Taurus,Taurus,Taurus.......
05-30-2002 | 08:13 PM
#51
My Feedback: (14)
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Gales Ferry, CT
Taurus,Taurus,Taurus.......
I wish Taurus posted the dimensions, weights and prices of all their engines on the website with rpm performance figures.
That would help a lot.
Which engine is more compact a Taurus 42 or a ZDZ 40?
What is the weight difference and how much$$$ is the 42?
Thanks,
Brian
Bill,
Just went to rcfaq.com to check rpm data.
According to the info posted here vs. what is posted at rcfaq.com the Taurus 2.6ci is more powerful than the Taurus 3.2ci. What gives?
The Taurus 49cc 2.97ci turns a APC 20X10 at 8000 according to Bill Oberdieck
That would help a lot.
Which engine is more compact a Taurus 42 or a ZDZ 40?
What is the weight difference and how much$$$ is the 42?
Thanks,
Brian
Bill,
Just went to rcfaq.com to check rpm data.
According to the info posted here vs. what is posted at rcfaq.com the Taurus 2.6ci is more powerful than the Taurus 3.2ci. What gives?
The Taurus 49cc 2.97ci turns a APC 20X10 at 8000 according to Bill Oberdieck
05-30-2002 | 09:48 PM
#53
My Feedback: (45)
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Wilsonville,
OR
Engine sizes
Hi Brian,
>>I wish Taurus posted the dimensions, weights and prices of all their engines on the website with rpm performance figures.
Frustrating isn't it?...but I know they're working on a whole new Web site with all of that info on it....I just wish they'd get it done.
>>Which engine is more compact a Taurus 42 or a ZDZ 40?
You mean shorter overall, shorter from mount to prop, or narrower?
The Taurus is shorter overall because the ZDZ has a rear carb, but they are about the same from mount to prop. The ZDZ is narrower than the Taurus because of the rear carb.
>>What is the weight difference and how much$$$ is the 42?
With mount, pitts-style muffler, plug and ignition, the ZDZ is 3oz lighter than the Taurus. The TS-42 is $529 with mount and ignition, but without a muffler.
>>According to the info posted here vs. what is posted at rcfaq.com the Taurus 2.6ci is more powerful than the Taurus 3.2ci. What gives?
Most of the data is way out of date up there. Very little is current. Cliff has been to busy (with his real job) to keep his site current. I sent him a bunch of numbers months ago and so did other people I know and they've never been posted. The 3.2 number is from over a year ago and is no where near typical for this engine. Unfortunately you can't take the data up there to be very representative anymore because most of it is too old, or there isn't enough to make accurate comparisons.
>>The Taurus 49cc 2.97ci turns a APC 20X10 at 8000 according to Bill Oberdieck
This is not one of the motors they ship now. It probably was an old model or one-off. Again, that data that is over a year old.
>>I wish Taurus posted the dimensions, weights and prices of all their engines on the website with rpm performance figures.
Frustrating isn't it?...but I know they're working on a whole new Web site with all of that info on it....I just wish they'd get it done.
>>Which engine is more compact a Taurus 42 or a ZDZ 40?
You mean shorter overall, shorter from mount to prop, or narrower?
The Taurus is shorter overall because the ZDZ has a rear carb, but they are about the same from mount to prop. The ZDZ is narrower than the Taurus because of the rear carb.
>>What is the weight difference and how much$$$ is the 42?
With mount, pitts-style muffler, plug and ignition, the ZDZ is 3oz lighter than the Taurus. The TS-42 is $529 with mount and ignition, but without a muffler.
>>According to the info posted here vs. what is posted at rcfaq.com the Taurus 2.6ci is more powerful than the Taurus 3.2ci. What gives?
Most of the data is way out of date up there. Very little is current. Cliff has been to busy (with his real job) to keep his site current. I sent him a bunch of numbers months ago and so did other people I know and they've never been posted. The 3.2 number is from over a year ago and is no where near typical for this engine. Unfortunately you can't take the data up there to be very representative anymore because most of it is too old, or there isn't enough to make accurate comparisons.
>>The Taurus 49cc 2.97ci turns a APC 20X10 at 8000 according to Bill Oberdieck
This is not one of the motors they ship now. It probably was an old model or one-off. Again, that data that is over a year old.
05-30-2002 | 11:19 PM
#54
My Feedback: (31)
Re: Engine sizes
[i]
This is not one of the motors they ship now. It probably was an old model or one-off. Again, that data that is over a year old. [/B]
This is not one of the motors they ship now. It probably was an old model or one-off. Again, that data that is over a year old. [/B]
TS-42/2.6 TSS-49/2.95
22/8 Zinger @ 7200 20/10 APC @ 8000
20/10 Mejzlik @ 8200
TS-52/3.2
20/10 Menz S @ 7200
21/10 Menz S @ 6900
The problem here is were not comparing apples to apples. A given prop does and will work harder than another, irregardless of diameter and pitch. The airfoil profiles are different on all props.
Menz S props all well known for loading or dragging down an engine as compared to most other props. Zinger's on the other hand are close to the bottom of the list in loading an engine. Mejzliks are somewhere in the middle.
There is a new breed of props out there as well.
05-31-2002 | 12:44 AM
#55
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Sunrise, FL
Taurus,Taurus,Taurus.......
Bill,
No offense intended but you're sounding like you may have an interest in taurus.
"Most of the data is way out of date up there. Very little is current."
"Unfortunately you can't take the data up there to be very representative anymore because most of it is too old, or there isn't enough to make accurate comparisons."
Since when does old data become less relevant? A data point is just that.
No offense intended but you're sounding like you may have an interest in taurus.
"Most of the data is way out of date up there. Very little is current."
"Unfortunately you can't take the data up there to be very representative anymore because most of it is too old, or there isn't enough to make accurate comparisons."
Since when does old data become less relevant? A data point is just that.
05-31-2002 | 01:46 AM
#57
My Feedback: (45)
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Wilsonville,
OR
You're right
Hi sanjoh,
Here we go again, but I guess I deserve it. :-) I've been accused of this before...so let me make this statement....again, and I'm glad to do it. I am very opinionated about this subject ( and others :-) ) but it is only because I believe in what I am saying with strong conviction. All of my statements are in my humble opinion, as are everyone's that contributes to this, or any other thread. I am biased, but it is from experience with Taurus', not any covert connection to the company. Though they are only my opinions, I try to back them up with real data, where I can, to lend some unbiased weight to them. Some of my statements will remain unsubstantiated because they involve subjective opinions, such as relative smoothness of engines, though they are based on substantial experience with most makes of motors over a 30 year period.
>>Since when does old data become less relevant? A data point is just that.
Old data, that is not well documented, becomes less and less relevant as time passes because the circumstances surrounding the collection of that data typically will become more obscure. A data point is not just a data point. It is only as valid as the documentation of it's collection method. Some of the data on RCFaq is very sparse and poorly documented. It is hard to lend much credibility to data that is not complete....such as in this specific case with the two samples of the Taurus 3.2, neither one of them state what type of Menz prop they were testing with(I assume an "S" from those numbers), when the tests were done, what muffler was used, what altitude they were at, or even what the temperature was. All of those can be huge variables. I guess what my point would be, without more information about these tests, they are not very valuable for comparison purposes. The Menz S puts a lot more load on an engine than other props, as mglavin stated before. As I mentioned, my TS-42 turned a Zinger Pro 22X8 at 7200RPM, while it turned a Menz S 22X8 at 6750....quite a difference. Apples to apples comparisons are a must to know for sure what engines are really doing, and even then you really should be taking multiple samples of each type of engine at the same time.
Here we go again, but I guess I deserve it. :-) I've been accused of this before...so let me make this statement....again, and I'm glad to do it. I am very opinionated about this subject ( and others :-) ) but it is only because I believe in what I am saying with strong conviction. All of my statements are in my humble opinion, as are everyone's that contributes to this, or any other thread. I am biased, but it is from experience with Taurus', not any covert connection to the company. Though they are only my opinions, I try to back them up with real data, where I can, to lend some unbiased weight to them. Some of my statements will remain unsubstantiated because they involve subjective opinions, such as relative smoothness of engines, though they are based on substantial experience with most makes of motors over a 30 year period.
>>Since when does old data become less relevant? A data point is just that.
Old data, that is not well documented, becomes less and less relevant as time passes because the circumstances surrounding the collection of that data typically will become more obscure. A data point is not just a data point. It is only as valid as the documentation of it's collection method. Some of the data on RCFaq is very sparse and poorly documented. It is hard to lend much credibility to data that is not complete....such as in this specific case with the two samples of the Taurus 3.2, neither one of them state what type of Menz prop they were testing with(I assume an "S" from those numbers), when the tests were done, what muffler was used, what altitude they were at, or even what the temperature was. All of those can be huge variables. I guess what my point would be, without more information about these tests, they are not very valuable for comparison purposes. The Menz S puts a lot more load on an engine than other props, as mglavin stated before. As I mentioned, my TS-42 turned a Zinger Pro 22X8 at 7200RPM, while it turned a Menz S 22X8 at 6750....quite a difference. Apples to apples comparisons are a must to know for sure what engines are really doing, and even then you really should be taking multiple samples of each type of engine at the same time.
05-31-2002 | 04:09 AM
#58
Banned
My Feedback: (788)
Please
Would you guy's with all your stats and knowledge just go and do a DOE and show the Taguchi plots.
Come on now, let it go, I have followed this for some time now and wonder what are we going to establish (less our opinions)
who is right, not what is right
Come on now, let it go, I have followed this for some time now and wonder what are we going to establish (less our opinions)
who is right, not what is right
05-31-2002 | 04:24 AM
#59
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Sunrise, FL
Taurus,Taurus,Taurus.......
No accusations here! I think it's great that someone loves the taurus engines. I doubt that I could afford one, even if I could it would be such a stretch. I would get more enjoyment out of building one or rescuing an engine from the scrap heap.
Bill,
I could punch holes in everyones data, but it just doesn't matter. The data is represented as one persons findings (even with all the variables involved). The reasons you present do not invalidate the data. Empirically speaking or is that seeing.
TheEdge,
A doe would be a waste of time unless u r ford or gm! U would need an L32 just to figure out the main effects. I think the interactions would require an unobtainable numbers of runs.
So many variables($) so little money!
John
6sigma black belt
Bill,
I could punch holes in everyones data, but it just doesn't matter. The data is represented as one persons findings (even with all the variables involved). The reasons you present do not invalidate the data. Empirically speaking or is that seeing.
TheEdge,
A doe would be a waste of time unless u r ford or gm! U would need an L32 just to figure out the main effects. I think the interactions would require an unobtainable numbers of runs.
So many variables($) so little money!
John
6sigma black belt
05-31-2002 | 04:50 AM
#60
My Feedback: (45)
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Wilsonville,
OR
Yikes....
>>I could punch holes in everyones data, but it just doesn't matter.
John, absolutely, you could punch holes in anyone's data, but I say it does matter. Talking this out in a discussion like this, might make the issue clearer for some people that don't know what they should be looking for. A lot of people will just look at the prop size and RPM of one sample and say, "Huh, I guess that engine is way better than the other one.", and the reality is they don't even know that if one was running a 22X8 Mejzlik and the other a 22X8 Menz S they aren't even close to comparing apples to apples.
TheEdge, I'd love to get into some real statistical analysis, but somehow I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.
>>Come on now, let it go, I have followed this for some time now and wonder what are we going to establish (less our opinions)
who is right, not what is right
Let it go??? The think the point is not to establish who's right but to share opinions and what meager data we have to try and form an informed decision, whether it is 100% valid or not. The more we beat this around, the more likely little bits of valuable information will leak through and might help someone out with making their decision on an engine. Isn't that the point here?
I'm certainly not trying to prove I'm right, I'm just saying here's my experience and opinions, use them as you like. The bottomline here is there is no right or wrong. All engines have their strong and weak points and you just have to chose which engine is right for your application.
I can't help it if the Taurus is the best engine out there, it's just one of those indisbutable facts of life. Just kidding guys!
John, absolutely, you could punch holes in anyone's data, but I say it does matter. Talking this out in a discussion like this, might make the issue clearer for some people that don't know what they should be looking for. A lot of people will just look at the prop size and RPM of one sample and say, "Huh, I guess that engine is way better than the other one.", and the reality is they don't even know that if one was running a 22X8 Mejzlik and the other a 22X8 Menz S they aren't even close to comparing apples to apples.
TheEdge, I'd love to get into some real statistical analysis, but somehow I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.
>>Come on now, let it go, I have followed this for some time now and wonder what are we going to establish (less our opinions)
who is right, not what is right
Let it go??? The think the point is not to establish who's right but to share opinions and what meager data we have to try and form an informed decision, whether it is 100% valid or not. The more we beat this around, the more likely little bits of valuable information will leak through and might help someone out with making their decision on an engine. Isn't that the point here?
I'm certainly not trying to prove I'm right, I'm just saying here's my experience and opinions, use them as you like. The bottomline here is there is no right or wrong. All engines have their strong and weak points and you just have to chose which engine is right for your application.
I can't help it if the Taurus is the best engine out there, it's just one of those indisbutable facts of life.
Just kidding guys!
