I believe I'm getting a Giant Stinger for Christmas, I have a Mustang 50 and a Zenoah G45 with CH ignition to put on it, these are in the middle of the engine range, will either do the job?

Can tell you from experience that the Zenoah 45 is a bunch more power than the Byron Mustang 50. when you load this engine in your bird top it off with a 18x8-14 Zinger and look out!...what a screamer.

Actually I have flown both engines on a Big Mama from the Airplane Factory which is fairly heavy and could not tell much difference. I lean towrds the Zenoah because it has a real muffler whereas the Mustang 50 has a B&B box collector with two stacks on it, very loud. However I have heard that Fuji made the Mustang 50 and now Tower sells them and the 50 Fuji has a real looking muffler on it, which they might sell separately. Decisions never end do they. The Zenoah is 2.76 cubic inches and the Mustang 50 is 2.84, I'd say calling the Mustang a 50 is a stretch. I think 3.3 cu. in. would be a 50.

One Question. Why? Is it that you are looking for something else to have to tinker with, or another battery to charge, or maybe you need to install another switch that can go bad on you because your life has been a little too simple lately. If that's your problem, then go ahead and convert that old reliable, magneto powered electric system to an electronic ignition system. You won't pick up anymore rpms on the top end, but you might be able to save a couple of hundred rpms at idle and I know that will make your day. My suggestion.... leave it alone and sell the electronic ignition system to someone you don't like. Put the Zenoah 45 in the airplane, leave the currently trouble free engine as is, and go have fun with your new airplane.

I have been a natural born tinkerer since my earliest memories and at 59 I don't think I'll ever find a cure. I have several engines with CH electronic ignitions on them and they are totally trouble free, I even have one on a lowly Merco .61. It's just all part of the fun.

I am glad you have been trouble free with you ignition systems. We have a couple of guys in our club that are forever having trouble with them and I've seen a few of their planes go dead stick and create an emergency situation because of them.
You and I are the same age, so I guess we are both somewhat set in our ways, so if it works for you....enjoy! I've been building and flying mostly warbirds, so weight in the nose is not a problem for me. In fact, I usually need as much weight up front as I can get in order to avoid having to add lead.
I'm running a couple of G-62's on various aircraft and love the simplicity and reliability of the engine. I use a Miller Products belt reduction electric starter, so starting these magneto engines is not a problem for me. I don't like sticking my hand in that prop.
Merry Christmas to all and a happy holiday season.

Bill Krummel
Fighterpilot

I utilize the original magneto ignition systems most of the time and they are fine with a Miller type starter and even with the spring starters.

But if you intend on "flipping the prop" by hand, an electronic system like C&H prevents the prop from kicking back and really tames the engine for hand starts.

I use a quadra 50 on my Giant Stinger & it will pretty much hang on the prop in a hover, and I can take off at half throttle.

I've seen G-62's on them too. But it will fly just fine on either of your engines.

The plane has a thick airfoil that tends to keep the speed constant in loops and creates a lot of lift. The plane is very easy to fly, just keep the wings level if you get in any trouble. And it lands slow and easy.

It is about the most comfortable aerobatic plane to fly there is! You'll love it.

Each has their advantages and disadvantages.

A mag is less money, and might be more reliable. It depends on which electronic ignition you compare it to. A mag has weak spark at low speeds which makes it more difficult to hand start. Most people use either a spring starter (adds weight and cost) or a Miller starter (adds about $200 plus now you have to lug around that 12V truck battery and make sure to charge it). A mag is more dangerous to hand start because it has fixed ignition timing. Fixed ignition timing also makes the engine shake at low speeds. A mag has a heavy flywheel which makes the engine slow to accelerate. The heavy weight of the mag may not be a problem for tail heavy models but it is for light-tail aerobats. Lead is dirt cheap if you need to add nose weight.

The electronic ignition costs more money and you have to include a switch and a 4-cell nicad (and remember to charge it just like your receiver and transmitter). You don't need spring starters or expensive reduction starters or need to haul around the 12V battery. Hot spark at tickover speeds and variable ignition timing means easy hand starts (with safety) and low vibration. No added flywheel weight means quicker acceleration.

This is sort of like the argument of which is better in bed, a blond or a brunette. Both are wonderful and each of us has an opinion. This is one argument that I won't waste any more time on.
Happy flying and Merry Christmas

Sir, please don't let the fight in Fighterpilot ruin this discussion, I'm already married to a beautiful blonde lady and we have seven kids, all grown, she bought me the Giant Stinger and a Saito 100 for Christmas that caused me to ask the above question, and I'm learning from the answers. Merry Christmas to all and thanks for your answers. Does anyone know if the Mustang 50 is made by Fuji, as I've heard. Thanks Dave

Yes, everyone has an opinion. But through discussion and sharing info, you can have an informed opinion.

Yes, the Fuji and the Byron Mustang 50 are one in the same. I have had 2 of them and they are no match for the Zenoah45 or a Q52.

As I know nothing of the Mustang 50, I cannot say, but I am familiar with the G45 and the Giant Stinger.

It will fly very well with the G45. Watch the balance as the plane was basically desinged around the G62. With the G45 it will be a straight sport flyer. Built lightly with a G62 it has strong vertical performance and can be a real Hot-Dog machine with big throws.

Depending on the builder and the wood in the kit, I've seen these come in from right at 19 lbs to 22lbs. At 22 lbs, the G45 would still fly it well, but with a lot less spirit than 19lbs.

I would like to kick this comparo between Mustang 50 and the Zenoah G45 around a little more. There is a vast difference in their bores and strokes. The Mustang has a 1.26 in. bore and a 1.69 in. stroke, which in my mind makes it a longstroke engine and the G45 has a 1.7 in. bore and a very short 1.2 in. stroke. It would seem like the Mustang should turn a bigger or higher pitched prop at a lower RPM and develope about the same thrust as the G45. I hope someone out there is more engine wise than I am, my experience is almost entirely with glow engines.

You sure about that bore and stroke on the Mustang? It seems mighty odd to have such a long stroke in any modern engine. Highly unlikely. I think someone may have misprinted the specs. In any case, the port timing and dimensions are much more important to the power curve of a 2-cycle engine than the bore/stroke ratio anyway.

Diablo, those are the figures Tower has for the Fuji 50, I agree it could be a misprint, the crankcase radius is somewhat larger on the Mustang indicating that the stroke is larger but that 43 MM figure is quite a bit. I will E-mail Tower and see what they say.

Tower has the bore and stroke measurements reversed for the Fuji 50. I measured the stroke my self and came up with slightly over 1.25 with my close enough type measurement through the spark plug hole. 32MM equates to 1.25984 when converted.

I am only 65 - so my opinions may be attributed to youthful ignorance--
Over the years,I have seen/run the older magneto engines -different sizes G38 etc - 45/62 etc..
Unless you are simply a nostalgia buff- this type of engine - or any of the older converted chainsaw stuff - is really at a power /smoothness disadvantage to contemporary designs.
Example:the 60 ZDZ single will outpull the G62 - on Big props - 24x10 Menz Std at a min of 6000 and up to 6500 on good exhaust - plus much lighter and way smoother.
Also The same engine beats the G80 twin- same props -
The New 3W 50 is another example - very smooth - and tho not as powerful as the ZDZ60 - is simply excellent .
Both engines also have a rear carb - which allows for nice smooth cowlings -on planes such as a P51--
If you are buying a new engine -you should consider this approach-
There IS a big difference.
Also the prices are close to the older types.
If you are a nostalgia buff - that's a different story.

Dick, thanks for responding, I already have the Zenoah G45 and the Mustang 50 which is really a Fuji 50 and have decided to go with the Mustang. The J-Tec soft mount kit I have on the G45 is wider than the Stinger fuse and the Mustang 50 soft mount fit perfectly, so thge descision was made for me. By the way at 59 I'm pretty young myself.

Be honest now, how many times have you had to send back an ignition system or had it fail on you? I've flown with a lot of pilots, and many of them use engines on C&H Ignition or Syncrospark.
Now I'm not into the IMAC aircraft and trying to hover my airplane like a heli. I build and fly mostly warbirds. Some are scaled out more than others, but for the most part, they are pretty nice birds. I've run G-62's, Quadra 50's and 75's, and Lee 4.2 Sachs all on magneto. I can honestly say that I have never had a dead stick landing because of the fault of an engine. Now I've seen IMAC pilots and some warbird pilots have their ignition systems go out of timing, battery go bad, switch short out, all things that don't exist on a magneto sparked engine. I've seen Stinger Wallace swear that he'll never put another ignition system sparked engine in another airplane, and watched him fly the wings off of his Grumman Skyrocket with 2 G-62s. I'm running a Lee 4.2 Sachs on a 38 lb. 87" Hawker Sea Fury that's been clocked at 132 mph. That's enough power and fast enough for me. I've heard engines sputter and cough while the pilot prays for enough power to turn his plane around and land. I've been flying these large scaled gas burners for about 10 years now and if you don't mind, I'll keep it simple and stay with the magneto. I guarantee you that there isn't 200 rpms difference between a Sachs on ignition and a Sachs on Magneto. Your idle may be a little smoother (when it's running) but that's not enough to make me change my mind.
I know everyone has an opinion, and the above is just one man's ideas. I'm not trying to sell you on it. I don't care if you never run another engine on magneto. It's just my opinion and until somebody with one of those super 3W?!xz^-Z goes by me and blows my doors off, I'll just stick to what works for me, and most of the other guys that fly warbirds at our club).
Happy New Year to all and may all your landings be soft ones. !

I for one will not trust any of my heavy metal birds to nothing but a mag ing. system. Less systems less trouble! Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking battery powered ignition systems. I've flown planes with them and they are great. My personal preference however is a more simple approach.
Best regards, and happy new year.
the d man.

I never advocated using battery ignition, I only said I used it very successfully. The only CH Ignition failure I've ever had is that the packing around the porcelain blew out on a 1/4 inch spark plug in my Merco .61 ignition engine. I doubt that CH actually made the plug. To put all your minds at ease, the Mustang 50 I'm putting on the Lanier Stinger does not have an after market ignition, it is stone stock. The Zenoah G45 does have CH's triggering system and spark control using the stock coil. So, like you I just use what works.

My first bike, a Norton 750cc Atlas, had a magneto on it designed by Joe Lucas (the prince of darkness). All modern bikes and cars have battery-coil ignitions with electronic advance. If 1965 ever comes back again, I'll get another engine with a magneto. The concept (if not the reliability) of an electronic ignition is far superior to the magneto. The only failure I have had with my 3W ignition ((300+ flights) is with the spark plug caps (breakdown of the insulator) and has been fixed on later units with a silicone insert.

Another advantage to the mag ignition is the added nose weight. Every warbird I have built(what I fly) needs the added weight. I just assume the weight be functional instead of dead. Aerobatic pilots, however I think, would be looking for any means of saving weight(is electronic lighter than mag?). Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking electroic ignition. I thing it's great in auto's, and I certainly don't miss the days of setting points and drying out distributor caps, but I also know that most piston engine full scale aircraft are still using dual mag ignition systems. I believe it's strictly a matter of preference. Some of my fellow modelers swear by their battery leashed ignition systems, while some of us on the other hand swear by a spinning magnet. Anyway, enough hot air from me.
What did we do for fun before the internet? I can't remember that far back!
Best regards, and Happy New Year, I here the wife calling me to sample her smothered cabbage and roast pork.

I thought I would throw my 2 cents in here. I've been flying a Giant Stinger all summer with a G-62 in the nose. I spent half the summer working the bugs out of the plane, but after 45 logged hours, I've got it right. (as right as possible ;-) Mine came in at 19 lb. No smoke or spring starter. I use the Sullivan double handle starter on 24 volts to crank it. It started on 12 volts until about 20 hrs on the engine. Then the rings really started to seat up and it takes 24 volts to spin it. Everyone is talking about heavy batteries to crank the starter with. I started out with 2 lawn mower batteries. That made for a HEAVY flight box. Now I use two of the Tower 5 AMP gel cell batteries. They weigh just about nothing, and will crank the G-62 all day long. Like I said 45 hrs on engine and not the first dead stick! When I put that kind of money in the air, I don't want to worry about the engine quiting. I run a 20 oz tank, 15 min flights, and land with a tad less than 1/2 tank. Using a velocity stack and Mejzlik 22x10 prop getting 7700 rpm. I started out with a Zinger 22x6-10 and got so so performance. The carbon fiber props don't flex at all and blow the Zingers away in performance. Mine will hover at 1/2 throttle or so and go straight up when given full throttle. Give the G-62 20 or 30 hours to break in and you won't be dissappointed. I've got a long list of modifications to the GS. This plane will not stay together if built per plans. Drop me an e-mail if interested in them.