I am considering purchasing a Fuji motor for my BertBaker Zero project. Anyone out there have any experience with these. Might be a good time to start a Fuji Thread!!
Thanks to all,

Horrido!!

FUUUUUJJIIII"s have been around along time, known to many....

Remember the Mustang 50 by Byron's???

I'm one of those guys Mr. Glavin mentioned who has the Mustang 50 version as sold by Byron's. I bought a Fuji 50 muffler from tower for it a couple of weeks ago, it turns a 20x8 Zinger at 7,200 rpm, I just received a ProZinger 18x10 in the mail today, several guys suggested that this is a better choice of a prop. I'll find out in a day or two. I haven't been able to flip start it yet but it starts instantly with my Miller 4 to 1 reduction on a Hobbico 180 starter. It runs fairly smoothly. It has very low time on it maybe 1.5 hours. I believe Byron's and Fuji both have the bore and stroke figures reversed on Tower's website and in the Mustang 50 manual. My measurements tell me that it has the same bore as a Zenoah G45 and a slightly longer stroke. giving it 2.84 cu. in. displacement vs. the G45's 2.76. I know you only asked about the Fuji 50 so the G45 info is free.

Well in terms of performance and reliability, is it comparable to the Zenoahs? I think that the size you mentioned would be perfect for the Baker Zero. I definately want to go gas. Someone on another thread suggested a Zenoa 62 because the plane needs the nose weight, BUT...you have to cut out the cowl and I want to build this one absolute scale. Have scale landing gear for it already.

I was not familiar with the fact that Byron's carried these. I thought that they had Quadras (one and the same perhaps?) A friend at the field told me that the gentelmen behind Fuji is a modeler himself and took the time to really build a nice, balanced, reliable motor.

Your thoughts??

Horrido

One thing I forgot to mention is that the Fuji has an ingition module that retards the timing for starting and a better idle. The timing on my 50 is fixed.

Here are some actual numbers on the Fuji 50(46.5cc) from a thread on another site (they were posted by a well known engine builder):

==============
RPM...7100 with a 20-10 Master Airscrew black prop
6300 with a 22-8 Mejzlik carbon prop
==============

As a point of comparison a new Taurus 2.6(42cc) turns a Zinger Pro 22X8 at 7200RPM, 22X10 at 6480, and weighs 4lbs 1 oz with muffler, mount, and CH ignition while the Fuji weighs 5lbs. (Brison 3.2s and BME 50s have similar numbers to the Taurus - all these weights are actual, not manufacturer's bare engine claims - I have not tested with the Mejzlik, but it should have a similar load to the Zinger Pro, or less)

So why buy a Fuji? There's only one reason I can see; if the price is the most important element of your decision. $399 for the Fuji and $529 for a Taurus(and bit more for BME 50 or Brison 3.2), or how about $410 for a ZDZ40, which still outperforms this motor in all areas. For me that difference is meaningless considering the major benefits of the other high-end engine choices, but I know that is can be a very important consideration for some people.....hummm, so in that case, if price is the deciding factor, buy the ZDZ.

Bill

Great advice. No, price is not the main determining factor. I thought the Fuji's were the proverbial needle in the haystack. You know, a great deal just uncovered my ME! In your opinion then, either the ZDZ40 or the BME would be an excellent choice? Don't know much about the ZDZ's although I have been to their web site. No one at our field here in Los Angeles flys them.

Can you give me some ideas as to your experience with them?

Thanks. I can't believe how much the internet has helped us in the modelling community with people such as those that share their experiences on this site.

Take Care all and thanks again,

Horrido

Hi Horrido,

Here's my pick in order of personal preference:

Taurus 2.6 or 3.2
BME 50
ZDZ40
Brison 3.2

First, they are all excellent motors. IMHO, although the Taurus is the least known, it is of the highest quality. As a part of Southgate Aero, they have a long history of producing quality engines for many applications. I've personally owned many gas engines, and seen most of the rest run, although the a BME 44 is the only one out of this list that I have owned. The Taurus has a superior designed bottom end and uses only the highest quality parts throughout. Again, from my experience, they start easily, are the smoothest, most powerful per cc, and have a great 3 year warranty...and no, I don't work for them. I was dragged kicking an screaming into getting my first Taurus a few months ago and I was so impressed I've had to spread the good word.

Their Web site is www.taurus-engines.net. It is not very up to date, as is the case with most R/C(and other) Web sites, but it will give you some more info.

BTW, all of them weigh within a couple of ounces of 4lbs with pitts-style muffler, ignition and mount. The ZDZ is about 5-7 oz lighter than the others.

As I said, the other motors are all excellent and you'd be happy with any of them....you'd just be the happiest with the Taurus.


Bill

Sent off for their price list. Taurus that is. Have the ZDZ line specs already. Thanks for the help. It's always a pleasure dealing with modelers!!

Will keep all updated on progress.

Horrido

Well, since everyone is bent on steering you away from the Fuji I might as well suggest the Fox 3.2, it weighs 3 lbs. 8 oz. and developes 26 lbs of thrust, just giving you something else to compare. All reports say the Fox gassers are very good engines.

Hi Dave,

What weight is that? Bare I assume. Is this a weight you measured(if so did you use a digital scale), or is that Fox's number? How much with muffler, ignition, and mount(I think the mount is built in, right?). Also how did you arrive at the thrust numbers? Thrust numbers are typically pretty meaningless unless they are actual measurements you have taken. Do you have prop/RPM numbers? They are typically are a bit more helpful than thrust numbers for comparing engine power. If you do, can you please state the prop(size, brand and type if applicable), altitude and temperature they were taken at.

How smooth is your Fox? Have you owned other gas motors around this size that you can compare it to.

There is very little info on the Fox floating around, including on the Fox's Web site, so any additional details you can provide would be helpful.

Thanks,

Bill

The Fox and Brison 3.2 are, for the most part, identical designs sharing the major power producing components. They use the same piston and cylinder from Makita (Sachs-Dolmar) and the same CH ignition with mechanical throttle coupled advance. They both use Walbro carbs (not sure if the model# is the same). The mufflers are slightly different in design, the Brison is a rectangular side mount and the Fox is a round side mount. The crank counterweights have a slightly different shape. Model Airplane News reviewed both engines (Sept. 2000 and Dec. 1999). They only tested the engines with a single common prop, a 20x8 Zinger. The Brison turned it 8,600 rpm, the Fox turned it 7,920 rpm. Not sure why the large difference. Perhaps variability in the cylinders or props??? The temperature and humidity actually favored the Fox (65F temp with a 33% relative humidity) - the Brison weather was 77F with a 79% relative humidity. So based on a sample size of one (always dangerous from a statistical point of view), get the Brison.

Diablo,

The conditions favored the Fox. That's really scary.

Hey, why would he get a Brison when the Taurus will kick its butt? Just kidding...but also serious. :-)

Bill

BP, actually I got those numbers from the Fox website, I only own
four gas engines, a G45, Quadra 35, Mustang 50 and a Merco .61 which came from the Merco factory as an ignition gasoline engine. The positive comments I mentioned about Fox engines were made somewhere in these pages. I'm not one who thinks all engines I don't have are bad. I know for a fact that OS engines for the most part are great engines, but of my 75+ engines I don't own a single OS. Sorry I mislead you into thinking I had a Fox 3.2, I do intend to buy a Fox 4.2 with the synchrospark option.

I think variability is the key here. It sure seems like there is a lot of variability of these engines that use a Makita cylinder and piston. Without looking at a large sample of engines from each of the manufacturers we really can't draw valid conclusions about which one (on average) is more powerful. On the other hand, if one of the manufacturers produces engines that always tach within 100 rpm of each other, then you don't need a big sample size to have faith in the numbers. Do you think any of these guys wants to publish the typical rpm and include a standard deviation and the number of engines tested? Ask the Taurus boys and see what they say.

Hobssy,

>>Sorry I mislead you into thinking I had a Fox 3.2

Not a problem at all. I really don't take stock in manufacturer's numbers as you'll typically find they've been written by marketing folk. Not that they're intentionally misleading people, but exaggeration kind of comes with the marketing territory. I like to hear as many real life reports as possible and come up with some reasonable sample that shows a pattern. As Diablo suggests this isn't necessarily easy to come by.

Diablo:

>>Do you think any of these guys wants to publish the typical rpm and include a standard deviation and the number of engines tested?

Nope, not going to happen. I don't think any of them are big enough to do this. I think I heard Taurus was setting up a dyno, but I don't know if they plan to use this to publish HP numbers, or just for internal quality control. I would guess the latter, as HP numbers won't mean much as a marketing tool unless they could be compared with other engine's results. That's why I've promoted the idea of an independent testing lab(magazine?) should set up a dyno and test all the engines with a standard, controlled testing procedure. I'm dreaming of course.

What Taurus will accomplish with a dyno is improving their already great quality control processes. Part of the reason Taurus' appear to be so evenly matched(and that's admittedly from a small sample) is because they are each basically hand built and the quality control is very tight.

Bill

The problem with independent testing organizations is that they don,t remain independent for long, take Consumer magazine for example. Great magazine at first, then they became nitpickers and began to preach Honda and Camry and a few other products they liked and view all the rest as inferior. An example of an engine people are unfair to is my Maloney 125, it's a little heavy, yes, doesn't have the power of a 120 glow, but will fly all day with nary a hiccup and will fly longer on 16 oz. of fuel than most people care to fly. I'm off the soap box.

Hi Hobbsy,
>>The problem with independent testing organizations is that they don,t remain independent for long,

I generally would agree with you, but the motorcycle mags have made it work. They report consistant accurate dyno charts that really let you compare apples to apples. It's a great tool when used properly. It also keeps the manufacturer's honest. With the advent of this testing in the motorcycle world, the manufacturer's were forced to start publishing real power numbers and not just marketing hype.

Bill

On model engine testing. I agree with Bill. The charts showing BOTH the HP and Torque vs RPM's tell the real story on an engines power. And that's something I've yet to see for any model engine.

The HP figures quoted by the Mfg's now are almost completely useless. Example, I have a GMS 1.20 two stroke glow. It is a good running engine, cranks on a backflip, clucks at idle, transitions well. It spins and APC 16x8 in the 8700 RPM range. Look at the Mecoa website. You will see this engine rated at 3.3 HP. What's so funny about that? A YS 120 is rated at 2.4 HP, but the last time I tached my buddies it was spinning and APC 16x8 at 9200.

Heck my G38 is only rated at 2.5 HP but it spins a Zinger Pro 18x8 at 8000.

So the Mfg Quoted HP ratings are bunk. Without the full torque and HP curves, it's almost meanlingless.

I have to agree about the motorcycle mags, I get Cycle World and MCN, haven't had a bike since I sold my Maico in the late 70s. I also agree with Jim D that HP ratings are totally useless, a given prop and a given rpm would do nicely.

Hi Jim,

You're dead on with your comments. What would also be nice about hp/torque curves is that it would both help pick an engine that best fits your application, and it would help tremendously in prop selection.

Hobbsy,

A Maico? I can't believe that you're the second person online in two weeks that I've mentioned motorcycles to that had a Maico. I always wanted one back in the late 60's but all I ended up with is owning a Kawasaki dealership in the 70's. I still want a 60's Maico just for grins.

Bill

If our peers will permit us I'll talk about my Maico briefly, it had a torque curve that would make any airplane engine proud. It was a 125cc rotary valve six speed that weighed 202 lbs. It's torque curve wasn't really a curve at all, it was nearly flat from 4,000 to 8,200 RPM. Jap bikes of the time had a curve that looked like a spike between 9,000 and 11,500 RPM. Needless to say it was easy to ride and fast. That's it for bike talk.

Hobbsy....I just converted a Maloney 100 to
CD ignition..Turned a 16-6 Zinger 7700 rpm, a 16-8 at 7000..
I had a 125 that turned a 16-8 at 8000 rpm..Most of the 125s I saw had out of round cylinders and poor piston rings..John Maloney was on the right track...If he had done a little more work on these, maybe a chrome cylinder without the weight of the detachable head and a better magneto, he would have beaten the little RCS gassers by many years....Isn't hindsight great ????

Viva Montessa or was it Viva Bultaco?

Viva Bultaco 360 cc Montadero....the one that would stick in gear...