Larry, I was wondering if you have any experience with the Cunninham EI conversion G62? I have one of those that has the EI in the backplate mount, round and enclosed. It uses an RCA jack to plug the power in. I am thinking of throwing that one in a GP Ultimate bipe 160. That plane flew with a DL 50 previously, but I have this G62 from that estate as well, and have as of yet to run it. I have a G38 with the exact same conversion. I figured I would throw that in a 1/4 scale WW1 model some day.

I would not hesitate to use the DLE - I have had very good luck with them.. Never had a failure. I am running 2 DLE55s, a DLE 111, and a DLE 35. In fact, I have been running a DLE55 in a Giles MX2 for 4 years, and have never touched the carb settings - still at factory setting and running perfectly.
However, I would suggest you get the highest quality engine you can afford (same for servos). Everyone has their favorites and seem to say all the others are junk. Don't believe it. My buddy was flying a DA100 and had a cylinder literally blow off in flight (aluminum bolts failed). He was lucky to land it. DA repaired the engine for no cost even though he was the second owner.

Thank you for the responses guys, its really nice to get feedback. Now with that being said, the FPE engines have caught my eye, and something has me alarmed, why is the 95cc engine only putting out about 6hp, thats rather low to me. any ideas?

Don't get hung up on any HP ratings! For the most part they are meaningless for model engines as few if any have ever been on any kind of dino. Zenoah is an exception.

I have (2) FPE 4.2 engines and for the most part find them to be good quality with performance to match their size. The one larger FPE I was exposed to seemed to be a bit of a shaker. About the only thing I don't like about the whole FPE line is the replaceable prop shaft. While a good idea, the execution leaves a bit to be desired. It is a rather small diameter for the size of the engine and I have had some problems with prop nuts seizing up or galling in the threads. I keep the threads lubed and at the first sign of roughness when tightening or removing the nut, it gets replaced with a new one. Other than that these engines are typical for any of the Sachs based engines. For similar style engines I like the Brison or Fox engines better. Due to the parts costs, all of these engines are now fairly expensive compared to the Chinese competition.

Do you have any experience with the FOX line? i have not been able to find anything in regards to their gas engines, even their website is not very detailed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcNqCJ-Y6ok


No really a shaker at all.

I have not owned a FOX gas engine but have seen several of them. Had hands on a couple. For the most part they are very similar to the Brison engines built with an in house made cantilever crank, purpose made case and Sachs based pistons and cylinders. All very good engines. As the cylinders are all from chainsaws, these engines (like Zenoah) usually make their power at a bit higher RPM than the newer purpose built, reed valve RC engines. Don't lug these engines with a huge diameter prop or you will be disappointed in their performance.

Its really all about application! if you are building something like a Zero or other short nosed warbird, these older piston ported engine designs are perfect with their short length. Its not so easy to stuff a rear intake engine into a Zero as the carb can end up behind the wing LE and inside the fuselage! Likewise, if building something like a Mustang, one of the newer rear intake, rear exhaust engines are perfect because they fit in the cowl w/o the need for any nasty extra holes, bumps or bulges on the cowl.

I love the opinions, but i think the term, "ignorance is bliss" applies here. I thought I had it down to a few companies now it has expanded to quite a few.. It is almost painful haha Thanks again guys

One thing to keep in mind, almost all of these engines use the same basic carb/brand (Walbro). So, unlike in years past with glow engines, the quality of the carb made a big impact on choosing an engine. One of the reasons O.S. max was so popular. Their carbs were always easy to set and reliable.

Now with the gas engines getting more popular, I think it is important to see what is popular, and who is having success. Then, find the configuration to suit the plane you are building. If I were building a twin, I would use mag engines, as I find them a little more reliable. This is because there is one less system to fail. The batteries and switches associated with the EI. This is my opinion though.

Rich, we have a couple of those in our group, great engines, same power as a magneto g-62 but easier to start for most people. Idle slightly smoother, lighter. You will find it to be a really nice engine. Ralph does great work.
Larry

If your looking for Brison engines keep your eyes peeled on the For Sale forum. They show up fairly consistently. One thing about the chainsaw based engines, it's about impossible to wear them out! Power output is right up with newer engines (if you prop them right!) and for war birds they offer many advantages. I say it is the difference between a plow horse and a race
horse! What you need for war birds is the plow horse that can out run the race horse!
Larry

Just getting into gas engines, this is a good read! Anyone useing avgas in these?

I look at it this way, if pump gas is good for my weed eater and chainsaw, then it is fine for my airplane engine. Not worth the trouble IMO. Not to mention, most of the engines recommend the lower octane anyway. I just use pump gas, and yes, mine has ethanol in it. No problems in around 8 years of use for me.

Plus one for pump gas. No issues.