OS LA .65 conversion
11-14-2012, 09:47 AM
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (102)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Colonial Beach, VA
Posts: 20,370
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes
on
25 Posts
OS LA .65 conversion
I've had this OS LA .65 converted for a couple of years now but just barely ran it after break in. I sold my Saito 1.00 that powered my AAAlpha .61 and had mounted a new Saito .65 on it. I decided that was a better place for a Diesel engine. It took about 45 minutes to put 16 OZ of fuel through it a various rpm.
Engine==OS LA .65
Head==Davis new annular design
Fuel===Davis Plane Fuel
Prop==Graupner 12.5x7 three blade
Max rpm== 7,550, after knocking of 50 to stabilize it a little.
Idle======1,700 slightly lumpy but with excellent transition.
In the picture it is turning 6,000 rpm. I took four tach pictures but not a one was readable. The LA's are real winners as conversions.
Engine==OS LA .65
Head==Davis new annular design
Fuel===Davis Plane Fuel
Prop==Graupner 12.5x7 three blade
Max rpm== 7,550, after knocking of 50 to stabilize it a little.
Idle======1,700 slightly lumpy but with excellent transition.
In the picture it is turning 6,000 rpm. I took four tach pictures but not a one was readable. The LA's are real winners as conversions.
11-14-2012, 03:08 PM
#4
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hervey Bay Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
I have a "Blue" LA 65 with an AJC head. Both given to me separately from fellows who did not need them. Thanks guys, you know who you are.
I have not run it yet, it does not fit my test stand. Will rectify that shortly. With Dave's permission I will report results on this thread.
Both the engine and head are in "as new" condition. I suspected the LA 65 would make a really nice diesel.
I have not run it yet, it does not fit my test stand. Will rectify that shortly. With Dave's permission I will report results on this thread.
Both the engine and head are in "as new" condition. I suspected the LA 65 would make a really nice diesel.
11-14-2012, 03:20 PM
#5
11-15-2012, 03:33 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dubbo, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
G'day Dave and others.
This is not a comment about the diesel LAs but just a general comment about the LA in general. I was teaching a bloke today with his LA46 in a Sig LT-40. It is a wonderful and much under rated engine. It had not run for several months but started first attempt (both times) and ran like the proverbial Swiss watch. It sounded so good we did not even bother to tune it. It sounds a bit lumpy at idle and is probably a little rich in the mid range but it has an excellent transition and never stops until it runs out of fuel. It is also really economical.
They really are a great all round beginners engine. Pity the "experts" always recommend some thing with twin needles and ball bearings. For a beginner, there is nothing better.
Cheers
Mike in Oz
This is not a comment about the diesel LAs but just a general comment about the LA in general. I was teaching a bloke today with his LA46 in a Sig LT-40. It is a wonderful and much under rated engine. It had not run for several months but started first attempt (both times) and ran like the proverbial Swiss watch. It sounded so good we did not even bother to tune it. It sounds a bit lumpy at idle and is probably a little rich in the mid range but it has an excellent transition and never stops until it runs out of fuel. It is also really economical.
They really are a great all round beginners engine. Pity the "experts" always recommend some thing with twin needles and ball bearings. For a beginner, there is nothing better.
Cheers
Mike in Oz
11-15-2012, 06:24 AM
#7
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (102)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Colonial Beach, VA
Posts: 20,370
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes
on
25 Posts
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
RF, here is the all up weight including the Tru-Turn spinner, adapter prop nut and prop. Also a shot of the .65 sitting in the plane with one bolt in it and the OS .60FP that I'm thinking of selling. PS, that 32 oz tank wouldn't fit.[8D]
PS #2, that .65 is not touching the scale anywhere. I had to place it very carefully to achieve that.
PS #2, that .65 is not touching the scale anywhere. I had to place it very carefully to achieve that.
11-15-2012, 06:51 AM
#8
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
HOBBSY the thrust in that setup should really be up there, should be short take off with that one martin
off subject my son in central NJ finally got the juice on where he lives in central NJ (inland not on the coast either)
off subject my son in central NJ finally got the juice on where he lives in central NJ (inland not on the coast either)
11-15-2012, 01:28 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SydneyNew South wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
ORIGINAL: Hobbsy
RF, here is the all up weight including the Tru-Turn spinner, adapter prop nut and prop. Also a shot of the .65 sitting in the plane with one bolt in it and the OS .60FP that I'm thinking of selling. PS, that 32 oz tank wouldn't fit.[8D]
PS #2, that .65 is not touching the scale anywhere. I had to place it very carefully to achieve that.
RF, here is the all up weight including the Tru-Turn spinner, adapter prop nut and prop. Also a shot of the .65 sitting in the plane with one bolt in it and the OS .60FP that I'm thinking of selling. PS, that 32 oz tank wouldn't fit.[8D]
PS #2, that .65 is not touching the scale anywhere. I had to place it very carefully to achieve that.
At first glance I thought great! It only weighs in at 13.7 oz!
But then I spied the 1 (as in 1lb or another 16 oz) in front of that so it waddles in at 29.7 oz.
It seems to be a big jump form the LA46 at about 10 oz (plus spinner and prop) to the 60 Imust say.
11-15-2012, 02:37 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SydneyNew South wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
ORIGINAL: fiery
My example, AJC head fitted, including muffler, on the scales.
Weight is in grams.
My example, AJC head fitted, including muffler, on the scales.
Weight is in grams.
Unfortunately just a bit too heavy for control line work.
11-15-2012, 03:04 PM
#14
11-15-2012, 04:46 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SydneyNew South wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
ORIGINAL: Hobbsy
That heftiness is most likey at least partly the reason for the smoothness.
That heftiness is most likey at least partly the reason for the smoothness.
)But seriously, it seems that once you approach the 10cc mark the cranks go all industrial on you.
Cheers.
11-15-2012, 05:38 PM
#17
My Feedback: (90)
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
ORIGINAL: Recycled Flyer
Just over 25 ozs Derek.
Unfortunately just a bit too heavy for control line work.
ORIGINAL: fiery
My example, AJC head fitted, including muffler, on the scales.
Weight is in grams.
Well it is and it isn't too heavy for control line models. It depends on the model. If your not contest bound then there is a whole lot to use it on. I'm going to use mine on a 62.5 in Combat streak. It has a short nose and the engine is really not a problem. It probably doesn't need this much engine as it would certainly fly an 80 oz model in the classic 4/2/4 mode but like R/C models excessive power can be addictive. weight with tongue muffler is reasonable. A standard set up with a name engine and header and pipe would go about 15 oz on a standard stunt model.This is 900 sq inches and will fly excellently with the LA65. Now for the best part I got it at auction from a really reputable modeller with the venturi.super Tigre NVA and the hand fabricated tongue muffler for $35.00. Ran it the other day and it starts and runs with impeccable manners.Couldn't buy the conversion pieces for that price on the open market. some pictures are enclosed. I expect the finished weight to be 60 ounces
My example, AJC head fitted, including muffler, on the scales.
Weight is in grams.
Well it is and it isn't too heavy for control line models. It depends on the model. If your not contest bound then there is a whole lot to use it on. I'm going to use mine on a 62.5 in Combat streak. It has a short nose and the engine is really not a problem. It probably doesn't need this much engine as it would certainly fly an 80 oz model in the classic 4/2/4 mode but like R/C models excessive power can be addictive. weight with tongue muffler is reasonable. A standard set up with a name engine and header and pipe would go about 15 oz on a standard stunt model.This is 900 sq inches and will fly excellently with the LA65. Now for the best part I got it at auction from a really reputable modeller with the venturi.super Tigre NVA and the hand fabricated tongue muffler for $35.00. Ran it the other day and it starts and runs with impeccable manners.Couldn't buy the conversion pieces for that price on the open market. some pictures are enclosed. I expect the finished weight to be 60 ounces
Unfortunately just a bit too heavy for control line work.
11-15-2012, 06:24 PM
#19
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hervey Bay Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
Hi Dennis
No doubt it will work well. Looks like a great buy. There will be plenty of ships out there that will take the weight.
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
No doubt it will work well. Looks like a great buy. There will be plenty of ships out there that will take the weight.
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
11-15-2012, 06:30 PM
#20
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (102)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Colonial Beach, VA
Posts: 20,370
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes
on
25 Posts
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
Fiery, I take it that your .65 is a Deezel virgin. Now is your spring time, am I correct. I'm burnin wood already. I guess I should go ahead and compare the .60sf and the Fox .60.
11-15-2012, 07:09 PM
#21
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Upper HuttWellington, NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 1,601
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
ORIGINAL: fiery
Hi Dennis
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
Hi Dennis
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
Make good diesels too-the 20/28/45/65-though I've never tried one as such. I wonder about the longevity though...............
ChrisM
'ffkiwi'
11-16-2012, 03:58 AM
#22
My Feedback: (90)
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
ORIGINAL: ffkiwi
Chris,
I ran all but the 45 Sportster as diesels for 10 years with excellent results. All still run well. All had serious lumber on them at times. Longevity is not an issue with any engine with proper care and handling.
As to the 65 for c/l. I seriously doubt that I would ever use an LA or FP 65 in anything for competition. However for fun and to try something different I'm always interrested in the unusual or the unacceptable just for the experience.
Dennis
Same with the K&B Sportsters-a lot of bulk (and weight) in the styling. for F/F use it was common to turn down the cylinder and crankcase in a lathe-the resulting engine looked quite different. Particularly common in the UK, with their Slow Open Power rules limiting engines to 3.5cc max and plain bearing. The Sportster 20 was top of the heap for a while (not sure what the current 'must have' engine is for that class......)
Make good diesels too-the 20/28/45/65-though I've never tried one as such. I wonder about the longevity though...............
ChrisM
'ffkiwi'
ORIGINAL: fiery
Hi Dennis
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
Hi Dennis
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
Chris,
I ran all but the 45 Sportster as diesels for 10 years with excellent results. All still run well. All had serious lumber on them at times. Longevity is not an issue with any engine with proper care and handling.
As to the 65 for c/l. I seriously doubt that I would ever use an LA or FP 65 in anything for competition. However for fun and to try something different I'm always interrested in the unusual or the unacceptable just for the experience.
Dennis
Same with the K&B Sportsters-a lot of bulk (and weight) in the styling. for F/F use it was common to turn down the cylinder and crankcase in a lathe-the resulting engine looked quite different. Particularly common in the UK, with their Slow Open Power rules limiting engines to 3.5cc max and plain bearing. The Sportster 20 was top of the heap for a while (not sure what the current 'must have' engine is for that class......)
Make good diesels too-the 20/28/45/65-though I've never tried one as such. I wonder about the longevity though...............
ChrisM
'ffkiwi'
11-18-2012, 02:59 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SydneyNew South wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
ORIGINAL: fiery
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
(The resistance to overcome inertia followed by want to keep it going once initiated will ruin any pattern.)
11-18-2012, 07:30 PM
#24
My Feedback: (90)
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
ORIGINAL: Recycled Flyer
Yes, adding 10ozs to the nose almost equates to adding 10 ozs to the tail and not only blows out the wing loading factor but also gives rise to the barbell effect when maneuvering.
(The resistance to overcome inertia followed by want to keep it going once initiated will ruin any pattern
Actually you would not add 10 ounces to the tail if it was 10 oz nose heavy. depending on tail moment for example a Proctor Antic can take up to 10 oz of noseweight for every ounce of tailweight That is the interesting part of a tail heavy model . It takes far more weight to overcome a tail heavy condition then a nose heavy model. And not to argue with anyone I maintain that any engine can have a model designed for it regardless of it's weight even control line. Want me to use a Fokker DR1 as a proving point. Remember I specified that I wasn't using it for competition and you have to be able to look outside of that very narrow competition window.
ORIGINAL: fiery
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
(The resistance to overcome inertia followed by want to keep it going once initiated will ruin any pattern
Actually you would not add 10 ounces to the tail if it was 10 oz nose heavy. depending on tail moment for example a Proctor Antic can take up to 10 oz of noseweight for every ounce of tailweight That is the interesting part of a tail heavy model . It takes far more weight to overcome a tail heavy condition then a nose heavy model. And not to argue with anyone I maintain that any engine can have a model designed for it regardless of it's weight even control line. Want me to use a Fokker DR1 as a proving point. Remember I specified that I wasn't using it for competition and you have to be able to look outside of that very narrow competition window.
11-18-2012, 07:50 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SydneyNew South wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
ORIGINAL: dennis
ORIGINAL: Recycled Flyer
Yes, adding 10ozs to the nose almost equates to adding 10 ozs to the tail and not only blows out the wing loading factor but also gives rise to the barbell effect when maneuvering.
(The resistance to overcome inertia followed by want to keep it going once initiated will ruin any pattern
Actually you would not add 10 ounces to the tail if it was 10 oz nose heavy. depending on tail moment for example a Proctor Antic can take up to 10 oz of noseweight for every ounce of tailweight That is the interesting part of a tail heavy model . It takes far more weight to overcome a tail heavy condition then a nose heavy model. And not to argue with anyone I maintain that any engine can have a model designed for it regardless of it's weight even control line. Want me to use a Fokker DR1 as a proving point. Remember I specified that I wasn't using it for competition and you have to be able to look outside of that very narrow competition window.
ORIGINAL: fiery
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
However, right or wrong, most C/L flyers will look straight past the LA 65: due to the bulk.
(The resistance to overcome inertia followed by want to keep it going once initiated will ruin any pattern
Actually you would not add 10 ounces to the tail if it was 10 oz nose heavy. depending on tail moment for example a Proctor Antic can take up to 10 oz of noseweight for every ounce of tailweight That is the interesting part of a tail heavy model . It takes far more weight to overcome a tail heavy condition then a nose heavy model. And not to argue with anyone I maintain that any engine can have a model designed for it regardless of it's weight even control line. Want me to use a Fokker DR1 as a proving point. Remember I specified that I wasn't using it for competition and you have to be able to look outside of that very narrow competition window.
A snub nosed Fokker that practically has its top wing's leading edge over the cylinder centre probably could achieve that ratio Iadmit.
Thanks.