Walker 3.2 vs DA 50,BME 50
09-01-2004, 09:04 PM
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (103)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: High Point, NC
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walker 3.2 vs DA 50,BME 50
Are the newer 50 cc engines better than the older Sachs based 3.2 engines? I've got a Walker 3.2 that's pretty strong, and I'd like to know how it compares to these newer engines.
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
09-12-2004, 12:08 AM
#2
My Feedback: (25)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Greenville, PA
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Walker 3.2 vs DA 50,BME 50
Electronic ignition with auto advance and the engine weight are the two main items. Newer engines are lighter and with auto advance ignition they will put out more RPM's than the old mag. set up or set electronic. If your engine runs good you can have a new Syncro spark installed.
09-12-2004, 02:03 AM
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere,
DC
Posts: 9,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Walker 3.2 vs DA 50,BME 50
A correctly timed engine will not run any better with electronic advance..[8D]
The engine doesn't know where the spark comes from as long as it's about 28 degrees BTDC...Electronic advance allows hand starting without kickback....
The engine doesn't know where the spark comes from as long as it's about 28 degrees BTDC...Electronic advance allows hand starting without kickback....
09-12-2004, 08:12 AM
#4
My Feedback: (25)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Greenville, PA
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Walker 3.2 vs DA 50,BME 50
Yes, but many of the "older" engines were not at 28ΒΊ-30ΒΊ some were around 20ΒΊ-24ΒΊ for ease of starting. The main ones like this were "set" electronic egnition to keep the engine from kicking back on start up and idle better. Never the less "the newer 50cc engines" are lighter and the main reason is no big fly wheel. If you need the nose weight though it's not a big deal, unless you goal is to have a engine that starts easy without a spring setup (pain in the rear in more ways then one). Come to think about it wasn't the Walker engine the original Brison? If it has the machical advance and works well there is not a big advantage to upgrade other then not having to deal with the advance linkage.
09-12-2004, 09:17 AM
#5
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hammond,
IN
Posts: 3,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Walker 3.2 vs DA 50,BME 50
Some of the new engines also have relocated the carb to the rear. Makes for a neater package to fit inside the cowl. Some of the new engines also use reed or rotary valve for intake timing. This can give a wider powerband with less fuel spitting out of the carb. The older piston port engines have symmetrical intake timing, which is a compromise.
09-12-2004, 04:57 PM
#6
My Feedback: (25)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Greenville, PA
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Walker 3.2 vs DA 50,BME 50
I will go along with you on some of your points but a rear carb is a pain to get to. If you have a boxed in firewall (most large planes do) you need to remove the engine to do carb work[:'(]. As for "spitting" I've never had one do this. I do have two reed valve engines but they are twins. My three singles are piston port and run super
. I must add though the single cylinder engines have the carb inside the cowl, this does make a big difference.
. I must add though the single cylinder engines have the carb inside the cowl, this does make a big difference.
