You may find that the T52 on the Hanger 9 little 260 is not overpowered. Actually I would venture to say its about right. Seen one fly, a friend has one in our club. The problem with this plane is that its built very light. I do not think its tough enough for a gasser. Oh It will work and fly great but the landing gear area, firewall area basically the entire forward section is kinda light for a gasser. But, if a gasser is to be your choice go with the Taurus because I will bet my last dollar anything else in gas will shake a bunch more. It seems the prop of choice on the 52 is a Zinger Pro 22-8, 7700rpm's..Good combo just not enough plane...Oh by the way, get an aluminum gear set...

Does anybody know if the weights listed on the Taurus web pages are just the bare engine or if it includes the ignition and mount?

I had my Taurus TS-42 in a DP Extra. I think it was 78" with about 1150 or so sq in. It flew great, but you will want to keep it light. Mine weighed 15lbs(with lightening mods) which by today's standards is a bit heavy for that size. If you can keep it closer to 14lbs it would work great.

Redundant batteries in this size plane are absolutely unnecessary. It is a great idea, but I personally draw the line at 33% planes before adding dual batteries. I put them in my 30% Yak, but only for the first few flights, then I took one out. You're going to be adding 6 oz or so for the extra battery which is too much to add for the little bit of extra security on this size plane. How many planes have you had, or heard of, that had a switch or battery fail. I never have had it happen in 30+ years of flying. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but it is very low probability.

Not at all. Like I said, I've been at this over 30 years and I just struggled with some of the same issues with the Yak. It just means you're thinking, and that's good.

I believe the weight is without plug(1.4oz), ignition(4oz) and muffler(8oz). (BTW, I'm not absolutely sure about the plug, so it may be an ounce lighter).

TS-52 - 4lbs 2oz with everything. (does not include the battery as this varies for each user)

You'll find that weight very competitive with the other 50's. Look at the previous page of this thread if you didn't see mglavin's post about engine weights.

Steve, I feel your pain! I do know that my Hanger 9 27% Cap flys and lands wonderfully with a Brison 3.2. It has an 80" span and wing area of 1248 sq. in. Looking at the plans for my 27.5% Miles Reed Extra 260 (span 80.5" and wing area of 1160 sq. in). Miles Reed says he flys his 260 with a Moki 180. Then he states that any engine under 5 lbs capable of swinging an 18" prop of 7,000 rpms or more will work fine. Seems like the 27% aerobats are riding that fine line of weight to wing area. Since I bought this for gas, I was really looking at the BME 44 (38oz.s bare)and going with a light weight Great Planes mount. I've talked to several people that have flown the Miles Reed 260 with Brison 2.4's and they were extremely happy. Then again I've talked to people that have flown it with a Moki 180 and they were also very happy. Anyway, I'm going with gas and will just hope for a nice headwind!

My humble opinion it that anything less than 1400 square inches strokes the "EGO" more than it helps the plane's performance. Simply because of the weight.

Hi Bob,

You lost me on that one... do you mean that you don't think you ought to use gas on anything under 1400 sq in's? FYI, your 87" Yak(which is really 85" ) is really only 1350 sq in, not 1450 as advertised. My Yak is the same and flies like a feather at 17.5lbs. Also, as I mentioned my 1150ish sq in Extra with Taurus at 15 pounds also flew great. My opinion is that 14-15lbs for a 11-1200 sq in plane with a 40-50cc gas engine is just fine. Of course lighter is better, but for most people, the above combinations work fine.

So do you all think the TS 52 is too much for this plane? I think the 42 would probably do everything I want but I'd like to be able to take the engine to a slightly larger plane in the future. For that I'd rather have a 50cc than a 40cc.

I think if I can go with the TS 52 I'll probably give it a try. I really had my heart set on a DA but if this engine runs as smooth as everyone says I think that would be better on a the smallish airframe of the 260. I can also move it up to something bigger in the future. I also like the price, $629 will just barely get you the DA engine, you still need the muffler and drill guide, I guess you don't need a guide with the Taurus?

Sorry Steve if I've hijacked your thread... I don't think you've really got your white gas answers...

Yes, the 42 will do everything, and the 42 would be the better choice....except....

...if you plan to go to a 50cc size plane as you just mentioned, then I would accept the extra 4 oz of weight, get the 52, use the throttle and have the bigger engine ready for the larger plane. BTW, when I put the 42 in the DP Extra I mentioned, other people were, as an example, putting BME 50's in them and were also happy with the way they flew.

No, they have a single bolt through the prop....but make sure and drill that one hole perfectly straight.

>>Sorry Steve if I've hijacked your thread... I don't think you've really got your white gas answers...

Only Steve can answer that, but I think you have bascially the same issues Steve has, and your questions are related to the way the thread has morphed.

Hi Bill, No that's not what I meant to say at all. If that were the case... at least half of the planes I fly, I'd be useing engines that are too big. I went back and edited my post to try and say what my thinking is concerning the "Nescessary" power to fly our planes. What I meant to convey was "we tend to overpower many of our smaller aircraft (27%- 72"WS) with heavier gas engines, simply because it makes many of us feel more MACHO." (I guess) Heres an example that maybe will help explane what I'm trying to say. I once had a GP, 78" "Patti Wagstaff." When I had to decide what engine to install in it, I didn't have a gas engine that wasn't in use the size (40-50cc range) I needed. I did have an old Super Tiger 3000, W/OS 7D Carburator, that I knew ran good and was very reliable with enough power To fly the PATTI. As a matter of fact, It flew it very well with all the power nescessary to perform the Imac pattern. But............,I was not satisfied with such a PRETTY airplane being powered buy such lowly GLO, engine. After all, when someone ask's you "what engine you're running," how "COOL" is it to say "Super Tiger?" GUESS WHAT? I got on the phone and bought myself a Shiney new DA 50, which was then, the "MUST" have engine. Well, I had one allright, but I never enjoyed flying the PATTI again, and soon sold it. So.........., now I no longer have the cool DA 50, but I still have the Super Tiger. All because of my ego.

I agree with Bill and his reasoning on choosing the 50cc or in the case of the Taurus, 52cc over the 2,4 0r 40. I wouldn't even consider a 40cc with only a few onces difference in weight, but quite a bit more power when you do move up. Makes since to buy a bigger engine now that's a little overkill for the application you need right now, than have to spend more money to buy a bigger engine in the future.

I get you now. Maybe some people do go gas, and buy DA's, for the reasons you've mentioned, but I say, no matter why you end up with (pretty much) any gas engine, you're going in the right direction. Can you tell I'm not a glow fan?

Me neither. except fo my 25 yr old Enya 4/S

Bob, I understand what you are saying and I've seen many people overpowering their airplanes for bragging rights. They flew like lead sleds but they had the biggest engine they could stuff in/out of the cowl.[X(] Actually, most of these 27% class aerobats would do extremely well with the new Saito 220 but at $18.00 in glo-fuel for 5 or 6 flights, gas engines become a more attractive/economical option.

Bass1 Don't you know GAS is more "MACHO." (pun) There are many reasons I choose gas over Glo. One of the most important reasons is lack of "Clean-UP." I know a fellow, (friend) that fly's a GP PATTI Wagstaff, just like the one I had. His is powered with a G-62. I'll admit it fly's the crap out of it when it's "Giddy Up Go time." But when it's Slow Time (touch & go's) like you said..."lead sled. I know the difference. I've flown the PATTI powered with three different engines. Light, heavy, and heavier.

Steve Cambell.....Just go ahead and buy the Taurus 3.2. you know you want to any way. You'll sleep better tonight because you'll have made your decision, and you'll sleep even better in the future because you did. The 3.2 is a perfect size for the 1100 - 1300 sq" 12 - 15 lb aircraft, but it's even better for aircraft with WS 1400 sq" and weighing up to, 15-20 lbs

It looks like more people are going to have the same engine selection problem....

http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LNLGP4&P=G

Looks great, but is 20-24 hours ARF ?

I was at the LHS today, and to my suprise, sitting behind the counter was a Taurus 3.2 with muffler!

They wanted way to much for it, almost $150 more than what Bill O wants but I did check it out. I weighed it on the same scale as the DA50 they had sitting behind the counter.

With the radial mount and no plug the Taurus was 3.7lbs

Without the mounting standoffs the DA was 3.1lbs.

The Taurus looked pretty good, and I like the fact that you don't need a drill guide with it. The wrap around muffler was huge in comparison to the stock DA muffler.

I might just try that Taurus, I've got till the end of the month to make up my mind before the sale runs out.....

If it cost 150.00 m ore, why not just order on direct from Bill. Also, you can be sure that you are getting the latest.

That's what I meant I'd get it from Bill before his sale was over.

If any of you guys are into profile planes (big) the BEAMER is back. currently only in the 52cc size, Beamer Convertible TS52R can be mounted on rails or have the option for a plate mount or the Radial.

Bill, I never got a chance to call you this week.

How did the Taurus do on the white gas/lantern fuel?

Steve we have not had a chance to do it. But see no reason why it won't work. we have check with a number of oil and carb manufacturers to see what the proper mix might be and whether the "white" gas would affect any parts in the carb. Hopefully we can do it this coming week.
We just have been very busy completing orders. It appears a 4:1 mix should do the job.Give me a call toward the end of the week OK.

Got it.