which has more power and which one is better all around??
I want to put one of these in a TF-GS p-51

thanks for any comments

58 is going to have more power and another pound of weight. In a Warbird the weight might be a benefit.

The DA 50 should be compared to the MVVS 43cc, AKA mvvs45
The 58 is in a totally different class. With the extra weight comes a lot of extra power. I got 8 hp on a MTW re2 tuned pipe, throttle response docile and instant.

You really don't need an engine that does not have instant response in a heavy, high wing loaded, warbird. If and when you get behind the power curve you need to depend absolutely on the engine's response to get out of trouble. Without making a specific suggestion I would choose the engine that provided that kind of throttle response.

In the 'stang, weight of the 58 is not the issue of course, but size may be. Both 45 and 58 have excellent midrange response and the power to do the job.

I have seen one of these with a DL 50 and it gets up and runs. If both engines are going to cost the same, I'd go with the one with more power. I've seen one fly with a G62 and it landed the same as the one with the DL, so the extra weight isn't going to be a problem. Pe, what kind of props/rpms are you getting? Does it run good with a standard cowl/pitts muffler?

I have had two of these planes with 50cc class engines. Here are a couple of thoughts for you to consider. First, unlike most warbirds that are tail heavy and need the nose weight (due to how they are constructed, what they are constructed of, and often having short noses), the TFGSP51 generally comes out nose heavy, that's right, nose heavy. To account for this, many builders end up putting one of the receiver batteries all the way in the tail behind the tail wheel. On one of mine, I had one receiver battery in the tail behind the tail wheel and the other one was mounted at the rear of radiator scoop in the fuselage. Both batteries were well behind the cg and needed to be there to balance the plane. My other plane has one battery in the rear of the radiator scoop and the other one is mounted under the cross spar that hold the wing bolts. Again, both batteries well behind the cg. So, if the Evolution 58 is indeed a pound heavier than the DA50, then significant tail weight will be needed. A friend of my neighbor has a ZDZ60 in his he had to put a huge five cell NiCd battery in the very rear of the tail behind the tail wheel, as far back as he could get it, to get his plane to balance. Many flyers have used the DA50 with great success. A prop hub extender allows the engine to be mounted closer to the firewall, which moves the engine head back and reduces the amount of cowl that has to be cut out. I presume that a prop hub extender is available for the Evolution 58. One final point to consider is that there have been reports of guys using the Evolution 58 in this plane having a difficult time keeping it cool. Not much of the head will stick out of the cowl and the intake opening in the cowl is really small. So even with an exit opening that is 3X the area of the intake, it may be hard to get enough air flow over those small fins on the 58. I do not have personal experience with the Evolution 58 in this plane, but I think it's worth investigating. There is a huge thread on this plane in the Warbird forum that has a lot of information about different engines used by others, including both the Evolution 58 and the DA50.

I applaud your choice of plane. I am not a P51 fanatic as far as warbirds go (I prefer British planes for their character), but I will say that this plane changed my view of P51s. It is an outstanding flyer with no bad habits. It IS as good as everyone says and makes a great everyday warbird. Top Flight used the right airfoil on this plane. Finally, unless you are a complete speed fanatic, I think you will find the performance with a 50cc class engine to be excellent. I have a Taurus 52 in my current one and with a Menz 21x12, the performance is great.

Feel free to PM me with any questions.

-Ed B.

The engine runs well with all kinds of mufflers. You tune the carb and get what you choose for.
With a restrictive in cowl muffler, the 22x10x3 prop is an excellent choice, and will pull a 25 lbs plane about straight up.

In response to flyfast:
If the Mustang is not tail heavy, The MVVS 45cc engine with mag case is the ticket I think. It has the torque to pull scale props like 24x8 and even 24x10 or 22x8x3, but also will run well up in the 7000+ range using a 22x8 or 20x10x3

Two in our field using DA-50s.

Light engine (that plane is nose heavy), plenty of power and a nice choice of muffling solutions.

The planes at my field are using the Kaleo scall scale exhaust and it looks and sounds great.

The Evo 58 is larger, heavier and does not have the multiitude of third-party solutions you can find for the DAs.

Now, if you care about the price, the DL-50 will provide you about the same performance with a marginal weight increase, same size and can use all the peripherals the DA uses.

If you want more power in the same small package, the BME 58 might be a solution. It does suffer from a lack of tird-party accessories ,much like the Evolution does.

Hi!
My MVVS 45cc (old model with aluminum housing) with small MVVS cannister silencer pulls a Mentz 24x8 prop at 6700rpm.
Throttle is instant. I'm using 2,5% all synthetic oil and ordinary 95oktan fuel.

The MVVS45 with a tuned exhaust sounds great. Has anyone installed this in the Mustang? How does it fit? The biggest issue keeping me from using tuned exhausts is that most models available in the US do not have a provision for the tuned canister exhaust. So I end up with a side dump or pitts. I would love to put my G62 on the Mustang, but it simply doesn't fit. Major surgery to the firewall if a pitts muffler is used. A side dump would require the cowl to be cut to bits (actually the carb already requires this).

Maybe the best solution is the DA or DL 50 on a pitts. What do others think?

You will never see a tuned pipe in a warbird. You will never see a canister muffler in a warbird either. Where is the room?

I have a TF P-51 and am running a DA-50. Power is OK but not as much as I would like. If I had to do it again I would seriously look at the MVVS 58/Evolution 58 or BME 58 though I prefer a rear carb. And in reality if you added a pound to the nose of this you may have to add 4 oz to the tail for balance. Either way doesn't matter at all because the TF-51 doesn't fly heavy. At least the ARF version doesn't.

TF P-51 fly video from Canada

[link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLeuhaMC-ek]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLeuhaMC-ek [/link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLeuhaMC-ek

[link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8qlNSYCofI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8qlNSYCofI [/link]

[link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEOX3M4ZqXI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEOX3M4ZqXI [/link]

Guess what muffler is mounted behind this MVVS 45 in a Spitfire built for [link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB-RBFxyqls] a commercial [/link], which has much the same nose lines???








ore can be read about this project [link=http://www.prme.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=182]here.[/link]

Very NICE pe! Commercial was funny.[sm=lol.gif] You should start a dedicated thread on your cooling system.

Looks good Pe.
I was thinking more along the lines of an ARF(as in this thread). Sorry.

The spitfire plane was an ARF of 210cm span (scale 1:5.5). For the commercial, the engine ran without cooling!

Who made it? Are they available. Was it canister ready?

No it was not canister ready. Just a sandwich shell, which was cramped full of equipment by the builders (not me).
I just made the engine, muffler system and prop extensions, so it would all fit inside. Only thing visible for the initiated was the spark plug cap just a tad in front of the carb air intake.
The pictures that I found will show a bit more, of how the smoke was ducted from the canister stinger to the scale exhaust, how the canister proper was inside the fuselage, etc.