|
OS LA .65 conversion
1 Attachment(s)
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. |
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
What else can be said an LA with a Davis head ?? except a real slugger martin
|
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
All up weight Dave?
Thanks. |
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. |
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
Go for it, an OS LA .65 is an OS LA .65, even if its upside down. Pay particular attention to how smoothly it runs.
|
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 |
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
1 Attachment(s)
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. |
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) |
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. 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. |
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
1 Attachment(s)
My example, AJC head fitted, including muffler, on the scales.
Weight is in grams. |
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
delete
|
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
ORIGINAL: fiery My example, AJC head fitted, including muffler, on the scales. Weight is in grams. Unfortunately just a bit too heavy for control line work. |
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
Agreed. She is no lightweight.
|
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
That heftiness is most likey at least partly the reason for the smoothness. A Fox .60 weighs about 20 oz by comparison.
|
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
ORIGINAL: Hobbsy 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. |
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
Curves are it. Look at the LA 65 ...
|
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
1 Attachment(s)
ORIGINAL: Recycled Flyer 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 Unfortunately just a bit too heavy for control line work. |
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
Very interesting Dennis!
But it is about 10 ozs more than any of my current F2B engines. Thanks for posting. |
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. |
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.
|
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. 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' |
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
ORIGINAL: ffkiwi ORIGINAL: fiery 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' |
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. (The resistance to overcome inertia followed by want to keep it going once initiated will ruin any pattern.) |
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
ORIGINAL: Recycled Flyer ORIGINAL: fiery 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. |
RE: OS LA .65 conversion
ORIGINAL: dennis ORIGINAL: Recycled Flyer ORIGINAL: fiery 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. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:03 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.