Good point- One example doth not a fact prove--
When I did YS 1.2-1.4 -.91- engines - and modified supercharged OS1.2 and power tuned ST2300 engines -I tested -ran flew a number of each.
How?
Local guys were willing and wanted to see how these worked -so I typically at least thre examples of any engine to test.
When I got performance numbers - they were typical numbers-of engines setup to run their best.
My own results with gasoline engines -for modelairplanes -is from only the past three years.
The Why -is simple:
All of thestuff I saw -flew - helped with -was pretty Ho Hum from a design standpoint-tho I liked the 3W approach-
The converted chain saw stuff was nice -but power to weight -
Nope.
The new stuff started to trickle from the Eastern Bloc people -who had the technology- and were hungry to do a job.
I have run a number of these - some good -some so-so .
The "grown up glow engine " comment -is really flattering -
These designs are far more into the high performance catagory.
That's why I like em.
They also lend themselves to performance add ons - notably tuned exhausts .
For those who really are happy with a side port - no quiet exhaust system engine - reliable - priced well -durable -
There are a bunch of em now .
The real tech stuff tho -is just starting to hit it's stride.
Look again in a year at what is really the performance setup -
Some more surprises a comin.

Diablo is right, the ZDZ's are a good value and you can get them relatively cheaply and I mentioned some of the reasons they are cheap/inexpensive, and all the reason's are not bad. You can get them even cheaper from Europe. To me, price isn't everything and in the case of a Taurus 2.6 vs a ZDZ80, I don't think many people will be putting the ZDZ80 in their GP 33% Pitts or DP Extra 330, or....., but your point is taken. I am not arguing that they don't cost less, if that's the only thing that drives your purchase, it's an excellent reason to buy a ZDZ. I agree they are the best high-end motor...for the price. I would buy one any day over a Zenoah (Opps, I didn't mean to insult Zenoah fans. They are good, reliable engines, and have their applications, but they are heavy and have less power/cc than the higher-end engines we've been discussing).

As far as Dick Hanson's comments on what's coming out in the future, I can't wait, I love technological advancements. I am not blindly defending a brand. In fact, I'm pretty fickle, hardly the type of customer manufacturers like. I buy and promote what I think is best at the time, and right now, I think in the smaller engines(and maybe the bigger ones, I just don't know) the Taurus is by far is the best, as I've said, but it doesn't mean something else isn't going to come out that is better, I just don't believe it is there now.

And Dick, if you think glow engine design is the design of the future for small gas engines for R/C, so be it, but I just don't see that. I agree with you on rotary valves having the most potential(evidentally unrealized so far in the ZDZ's), but that's about it as it relates to glow engine design.

BTW, Pete had an excellent point. I forgot about the Taurus mount. It is a beautifully made, strong, smartly designed mount. It is only 2 oz and is designed to collapse in a crash, helping to absorb energy and save the more expensive pieces of the motor. This is just one more example of the subtle design and engineering details that have gone into this engine to make it what it is.

Bill

Unrealized potential?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
For 410 US Rasbucknicks-even $550 -whatever - there may some unrealized potential.
The realized stuff tho is pretty good!
My new Rear Exhaust is on the way -to me -unless something awful happens--
Even tho it goes first into a Taylorcraft ARF- I will see if there is any unrealized power -I may have missed.
I won't be running any toothpick props tho - so it may not be what some are looking for.
This is to be a high power -very low noise setup.
At least -that's the program!
My own goal is a 6000 rpm setup-
max torque thru pipeology.

Hi Dick,

My only point is, that I also made earlier, if these engines are of such a superior design, they should be putting out significantly more power than the Taurus. Even if we even things out and say the Taurus is equivalent in power to the ZDZ40, where is the advantage of the superior design you suggest? Like I said, I too think rotary valve motors have more potential than a piston port motor, but at least from the data I've seen on the ZDZ 40, it hasn't realized it. One element of a design will not make a superior motor. It not only takes a good design, but flawless execution(precision). You're not going to ever get the maximum potential out of a motor from a mass-produced engine. A hand massaged (blueprinted) ZDZ40 will be better than 98% of the stock mass-produced examples out there. Ok, ok, I'll shut up on that.

>>The realized stuff tho is pretty good!

Agreed.

>>My new Rear Exhaust is on the way

I've very interested to see how that performs.

>>My own goal is a 6000 rpm setup-

A Zinger Pro or Menz S 24X8?

Bill

A year or so ago -I was just fooling with props and stuck on a 24x10 MenzS.
It ran 5800 as I recall.
I was really surprised.(reqd that stunned)
remember this is a 2.4 - I believe all the comparisons I hear are with larger engines. (understandable)
I will try this again---
But basically -I will be opting for 10-12" pitch props .probably 20-22"
The 22x8" stuff just goes into "blatt" -instantly.
I probably will be using MenzS 22x10--The Mejzlic ar simply pretty props at our altitude -very pretty -not very good. The lowly Zinger Pro loads heavier-in the 7200 range
Don't you find the same thing?

Hi Dick,

Big props are also recommended for the Taurus. (I guess you and Bill agree on something). :-)

>>I was just fooling with props and stuck on a 24x10 MenzS.
It ran 5800 as I recall.

That is impressive low-end torque! I wish I had one lying around to try. It would be an interesting experiment.

Taurus actually recommends the Moki 22X10, which is also a wide-blade. They're hard to get though, with little distribution in the US, though I plan to get one to try it.

I have a Menz S 22X8 on the way to try. I have not tried a Mejzlik on the Taurus myself, but I've been trying to find a 22X10 with no luck so far, though DA has some more coming in at the end of the month. I have run the 22X10 Zinger Pro(6500 on the new 2.6), and yes, I've very happy with the performance of these props. I think they're the best deal out there, and they're readily available. I'm very eager to try a back-to-back with the Zinger Pro 22X8 and the Menz S 22X8 to see just how different they are.

Bill

You will probably find about 300 rpm increased load with the MenzS-
On a 40-in my Sig Sukhoi- this had the fastest acceleration from low or hover stuff.
and horizontal speed esily went too fast .
It is also quieter.
I think I ran this at just under 7000 -if I changed exhaust setups - I could change static speed quite a bit . I had a tunnel for the exhaust on this , so I could -at the field, simply switch systems in a couple of minutes.
The worst exhaust system dropped the prop rpm to under 6500-static-but was whisper quiet.
The plane still worked very well but got soft on long humpty bumps.
Easy to tell power loss- the rudder needed to be added as power fell-during this type maneuver.
I didn't fiddle much with hovers-and no flippity plops.
The Sukhoi did tumble very well tho
I sure wish this model was available without that color scheme- man --that was hard to orient in bad skies.
I sold it -but it was a very solid flier.

>>I sold it -but it was a very solid flier.

Well, obviously the wings stayed on yours.

Bill

......"but got soft on long humty bumps".
Yeah,I hate when that happens.

something about wet noodles and wildcats comes to mind- but -I was referring to a different type of flying

Sorry Guys..I bet that the "subtle design" of the mount " was made like a Swiss cheese more for light weight than saving the rest of the engine..The shaft will still bend or twist, along with the mount, if the crash is at the right angle..Not to knock Taurus, they're pretty...Which is a function of the CNC programmer, realtive to tooling, speeds and feeds of the machine...Not exclusive to Taurus..Check out a DA.....R C ....

RCIGN,
Nice to hear from you. I'm pretty sure that no one's mount is as nice or as truly functional as yours. Anyway, being an RC engine expert, I'm curious, have you had a Taurus on your bench? There are two individuals here that write glowing reports about their power & smooth running qualities. There are others that have posted numbers significantly lower. These numbers are as low or lower than any of the other Sachs based engines. What's the real scoop? Do they really offer additional power and smoothness to offset the additional weight and price over the others? Should my next engine be a Taurus?

No one will ever convince a Chevy lover to buy a Ford..Same idea here...The smoothest single I ever had was a "converted industrial engine", a 42cc Red Max brushcutter engine..Same size crank as a G62, smaller bore, less stroke..The extra weight probably soaked up some of the vibes...
Until someone sends me a Taurus to fix, I'll have to reserve judgement..The 2.6 Sachs cylinder is one of the best for power to weight ratio, so a well designed case with CD ignition makes a great engine....R C ....

Hi Wings,

Good questions of Ralph. Just so you know that the other "lower" numbers posted for the Taurus, are not numbers submitted by the owners, but numbers from RCFaq.com database from at least a year ago and the details aren't known. Were they new, what altitude and temp, and also the props types aren't listed either.

BTW, I think I can get at least one other person to post their numbers and experience with their 2.6 up here, and another one this coming week who's just about done with his Sig Sukhoi he's putting one in.

I will also have some new number on my 2.6 in a week or so on at least one more prop (Menz S 22X8) which will give a little more data, though my engine still only has less than a gallon through it(thanks Oregon weather).

I know you want 3.2 numbers, but at least Michael's 3.2 numbers are with multiple samples and I think you'll find a lot of people on these lists know Michael and will confirm that he is a straight shooter. These are real and accurate numbers that he's published.

>>offset the additional weight

BTW, the Taurus 3.2 with ignition, pitts-style muffler, and mount at 4lbs 2oz is only a couple of ounces heavier than the latest BME 50(the early ones were about 3 ounces heavier), the same or a couple of ounces lighter than the Brison. Don't be fooled by published bare engine weights.

Bill

This is for rcign:
You have probably play with more than a few of the piston ported engines.

Anyway- using piston ported engines,
Have you ever tried tuned exhaust systems - not peak power setups - -but pipes which boost -some-even a tiny bit- and have an absolutely smooth bottom idle to full torque reading?
Did you find they responded well?
Easy to do ?
I find many modelers very reluctant to even try a quiet, power adding system on these piston ported types - such as the Sach- the Zenoah- all of the new similar sporty offings -FPE- Fox -Fuji etc.
I get asked about this -a lot! but inasmuch as I don't have any piston ported engines - I can't really offer any help.

Made a custom header for a G38..Used as Mac's Products quiet pipe, picked up 800+ rpm with no other changes..Also used a Mac's pipe on a G62 and a Red Max 42cc..They worked very well on both..Most pilots don't want a pipe hanging out the side of the plane...I expect if the ports were optimized for the pipes they would work even better....The quiet pipe was just that...Not loud at all...Easy to do..I made a bracket for the rear of the pipe to hold it on the fuselage...

they don't make it anymore TS 42 took over

Just couldn't stay away. I see you guys are still at it sniping away. someone wants to know what I know.
Hows this for all you experts
I know alot about little things
and a little about a lot of things. how anyboby can pass jugement on any kind of product ford chevi whatever without trying one is dumb. either you don't have anything better to do, or you just don't know.
I'll leaves you alone.

Hi Ralph,

I picked up a MACS quiet pipe to try on the Taurus. I'm going to wait to try it until I get some more time on the motor. I'll try it on the ground with a temporary mount first because it will be a major effort to mount this on my DP Extra, and I'm just trying it because of the racer in me from my past 2-stroke racing days. I really don't need any more power on the DP; it has more than enough right now. Quiet would be nice though, but I certainly don't need a huge tuned pipe hanging off the plane to achieve that.

It appears that it can fit on the left side, or under the plane, but it is so big it would be almost back to the tail and almost dragging on the ground. I think it is 2 3/4" diameter and around 30" overall in length.

Bill

Thanks to rcign for the info!
I thought they would work ok.
also a laurel and a hardy thank you to stalspin for his stunning riposte.

Do any of you have any prop and RPM numbers for the taurus 3.2? I will be receiving one of these engines and would like to know what kinds of numbers people are getting with different makes and sizes of props.

Your experience will be very helpful.
Thanks Craig.

Can some one post Tauras web site.

Thanks
Doug

Hi woodscap,

Here are numbers and props Michael Glavin has run on multiple examples of this engine. For which one he likes the best, he'll have to answer that directly. He moderates this forum, so I'm sure he'll post a response.

Menz S 21/10: 7400
Menz S 22/10: 7000
Mejzlik 22/8: 7900
Mejzlik 22/10: 7200

My guess is he'll say the Menz S 22X10 for most applications.

Hi stomper,

www.taurus-engines.net . It's pretty weak on current content right now. They're in the process of updating it soon. A price list has been posted in this thread I believe, and if you have more questions, just give them a call or drop them an e-mail. They're very helpful.

Bill

woodscra

FWIW, Tauris 3.2 hauls a 20# Giantscale aeromaster bipe like there is no tomorrow. the guy that flies it said for that plane it like a 21x10 Menz S. I might try bigger. Another guy I know has aTauris 2.6 in a Sig Su 31 says it weighs 16# that swings a 22x10 moki. Last I saw it fly it was awsome and quiet too.

Good to see stalspin feeding in vast info now- well maybe half of it.