Is a Taraus stronger than most in its class? It sure is ugly!

--(same cylinder as Brison uses-Male. are they ugly?)-All of mine are under a cowl-- --sssooo----and yes it is stronger to me--PS-you can't always go by RPM figures-I have owned BMEs, 3Ws etc......and the Taurus is stronger-
Example--My 3.2 will swing a 22/10 Zinger Pro 7000+ RPM--then I switched to a Beila 22/10 and lost 500 RPM and it yanked my Pitts stright up. In talking to Bill O at SouthGate, these engines are suited for the 5800-7000 RPM range, and they are torquey, so they can pull those big props at a lower RPM with no problem at all. (this is a prop a 3.7 would have difficulity swinging) This is certainly the engine/prop/plane combo. My point is that I am not sure many 3.2s out there can swing a big heavy prop such as the Beila 22/10 with authority. But there may be engines that can produce those RPMs with the Zinger Pro.

What a loaded question. Anyway here goes.
How do you define the class for comparison?
By weight?
By cost?
By engine displacement?

If you are talking power/displacement, then you left off the one that I think would meet or exceed all on your list.....ZDZ. They make the strongest 40cc, 60cc and 80cc singles that I've seen. Soon they'll have a 50cc single to fill out the line.

I think it's better to talk about the merits of a specific size of engine to compare rather than all of a manufacturer's models. As an example, the ZDZ-60 weighs almost as much as the 80, so the 80 whomps it in power/weight.

The manufacturers who use all their own parts (DA, 3W, ZDZ, Moki-Modell, and the future BME) have the advantage of designing their own cylinders, porting, pistons, rod length/stroke ratio, and placement of intake port, method for control (reeds, rotary valve, or piston port). The ones that use industrial cylinders and pistons have to live with whatever compromises were designed into the mass produced engine.

I'm sorry, I was thinking of getting the new DA 50 when it comes out (because the DA 100 & 150 Runs so well) or the Taurus because I heard they were so powerful. I haven't seen any ZDZ's run. It will be for my DP 300L. I will fly it at 5000ft. so power is so important!

Ben

How do you define ugly?? What are you comparing ugly to? What is a good looking gasser in your mind? This is a first for me an UGLY Taurus Engine.... Everyone that has had there hands on one has commented on the craftsmanship and detail...

I'll have to get in line with Diablo on the loaded question summation... You do need some specific criteria to make comparison'c. Some of the manufacturer's only offer a few engines while others have one of nearly every size desired.

I happen to be a proponent of Taurus Engines, I have several of them. I like them all. I also own and have owned all you mentioned, I have also tried nearly every available gas engine at one time or another even the ZDZ's.

Currently the most powerful 40cc engine offered is the Taurus TS-42. Typical 42's turn Zinger's 22/8's @ 7200rpm with a stock exhaust system. All this power in a light-weight package that is second to none in power, transition and nearly no vibration.

As mentioned Taurus does use an industrial cylinder and piston assembly. Taurus manufacture's there own proprietary lower end.

I don't think there is a grand difference in the science or technology that an international industrial manufacturer with billions of dollars invested in the industry can utilize as compared to small one off companies that develop engine's for a very small cross section of user's. Cost, weight, performance and availability are most likely the commanding pre-requisites. Certainly engine builders can and do choose the components that best suit there wants and need's. They are not limited to anything specific, as they pick and choose the best component for the job.

That said if ZDZ could develop a 40/50cc engine that was more powerful, that exhibited the transition, idle and lack there-of vibration in a package that weighed substantially less, I would agree the purpose built components offered something more. As it stands to get close to a Taurus 2.6/42cc engine you have to use a tuned exhaust system complete with header and the associated components. More cost, weight and space required. I find nothing wrong with this approach, quiet models are the future of mode aviation.

Same goes for the new DA-50, the current performance numbers I have seen offered by DA are good but not better than a comparable Taurus Engine. Weight is comparable as well. Where is the advantage to these purpose built components.

The new BME Extreme purpose built component engines maybe excellent engines, time will tale.

WOW Ben
Taurus ugly??

Stomper,
So do you like it?
I still think DA's are nicer looking and have the attention to detail, but who cares they will be under a cowl.
All I want is easy break-in, power, light wieght, and realiability. You know, I have never heard a bad thing said about a Taurus. I have a friend who's Taurus is alot stronger than his 3.2 FPE and he was amazed!

Michael,
Thanks for the info! I forgot to thank you in my previous post.

Is there a website for taurus where I can check on them and if decide buy one?

Joe

Here you go ProfLooney > http://www.taurus-engines.net/

Thanks Stomper
man they dont have prices on the web was trying to find out price compared to Zenoah or ZDZ

Joe

The Taurus web-site is a bit anemic. There promising to update in the future. Taurus has just recently effected a move of there CNC facility into a new larger building. Unfortunately production is down until a future date. I understand a few weeks.

TS-42/2.6 $529.95
TS-52/3.2 $559.95
TS-62/3.7 $585.95
TS-69/4.2 $655.95
TS-72/4.4 $689.95
TS-95/5.8 $758.95

These engines are not the cheapest, however there is no comparsion to a Zenoah and or a ZDZ..... You get what you pay for...

All Taurus Engines come complete with a CNC aluminum radial engine mount, C&H auto ignition, single bolt prop hub and shipping included.

As mentioned above there is approximately a 2-4 week lead time for Taurus Engines. For an absolute contact Bill Oberdick at Taurus Engines.

Thanks thats not a bad price for the 85 more than a Zenoah but you cant beat ZDZ or Zenoah for reliability and long lasting but the elec ign alone makes it worth the extra 85 bucks.

Thanks
Joe

ProfLooney

The CH solid state ign. is nice, but one of the things that sold me was the fact that the crankshaft has two ball bearings on both sides of the crankshaft which make for a smooth running engine not to mention long life!

Nothing wrong with ZDZ or Zenoah!

Doug

Smoothness is not related to the number of bearings. As an example to disprove this claim, the Zenoah G-62 has bearings on both sides of the crank throw. It is not a smooth engine, at least I've never seen one that could be described as smooth. The ZDZ-60 has roughly the same displacement and 2 bearings in front of the crank throw, just like all of the glow motors. The ZDZ is also much smoother than the G-62.

Things that do effect smoothness are reducing the reciprocating weight (of the piston and con rod) and choosing the right mass of crank counterweight. Still, there is no way to achieve anywhere near perfect primary balance with a single. Boxer twins are much better from a dynamic balance standpoint, but they also will have a secondary vibration as a result of the offset cylinders.

A big factor that is often overlooked is the mixture distribution in the engine, the mixture setting (rich or lean) and the ignition timing. In a 2 stroke, if the mixture is too rich, then the motor doesn't fire every revolution, and the engine shakes quite a bit. I have seen some pretty bad vibrating boxer twins as a result of too rich a needle setting or possibly fuel puddling in the crankcase. A 1/4 turn of the low end needle on the carb can often really smooth out a vibrator. My stock 3W-100 used to vibrate a fair amount, and could not be smoothed out with tweaking the needles. I compared it to a friend's 3W-80, and his engine seemed like an electric motor. I finally added the carbon intake horn to my motor and there was a dramatic change in the smoothness throughout the rpm band. My motor is now as smooth as the 3W-80. The only thing that changed was the mixture as the motor came off idle.

Having never seen a Taurus, I don't really know if they are as smooth as claimed. I can offer up a theory; they might be smooth because Stallspin knows how to adjust the carb properly and does this on every engine before he ships it out. The other manufacturers rely on the customer to adjust the carb. Vibration is a funny business, with lots of claims, but no hard data for comparison. Lots of anecdotes.

Thanks Diablo for your insight, what you say makes sense. I just got my first gas twin and will have to remember this for setting the needles.

Thanks
Doug

The post said "two ball bearings on both sides of the crank throws"..Two on the front is a very good idea, makes the crank more rigid, just like a cantilever, as the hub is almost next to the front bearing..Two on the rear is maybe overkill, but if the crank is PERFECTLY straight and concentric it could be the reason for the alleged smoothness of the engine..I'm working on a 62cc Zenoah converted INDUSTRIAL engine, not a chainsaw, that comes from Zenoah with two bearings on the front and one in the rear..Should be smoother than the G62 because of the close proximity of the front bearing to the prop hub..The only common parts between the G62 and this one are the bearings and seals..Should weigh about 4 and 1/2 lbs and will have electronic ignition with electronic advance..Looks good so far, ignition in the square rear crankcase casting...

If I was guessing man, and I'm not I would guess some engineers from long ago decided that there was a marked improvement in a rigid rotating assembly that fully supports the crank-pin with double cheeks/counter-balances.... It's obvious to me that a fully supported assembly will in fact run truer as oppsoed to cantilever design, such as ZDZ, Zenoah, Brison, FPE, Air Hobbies and many other's...

Let's consider what the big dog's [3W and DA] in the industry are doing with there lower end's. Double cheek, single throw crankshaft's with bearings at either end of the assembly. Same engineering design concept Taurus use's on all there engines...

I whole heartedly agree with Diablo and Ralph's assertions on the complexity, merit's and tuning aspects of all model engines...

Attention to detail such as hand fitted, clearanced and machined assemblies, balance factor's or ratios that work, superior engineering concepts, timing and tuning procedures that offer the best real world results equals ====== Taurus Engines..........

I have done this, I suggest some other's do the same obtain a Taurus Engine and make the comparison... I know of several other's that have tried the rest achieved similar result's and now realize the Taurus Engines advantage...

Another mentioned long term reliability, most, if not all of these engines are designed to live for at least 1000 hours of use. This is already a known for Mahle [Sach's, Makita, Dolmar, Husqy]based engines and many other's. Some have yet to prove themselves...

It's easy for the manufacturers to claim a 1000 hour service life when they don't back it up. Let's see one of them offer a 10 year warranty - seems about right for 100 hours/year.

So far, I only see 3 year warranties (at most) out there.

Say Mike:
Zenoahs don't have cantilevered cranks, they have the double counterweight, bearings on both side, like the Taurus. That was my original point, this design by itself is no guarantee of smoothness. RCignition thinks that adding another front bearing to the Zenoah will make it smoother. Also, is the new DA-50 a cantilever crank? I'm guessing it is from the photos.

Yep, your correct Zenoah's do have double cheek crank's. My mistake...

There are many engine's utilizing a double cheek design. Obviously there not all using the same balance factors or ratio's. As Diablo mentioned tune-ups play a factor. Additionally ignition system's contribute here as well. The smoothest single cylinder will have a properly matched carb, low friction loss HP numbers, auto advance/retard ignition system and balance factors that match the application. I believe the rigid rotating assembly of the double cheek crankshaft design allows more energy to be converted to usable power, this is realized via the transition, rpm, torque and smoothness.

It's much like the real world of automotive engine design. There are many aftermarket components offered to enhance performance. The right combination of these parts and hands on massaging creates a high power engine, the wrong combination creates an engine with less than desirable attributes...

DA's new 50 does utilize a cantilever crankshaft design... I assume weight and cost were a factor. The 50 makes respectable power. The rpm numbers I have seen are comparable to other engines in this class, if not less...

I would like for you to exsplain how a engine turning a 22/8 prop at 7000 rpm is going to out perform another engine that swings a 20/10 at over 7000 rpm.This does not make sense.Statements like these appear to come from one who is not being impartial.

I'm amazed at how often the same few people try to convince each other why their opinion on engine design (crank or induction)is the correct one.

Of course, there is aways the innocent bystander who unwittingly asked just the right question. I wonder if he feels more informed about his potential purchase?

Just ribbin' a little here guys.

Personally, I don't think there is a truly bad choice among any of the brands mentioned in the title of this thread.

Wiz

Engine design, personal preference aside there is the math available to ascertain which prop is absorbing more horsepower.

20/10 Menz S @ 7200 = 4.22hp and delivers 24.18lbs. of thrust.

22/8 Menz S @ 7200 = 4.996hp and delivers 35.46lbs of thrust.

What engine are you referencing turning the 20/10 at 7000rpm? And what type of exhaust system.

A larger prop disc area across the board will adsorb more hp than a smaller prop disc. The pitch is also a variable. More pitch requires more hp to maintain the same rpm.

You stated in one of your post that the taurus 42 is a stronger engine than a zdz 40 and I disagree.You also stated the taurus swings a 22/8 at 7000 rpm not 7200.While the zdz is turning a heavier prop 20/10 at more than 7000 rpm.I'm sure if you put a light prop such as a 22/8 on a zdz 40 you will get the same result or more.

whats the weight on these taurus engines?

Didn't see it on there site