flyerdave

My Feedback: (212)

Just wondering what you guys think. I have a dynaflite decathlon that needs a new powerplant. Thanks

ggraham500

My Feedback: (4)

That is on the upper engine size suggestion from Dynaflite, but I would think the MT-35 would fit within the cowl better.

mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

You can trim off about a pound off the G38 with electronic ignition. Has the MT 35 even been proven yet?

AJsToyz

Considering the MT has been revised once already and it has not been out that long, I might go Zenoah. The 38 might be perfect with the fly wheel depending on how much nose weight you need.

mtenginesusa

MT35 are for sure more power then Zenoah G38 . but if you need more noise weight . maybe G38 are the one can balance you CG . but G38 maybe need cut the cowl for carb

flyerdave

My Feedback: (212)

Well then,what about the DLE30 with the rear carb? Thanks

AJsToyz

I think when Jodi ran the first MT35 he set the timing back a little to get it to run smoother. When he did this I think the DLE ran equal or might have had more power, would have o find the post or ask Jodi.

I think I'd go with the DLE with the single nut prop hub.

There is also a 38cc that should be coming along very soon but not out yet, YD Aero 38cc, and also the MLD 35, all kinds of choices.



Andy

captinjohn

<hr />I am not MT...but the DLE Brand is the only brand I would purchase from the China mix of engines. Capt,n

mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

If your worried about cutting the cowl, a Syssa might be the best choice. Rear carb, rear exhaust. ZDZ 40's have a similar set up built TBM doesn't ever have most of the ZDZ line in stock.

pe reivers

if you need to cut weight, use the MVVS 1.60. Every little bit as strong (or stronger) as the G35 even with larger props.

larry@coyotenet

My Feedback: (21)

If I remember the Dynaflight Decathlon was made to be flown with a 120 fourstroke. Powerwise anything over a g-26 would fly it well.
One thing to think about. The G-38 can be left to your grandchildren and will still be running well! If ease of use, serviceability and longevity count the G-38 is hard to beat.

Larry

pe reivers

An engine that lives that long will end up in a box of "used to run well, and probably still does".

BadAzzMaxx

What other engine has around a 25 year track record and still going strong.

Antique

My Feedback: (4)

Original Quadras and old Sachs conversions...
Done correctly they weren't that heavy....I still get bent ones to fix....Funny how mid range burbling wasn't even heard of until recently...And sheared prop bolts, they were mostly single bolt back then...AHH, progress.....Don't tell me the engines are better, the planes are just lighter....

pe reivers

I had two quadras and a zenoah 45. Projects to put them in slowly disappeared beyond the horizon as I moved on. Good dependable engines.

ahicks

My Feedback: (2)

Maybe moving back towards the original question, I would vote for the lighter option, assuming components could be arranged in a manner that would not force you to add weight? This based on my experience flying a Giant Sportster with a Q42 vs. Syssa 30. Very similar vertical with the edge maybe going to the Syssa, but weight difference (about 2.5 lbs) noticable everywhere. Landing speeds approaching those of a kite now possible. FWIW

pe reivers

see post 10 for power to weight advantage.