more critical; and since the oil is a percentage of the burnable portion of the fuel, a higher percentage of oil seems indicated to keep the engine lubed. Using twice (or more) as much glow fuel over the same time at the same RPM, if the same % oil were used for both a gasoline and a methanol fuel, the glow fuel washes twice (or more) as much oil through. That's better for the sleeve/piston and bearings...

Methanol also chills considerably when it evaporates, or even sprays, out of the needle valve. And since we'll use more of it, there's more cooling advantage for the engine.

Summing all this nonsense up, most CL Old Time Stunt spark fliers are using 5% to 10% nitro glow fuels. The needle settings are MUCH more tolerant than with gasoline/oil fuels. And the fuel may be the same as used in older, iron piston/steel sleeve glow engines. No need to carry too many different kinds of fuel.

Haven't seen info on the Magnum 0.50 cu in spark engine, yet. Will look shortly... IF it is made with the same approach as so many weed-whackers, etc., these days, it MIGHT JUST operate on around 50:1 with a special oil, as those engines do.

The airborne weight with modern batteries should be much less than with the traditional lead-acid, Ni-Cd, or NiMh cells - IF the voltage output is compatible with available model engine coils. Coils are likely to go 2 to 3 oz. If setting the engine is easily possible, the weight saved by using less of a gasoline/oil fuel for the same flight time could help reduce the weight penalty to almost an even match.

The price of gasoline this summer may be OK or robbery by Wall Street Futures again. That is the only possible advantage I can see to it over other wet fuels.

If you are already into big gas, then these smaller ones may be a good deal, as far as 1 type of fuel in the field box.

Something for everyone.

This is a big motivator for me. I fly several large scale models and I am moving away from glow as much as I can. In RC, I see gas beginning to dominate what is being used and the engines are obviously getting quite small. There really is hardly any investment in using this type of fuel other than the price of the engine itself. Especially if you already have the furl. You can run 40-1 or even 100-1 if you trust the new synthetic oils. A huge advantage to this is a clean airplane. This will only be possible if the con rod has needle bearings though. If the engines are bushed, high oil percentages will be needed.
The big one though is, the carbs are pumped and the engines run extremely consistent. Something that would be a big benefit for CL use. And yes,i have extensive CL experience flying modern CL combat for 12 years. My main focus now is RC scale. Always a competitor, I have just shifted my focus. The FW 190 will be radio controlled, sorry guys!

There may be advantages to gasoline use, but there is a huge disadvantage for CL use. A human being has to hold onto the handle and keep the sucker flying in a circle. Since the airplane's weight is directly associated with the engine's weight, CL planes benefit greatly from using efficiently light power plants. Or to put it another way, CL planes wind up being proportionally heavier as the engines increase in weight.

They're really not practical for CL because they are significantly heavier for the power output. You won't see an effective Precision Aerobatics plane with one. Aerobatics demands light wing loadings. You won't see a scale plane with one and much scale stuff because the lift will be carrying the engine for the most part. You might see a "sport" plane with one, but you won't see much "sporting" going on. It'll fly like a plastic Cox plane. Just go around and around. But will pull on the handle like a ton of bricks. Nope, heavy engines have never been popular in CL for a very good reason.

Remember that CL has the pull test?

I have went over the FOX website and cannot find any verification of such there. I have a request in.

I find no such in any of Magnum provider's websites.

Personally, I think a gas-burner .52 would be an excellent choice for a scale project and possibly a stunter. The ignition pack with today's NMH batteries would be easy and not a weight factor.
OTOH, the currently advertised gas engine retail prices would probably be less than attractive to most CL fliers.

However as stated in a post above, it is difficult to not like having an airplane all covered with castor-goo after flying.

Gas Engines with electronic ignition hand-start easily. Those with magnetos may or may not. I use starters with the smaller magneto ones, currently 2 G-26s. My G-62 has been converted to electronic. Starts right up with a flip or two. So does my Sachs 4.2.

If reasonably priced small gas burners were available, I would love to have one for a CL project. Yesterday at a "Dawn Patrol" WW-I event I flew my 101" w/s Eindecker 4 times. Can of gas, a starter, transmitter and good to go. No goo all over airplane after 4 15 minute flights. I like that.

In PAMPA Old Time Stunt, A period ignition engine gets a 10 point bonus. (Any diesel gets 5 points.) At the Vintage Stunt Contest, the last couple of years, ignition engine airplanes have been competitive with glow engine airplanes. This is in addition to flying in the special ignition only event. However, a modern engine would not garner the 10 points, nor be allowed in the ignition only event.

You know, there is a subtle advantage to having an engine that's quite heavy for it's output. Once the heavier airframe is found that matches up, if you then fly the combination at a similar speed to previous planes, you should have a plane that pulls significantly "better" on the lines. Centrifugal force cares not what type engine, just how much the whole lump weighs. Now all you gotta do is get an adequate wing loading if you want to turn competitive corners. That isn't going to be a simple task.

I saw a D-VII like that a few years back with a DA50 for power at the Joe Nall event. Balsa USA kit. Flew well.

Further information is now available from the Fox site - turns out the engine in question truly is a .5 Cu. In. - in fact it is the old Fox .50 glow case shown. The front page still says something about "... Fox .50 (12 cc) ... " but they now have a catalog page for the actual engine which does come as a .50 cu. in. Price is going to be quite a bit stiffer than the Magnum, by the looks of it.

The idea is nice..... but $275.00 for a .50 cubic inch engine... really? and the regular price is $399.00[X(] I seriously doubt it will catch on.

That is way too much. Considering how much the larger engines cost. A 50cc can be had from $250.00 and up. Considerably more engine.
The price may have to come down to be marketable. I really do not think the weight of this engine will be an issue. The EI does not weigh very much.

Here is the Magnum engine. http://www.hobbypeople.net/gallery/210550.asp

I talked to Charlie Thacker about the Fox .50 and he said it takes a 16:1 gas oil ratio. This may cost to run in the long term.

The high oil will be because of the lack of needle bearings at the con rod. Having to run that much oil means you will still get a dirty airplane.

Her is a pic of the Pica FW 190 D9. RC though, sorry guys. 15cc gasser, .90

There is a Stunt flier in Austraila I think, that runs a 4 stroke with ignition.
Don't know if its gas or meth fueled.

You can run a glow on gas with meth in the mix to keep plug lit.
Try that in your fuel capacity restricted racing class!

Some where on this site is some work converting weed eater types to glow with Gas and meth and seemed like they were getting places with this.

BUT
When we go from meth to gas we get a problem of not enough cooling.

The consumption of gas to meth is that meth takes 2x(roughly) as much fuel flow.
The massive amount of meth helps cool the engine.
And other things as stated in some of the above post.

Will it work?
Well the old ignition/gas engines did not have much more cooling area than more modern glow.

Who knows?

Ming is here
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...C+Part++1&aq=f

Hey vertical
Did you find what you needed?