fryfly

My Feedback: (8)

for anyone who is interested,I recieved my 3W 106 today,I weighed it with a digital scale and with the prop bolts front washer and both of the exhaust tubes it came in at 6 pounds 11 ounces. Has anyone else weighed theirs ????? either now or in recent time since they have been out.:thumbup:

Kris^

My Feedback: (1)

So, with the ignition thrown onto the scale it's gonna be about 7 lbs even. . .a grand total of 12 ounces lighter than the 1st genertion 3W100, but still very hefty.

fryfly

My Feedback: (8)

with the ignition it's just under 7 pounds or right at 7 pounds within an ounce. To me with an extra 6 cc's and with the power comparible to the old 120's (from what I have heard from others and read) and the loss of weight I'm very anxious to see how well it performs.
And besides the weight I don't see what all the worry on weight is these days is all about,were not running glow motors in giant aircraft like we were years agowhere we were worried about the weight and a few extra ounces.Today we have 10 to 15 horsepower motors pulling the same size planes weight wise the guys were flying 10 to 20 years ago in top gun.I don't think the weight is a factor today in any of our giant planes,that is just something that again is (old school ) habbit that is hard for all of us to break,if my 25 pound aircraft is going to complain it has a few extra ounces of weight up front with a 10 horsepower motor then I guess I should probably find another hobby,so until that time that it does -----I'm HAPPY !!! The possitive side in technology/power these days doesn't give me the right to ***** and moan anymore like we used to years ago about 4 ounces of extra weight,If I do it's because I choose to, so I choose not to--- with the power of the engines we use today it's simply not an issue anymore.

bob_nj

My Feedback: (62)

Where did you get yours? I don't see it on the AI site? Does it have the same mounting dimensions as the other 100's?
Thanks_bob

fryfrog

My Feedback: (1)

this is really weird... I'M GONNA EAT YOU FRYFLY!

bob_nj

My Feedback: (62)

fryfly

My Feedback: (8)

I got mine from Cactus Aviation ! I only deal with Cactus,I've read about others having trouble with Cactus but I think most of that stuff is purely bogus brought on from their own bad habits and mishaps. I won't deal with anyone else except Cactus I have had nothing but GOOD LUCK dealing with them. The bolt pattern is exactly the same as the 100,They took the 100 and punched it out or something , they are using the same100 case and lightening the whole thing by over a pound,bare bones with nothing on it the thing weighs the same within 2 ounces or so of the larger/wider DA 100.This motor ( I have only started it up about 5 times now just to set the needles and check the transition ) has tremendous power with a 3W 28x10 prop. I haven't tached it yet as I need a good warm day to go out to the field and recheck,it snowed here in Battle Creek Mi yesterday so hopefully it will be nice next weekend maybe then I can post some numbers and fly!!!

Kris^

My Feedback: (1)

IT strikes me as ludicrous, misinformative, and even making excuses to claim that an engines weight has little to do with how an aircraft flies, so long as the plane is properly balanced. A study (and perhaps a bit of thought) into the realm of "Polar Moments of Inertia" will show the drastic changes 8 ounces on the nose of a plane can make in how a plane reacts to control inputs and recovers from maneuvers.

Look at it this way. . on most planes, there is a 2.5:1 ratio between the nose and tail moments, meaning that to balance an 8 ounce increase in nose weight requires about 2.75 ounces of additional tailweight. That equates to 8 ounces on the nose going one direction, and 2.75 way out on the tail going the other direction during such maneuvers as snaps and high-energy low speed 3D flying.

Removing weight at the ends of a planes fuselage makes the aircraft more reactive to inputs, while at the same time allowing the plane to "settle out" or dampen pendulum tendencies coming out of maneuvers. Being more reactive allows less control input in the first place, which helps in reducing coupled reactions such as yaw or roll (in the case of an elevator input), and makes the plane fly more "crisply" because it can start and stop maneuvers almost instantly.

Being that the 3W100/106 engines can easily weigh 7 lbs (including standard mufflers), they require about 2.5 lbs of tail weight to counter their weight. Take a lighter engine, say a 5.5 lbs (total weight) BME102, and you not only reduce nose weight by 1.5 lbs, you reduce the tail weight by an additional .6 lbs as well, leaidng to a reduction of total polar weight over 2 lbs. This is a 25% reduction in polar inertia if only engine weight and counter weight are considered.

Someone PLEASE explain to me how a 20-25% reduction in inertial mass has little to nothing to do with how an aircraft flies. .

Of course, if you build heavy in the tail, or slam 8 servos back there, you are going to need a heavier powerplant. But, weight is the aerobatic aircrafts enemy. For a trainer, short-nosed warbird or overbuilt scale ship, heavier engines are usually necessary. But for the guys out there slicing evey ounce of foam and wood out of their planes to make them fly better, the lightest components they can use are to their advantage.

BTW. . I have one of the Fiberclassics 2.6m Extra 330xl's, with a BME/canisters on the nose (total weight of the engine and canisters is less than a bare-bones 3W106) It's nose heavy with only an ignition pack in front of the CG, and I actually have 3 ounces of lead on the tail. Can you imagine how bad it would be if I had a 3W106 on the nose? First I'd have at least another pound of engine on the nose, and then another 5-6 ounces of lead on the tail. . .things get out of hand very quickly like that.

fryfly

My Feedback: (8)

who cares Kris ! no one really gives a crap about all your planes and all the motors and all the fixing you have to do on everone else's motors to get them to run right!! all the modifications you supposedly have to do to get things to run properly and fly the right way,seems to me you and just a handful of guys here have had the problems you constantly bring up,I've never had a problem with the 7 3W motors I have purchased like you have and for that matter neither have the "THOUSANDS" of other 3W owners out there, if your so smart and know so much more than all the people making this stuff and people that have actually been in the hobby a hell of alot longer than you,Motor manufacturers/aircraft manufacturers you would be producing your own motors making your own airframes instead of being a Master Mechanic at your little parts store.I get so sick and tired ( and so do others here)of hearing your arrogant bashing of 3W everytime the subject comes up that it's getting real OLD!! If you don't like 3W then don't buy themand drop the subject, If you don't like some manufacturers plane don't buy it and drop the subject, if you can't get on here anymore and have something positive to say or add without getting out the dictionary or grammar book that evidently sits right next to your computer then don't add your 2 cents because it has no bearing on what this thread is talking about or was started for.
If you know so much more than the rest of us stupid idiots out here you should be calling the engine manufacturers themselves or their engineers(especially since you refuse to be one,and you fix their mistakes all day long ) and go to work for them,get things done right the way you think they should be and make the modeling world a better place for all of us!!!!!!!!

fryfly

My Feedback: (8)

Hey bob_nj if your curious on the motor there are a few other guys here who have it also,maybe they can give you a PM and let you know what they think too.I have had a few e-mails from guys here who love it and have it in the same plane I have mine in (Hangar 9 1/3 Sukhoi ) it's a good combo from what they have told me,I can't wait for the weather to get nice.I will post some numbers when I am able to get to the field.

bob_nj

My Feedback: (62)

I am interested. I am thinking or replacing the current engine on my Edge with either a QS100 or 106. Is the 106 classified as TOC? Is it the model with the black carb mounting block? Thanks and take care_bob

rmh

The 25% inertial mass reduction is quite interesting - Tho I really don't see it working that way -
If one redues one end of the model by a pound - then the other end may be able to loose - 4 ozs - - who knows - but anyway - the total weight goes down -but the relative distribution does not change by 25%
The new 3W sounds interesting - the concept is not new --they did the same type thing on their 200 (a 150 with a big set of jugs)
at least that's what it looked like to me -
Is this engine available with rear induction? anyone know -for certain?

fryfly

My Feedback: (8)

the 106 would be my choice for motors out of the 2 you mentioned.The only bad thing I have to say about the QS series or the ones Aircraft International sells with the painted heads is that the painted heads seals the pores on the cylinders,and can generate up to 40 more degrees hotter in temperature.If you do decide to go with the QS series request that the cylinders not be painted,it's not good for the cooling of these engines and I'm not sure if anyone really takes that into account when ordering them that way. I'm not saying that it can't be done with proper cooling but I would shy away from the paint personally (just me )
You sometimes hear of guys having problems with the phenolic block on the 3W's and 9 times out of 10 wether they believe it or not have tweaked and tweaked them needles so far as to get every rpm out of their motor that they inadvertantly are gradually overheating it everytime they take it up,engines in the air can len out a couple hundred rpm's ! everyone knows that from their glow engine days. I have never had a problem with the block or cooling on my engines and I have had a few, they have all been super runners with no problems with the block,you just have to keep them around 300 to 400 below top rpm and use a good quality synthetic oil such as the Cactus blend or whatever synthetic your used to running at the correct ratios (50:1 )
to answer your question on the block,yes it is the black one, for me it has been very trustworthy.

Diablo-RCU

My Feedback: (1)

The 106 motor is not a bored out version of the 100.
Both motors use the same 44 mm piston diameter.
The stroke of the 100 (actually 97cc), is 32 mm.
The stroke of the 106 motor is 35 mm.
The 106 uses a different crankshaft.

This info is not from either the Cactus Aviation or Aircraft International website. It's based on the engine dimensions from 3w modellmotoren - from the 212cc 4-cylinder.

fryfly

My Feedback: (8)

as far as I know Dick all the twins are set up with the carbs in the center bottom of the motor I don't know if you can order them under a special request or not with the rear induction? would be a good question for 3W.

fryfly

My Feedback: (8)

Diablo I believe you are correct,after going over the numbers it makes more sense to change the crank that the few extra millimeters on the pistons. Regardless of the changes though it is still being compared to the old 120's in power. YIPEEEE !

Flyfalcons

What prop does that sucker swing? With the longer stroke it sounds like it'll swing a bigger prop than the 100's?

fryfly

My Feedback: (8)

I don't know how accurate this is but, at the Toledo Expo yesterday I overheard Gherhard tell a customer that he had a few of his guys spinning a 30x12 prop with tuned cannisters.I guess you can take it from there, believe it or not????

Kris^

My Feedback: (1)

Fryfly, I'll reply to your statements in a moment, first an explanation:

Dick, its an exercise in showing the relativity of the weights of the aircraft for its same size. . give the same tailplane size, moments and overall aircraft weight, one with the weight more centrally located will, of course, tend to damp the pendulum swings and react quicker to control inputs, allowing the flyer to use less input for the same amount of reaction, and reducing the amount of coupling caused by those inputs.

What Fryfly fails to realize is that I do build my own airframes, except for the occasional experiment (such as the FC330) to see if there are improvemetns in other designs that I should look into. Dick, of course, knows that I have been experimenting with powerplants, exhausts, airframe and airfoil designs, and a plethora of other ideas and concepts for a LONG time. Not as long as Dick has, of course, but long enough to appreciate certain design characteristics and concepts and try to implement and meld them into successful overall aircraft/powerplant combinations.

Fryfly, your attacks on me, as usual, border on the ludicrous, and your statements and inflammatory challenges prove nothing and accomplish even less. As well, your comparison between the engines of Aircraft International and Cactus Aviation, since you have NOT actually compared the two, can only be a repetition of the words of Bobby Wilson, whom you hold in such high regard. I daresay that my own research into these "painted" cylinders reveals little, if any, degradation of cooling for the engines, simply because all temperature measurements are of the surface bubble of air surrounding the cooling fins, not of the metal or painted surface itself. While it is true that a rough surface can (theoretically) dissipate or radiate off more heat than a smooth surface, the difference in surface texture between a cast aluminum cylinder and a painted cylinder is so minor that cooling deficiencies are a minor consideration at best. As well. . the "pores" in metal mean absolutely NOTHING about how well it radiates heat into the air. I almsot died when i read that line. If you go by the logic (as most informed people do) that the area directly around a cylinder where temperature is measured shows how hot the AIR is getting, not the metal itself (.001" inside the outer surface is immeasurable, isn't it?) then you would realize that hotter AIR in this area shows more heat being drawn off from the metal. The only place to get an accurate indication of cylinder temperature is with thermocouples inside the metal itself, or by measuring EGT.

That being said, I seriously doubt 3W, or any OTHER engine maker, would allow their cylinders to be painted if they thought it would harm the engine, cause heat-related issues, or degrade overall performance. A case in point would be the practice by Cactus Aviation to "repair" damaged cylinder head cooling fins (documented MANY times) by using JB Weld to reattach the cooling fin, then PAINT the cylinder to hide that the work had been done. MANY posts on a number of mailing lists have contained complaints about this practice that Cactus Aviation has used. The question goes, therefore, that if Cactus Aviation will not only reattach cylinder fins with JB weld, but also PAINT them, how can Cactus (or anyone else for that matter) assign a problem with the practice to Aircraft International, or more specifically, the QS series of engines? That would be like saying that after you develop cancer from smoking, and continue to smoke, that its a WORSE idea for someone else to smoke. In the smoking instance (just an example, BTW) it is common knowledge that its a bad idea, but Cactus (or Mr. Fryfly) accusing AI of having a degradation in the Aircraft Int. engines, simply because the cylinders are painted, is the best case of the Painted Pot calling the Painted kettle blue!!

I'm not even going to bother saying anything about the rest of the "disinformation" you have put out on this thread except to say that the 30-12 prop statement is REALLY a joke. That's TOC140 on pipes or 150 power. I know. . I own both motors. That you would repeat it at all says volumes. Power numbers so far for the 106 (that have been posted) are a bit stronger than the old 100, and the TOC106 is equal to the old style 120's (114cc's) in power, but still slightly short of a REAL 120 (its a matter of CC's, folks). Add a set of pipes and you are swinging 29" props in the high 5900-6200 range. ( I know. . already seen it tested and talked personally to a few people about them) with a 30-10 coming in around 5700 cold and 5400-5600 hot. This info is from the people who sell them and a couple of folks who are flying them. Personally I would not treat my motor like that by overpropping it that badly, and there is no flight performance advantage to doing it.

Being that ONE person on this thread has had such wonderful luck with the Carb blocks, it's only fair to say that thousands of others have had problems. That's not an understatement. Everywhere I go I get the same "man you were right" statements from people when they get bit by the "3W carb block syndrome". Usually it results in a damaged aircraft too. If 3W's latest excuse is that people have over-leaned their engines and gotten the blocks hot. . stop for a second and THINK about that statement .. . the carb and mounting block are the COOLEST part of the engine, with fresh air and vaporized gas constantly flowing through them. Even after landing and engine shut down they are very close to nice cool air on the outside of the cowl, so "baking" of the components would be the only way to degrade them, and there's about 1/4" of rubber (two layers) and aluminum to shed heat before the carb block gets it. The blocks don't fail cause you fly them. they fail because they are a poor design from a material that inherently shifts it's shape under pressure, and eventually bows in one direction due to the pressure from the mounting bolts pulling the corners down, and the carb studs pulling the center UP. I've had three off the shelf engines with a total of 5 minutes run time with warped blocks that were so bad they had to be flattened before I could run them. I'm sure I could not have overheated them beforehand. . . . .

That all being said. . YOUR results MAY (And I hope DO) vary, and that any engine a person buys is trouble free.

One last note. . no one has ever had a warped carb block from a BME or DA. . .Thousands of engines and not one failure from either manufacturer. also please note that neither of those companies paints their cylinders, has ongoing ignition problems, or a 10+ year long reputation of problems that take way too long to fix.

Please forgive the length of this post. . I felt it necessary to give a cogent reply to Fryfly's arguments, mistatements, and disinformation

fryfly

My Feedback: (8)

sounds all fine and dandy but again, WHATEVER ! you are the man!!!

JPrc

My Feedback: (22)

I guess we could classify the info about the BME 110 that you gave as misinformation. "Break in on a 28x10 Mejzlik and then switch to a 29x10 Mejzlik" You are posting numbers on an engine that is not even available and making bogus claims. The BME website states break in on "26x10" nothing about 28 or 29x10. Also it is interesting how you preach about the benefits of using BME engines to save weight and you managed to build the heaviest known Fiber Classic at 27lbs with a BME. You are a joke! You have been banned from other sites because of your post and hopefully you will be removed from this one soon. I have an idea for a new poll: How many people are tired of post from Kris?

Kris^

My Feedback: (1)

Spindoc, trying to lambast me for other peoples twisting the facts won't make what they say true. This thread is about the 3W106, and information, (or misinformation) has been given out. Setting the record straight and keeping the information factual should be the intent of the posts on this thread, so as to prevent rumors and WAG's about the engines power, potential, and other considerations.

That being said, I'm still interested in real-world rpm figures for the engine from a variety of people, so that modellers in general can get a good idea of what to expect from it. It would really help matters of Bobby Wilson and Gerhard stuck their necks out and did a bit of testing with a number of different prop combinations and then gave us some feedback on what to expect from their products. Perhaps that would be a better poll to take up some bandwidth with. . "How many want REAL numbers from their manufacturers". they could even do some dissertations and reviews on the merits of certain design parameters and considerations, such as cast crankcases, undercut crankshafts, painted cylinders and the like.

Please try to stick to the Threads subject line.

fryfly

My Feedback: (8)

one reason why that doesn't happen Kris is because everyone doesn't live in Arizona !!! rpm figures vary around this great nation of ours. Engines run differen't in differen't parts of the country in different altitudes,so it's kind of stupid to ask a distrubutor to do OUR JOB as modelers regardless of who it is D.A.,Cactus,or A.I. There are toooooooooo many variables in what your suggesting to be done to be even remotely accurate for all of us.
Arizona,Michigan,Colorado,------ sorry but engines run totally differen't in all of these states,and rpm figures will vary, period !

Kris^

My Feedback: (1)

Granted, Fryfly, but the people selling the product would probably best be served by correlating all this information together and then sharing it. With the large number of all types of engines out there, it would not be hard to make some phone calls or emails and ask people to grab the tach and get some in-the-field numbers. A cross section of 50 different inputs will undoubtedly give a good representation of an engines performance qualities, and also show problems, and the solutions to them, that people in certain locales would find useful.

As well, it would also serve everyone better if the suppliers/manufacturers had up-to-date listings of perceived difficulties or considerations for their products. Imagine logging onto a web site and seeing the actual performance numbers and notations from a guy with a 3W140 TOC on Pefa canisters and Menz 32-10 in the Atlanta area in August.

okay. . it's a bit farfetched. . but it's possible, and even desirable.

fryfly

My Feedback: (8)

well I think that's what we are all doing here.Granted there might be a couple of people here throwing out bogus numbers but for the largest part of it I think everyone is right on. I will tach my 106 in the next couple of days and post the numbers with a 3W 28x10 prop.if this motor is anywhere in the 6700 to 6900 range with stock johnson cans I don't see why it can't push a 30x10 prop above 6000 rpm's,to me that's not far fetched at all. I don't know where you got those numbers or where they were posted but I'm inclined to believe them until they are proven wrong. I will let everyone know my figures when I get them.
As far as letting everyone know their faults on their engines that's like shooting yourself in your own foot,for the actual numbers of guys out there having problems ( a very small portion of us compared to the whole ) I don't think anyone is willing to post that kind of info anywhere on their website,it's alot easier to deal one on one with each individual problem as it arises. Like I have said more than one time in these forums,I have had nothing but good luck with all my engines and great customer service with the distributor I deal with, I know not everyone can't say that but I can.
will have the numbers soon guys, staytuned !