seabee, here is a rear intake engine with rear exhaust. 30cc made in Germany is what I read. Capt,n

Capt,

The SM30 website hasn't been updated since 2005. At that time it was 572.00 euro. At the time it was the lightest, most powerful 30cc engine made but the bottom rod bearing needed to cheacked every 30 hours or so, according to the maker.

PlaneKrazee, thanks for the data. I was going to PM the photo to seabee...but it did not seem to work, so I just posted the photo here. I also hear they are no longer made??? Not sure. Best Regards Capt,n

..

I had contacted the owner back in 2005. He was taking holiday and was coming back in a month or so. Never heard back..........

There were a few posts on the enagine back in 2005. One was installed on a pattern plane in Canada with a nice soft mounting plate with wide stance.

..

..

I would sugest test the flows of the fuel filters you have. Think about this....most filters you find in chainsaws ect can pass fuel very good when in good shape. If you was talking glow fuel, some walbro type carbs will not pass glow fuel fast enough. With gas you should have no broblems if you filter the fuel going into your main fuel container & use a clunk type of filter in your airplane fuel tank. Use some common easy ways to test the filters you do have, and replace if needed. All will be well then. Capt,n

What are some common ways to test these filters. I don't know how you would test the flow rate or what it should be.

Thanks Jk

To test a fuel filter...one way....place a 3 foot long piece of fuel line on filter. Place filter in a cup of fuel on a table outdoors. Have the other end of fuel line about 30 inches lower. Suck on end of fuel line to start a syphon of the fuel. The fuel should flow on its own into another cup or container by it self. The rate of flow tell you how free the filter will pass fuel. If you do not want to suck on fuel line...use a primer bulb off any power device like a weedwip! Or use a fuel tank & pressize the tank with a long fuel line attached to out-let to check flow. If the Idea is not clear...find help or another hobby! Capt,[:-]

Ok i wanted the drawing because I am uncomfortable with 4 standoffs just going through a thin plywood membrane that is like the bottom of an oil can. I was playing with an idea, and althought this is for the DLE-30 I will make and test a 3 hole version for my Syssa 30. This way, the load is distributed to the edges of the box, especially if you epoxy this to the inside of the bulkhead.It weighs 32 grams, or just over an ounce, and I certainly can get more mass out if it. I "Anodized it" red to look cool only. Thoughts?
Cheers, Gary

<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-size: 10px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); white-space: pre; ">

<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; "></span><br type="_moz" /></span><br type="_moz" />

It should be a hit for engines with only 3 legs. It is best to have all the stability you can get when mounting a engine. Never could figure out why Syssa went with only 3 standoffs in there design. Capt,n[X(]

Less weight and 3 points determine a plane I suppose. I was thinking about another gentleman's Funtana with the DLE-30 when I made this model.

..

..

..

Why would mounting an engine to one flat plane be more "stable" than mounting it to another flat plane (I guess "flat plane" is a little redundant...)? Is the longterm strength of wood the consideration? Capn, I don't see an advantage to 3 or 4 points of contact in this application...maybe if forces were applied from the side, but my engines pull and twist. The torque doesn't seem like it would compromise the engine mount...certainly not so much in the air...and not enought to be a concern considering these are such small engines. Am I right? I think the mount is sharp looking though.

..

I know 4 is stable, but "that is all I see" doesn't really answer my question....
I was an engineering grad student as a young man so the question was largely rhetorical. I just get a little disappointed at some of the stuff folks come up with. I don't know all there is to know; in fact I would defer to many of you often. In fact, I've recently asked for expertise in these forums. However, I get discouraged at all the unqualified answering going on here. Why don't more guys think to themselves "I don't really know.", and realizing this, find out or not respond. That way we could honestly get good info. To illustrate my point, just this morning I offered to purchase props and a pipe so another member could thoroughly conduct a comparison between 30cc engines which he already owns or has on order. I hope he accepts my offer. I did this because I have been reading posts for days about which one is better and noone has actually compiled any data to support pages and pages of speculation. My brain getting tired, I decided it would be best to just shut my mouth and open up my wallet in an effort to help us all find out.

Are you sure about that?

Depends on what the definition of "top of the line" is I guess

[link]http://www.aircraftinternational.com/Catalog/Motors/3W28i.aspx[/link]


RPool
As a Professional Engineer (Chartered). I totally agree with you.

..

ol_seabee
Believing published horsepower ratings - saying that 3 point mounts are inferior to 4 point much less disparaging a man who has designed engines makes your credibility highly suspect with me. Sorry just saying what I believe.
John

..

I bet you meant to post this

http://www.aircraftinternational.com...ors/3W28i.aspx

I've had a couple of 3w28's for about 5 years now, never had a problem with the mounting lugs breaking etc. Might not be a good as a 4 lug system, but it works well for a 28cc and that pretty much says it all. There is one guy here that has put thousands of hours on these without incidence.