earlwb

Here are a couple of videos of me test running a Rossi .60 and a Fox Eagle IV .60 engine a while back.Both engines used 5% nitromethane glow fuel and used the exact same propeller and the same muffler and bridge adapter for the muffler too.


Video of a Fox Eagle IV .60 engine being test run a while back
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOeTpYEouiU[/youtube]


Here is a video clip of me test running a Rossi .60 engine a while back.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vsUUzADdI[/youtube]

earlwb

Actually when I think about it more, there were quite a few good pattern .60 (.61 or 10cc) size engines used for pattern flying way back then. This is the classic pattern planes, not our modern versions in use today. At first they didn't use tuned pipes, that came along later as the speeds increased and retracts became popular too.

The earliest pattern engine, arguably the first, actually made for pattern flying at the time, was the Fox .60 Blue Head engine. it actually started as a .74 engine, but the AMA and FAI decided to restrict engines to 10cc maximum and so Fox had to reduce its displacement then. the Fox .60 and .74 engines eventually evolved into the Fox .78 engine intended for scale plane use. This series of engines was superceded by the Fox Hawk .60 which was setup as a high RPM performance engine too. The Hawk .60 was later superceded by the Fox Eagle II, then Eagle III engines, whihc were superceded by the Fox Eagle IV engines still being made today.

The Kraft .61 was another great engine, it eventually evolved into the MECOA RJL .61 which is still being sold today. The Fitzpatrick is another nice .61 engine too. There were also the Webra .61's and the HP .61's too. The K&B .61 with the Perry Directional Porting (PDP) was another good example being used. Irvine made good .61 engines at that time as well. The SuperTigre .61's were also in use. The Russians also had their MAC or MDS or Raduga 10cc engines as well. OPS had some nice running .61 engines back then too. MVVS was rarely seen here but still used for pattern planes of that era as well.

For the novice classes just about any .60 or .61 engine made was being used. Many folks still flew the .45 size planes and engines too.
But these 60 size engines were primarily baffled piston designs such as the K&B .61, HB .61, Fox Eagle I, Supertigre .56 and some others.

A couple of years ago, i had refurbished and or rebuilt some of my old classic pattern engines. I entertain the thought of putting some of them back into use in a pattern plane. I just haven't gotten around to doing it yet. I have a old Schnuerle ported Webra .61 I rebuilt too, but I haven't test run it yet though. the stock or OEM mufflers can be very restrictive on the engines, so going with a better muffler system can really gain some extra performance out of the engine. The engines all tend to run about the same with the stock mufflers on them. I have seen RPM losses of 1,500 to over 2,500 RPMs with the stock mufflers on the engines.

Here is my old Fox .60 Bluehead engine being test run after replacing the piston rings in it (it actually has two rings). It is notable in having a steel needle bearing rod (both ends) inside. It also came with a great three needle carb, so you could adjust the mixture for low, midrange and high speed. the dual plugs were considered state of the art at that time. Not using mufflers was common then too. yes a .60 engine is amazingly loud without a muffler on it. They did tend to use exhaust baffles to improve the low speed idling though. I actually have the engine in regular use on a Tiger clone low wing plane at present, but it does have a muffler on it now.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzgvIsEPtG0[/youtube]


Here is a Irvine .61 I refurbished, it needed a new Dykes ring and bearings.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CQevRAb8TE[/youtube]

Here is a old Fox Eagle I .60 engine (baffled piston design, non-Schnuerle ported)'
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOX6iP7_jQ[/youtube]

Here is a Fox Eagle II .60 Schnuerle ported engine that I rebuilt. I used to use it for pattern flying.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWZJxT8DoYo[/youtube]

here is a Fox Eagle III .60 engine being test run after fixing it back up
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX8_4ghBR7Q[/youtube]

My old beat up Fox Hawk .60 engine after rebuilding it a couple of years ago. I flew the heck out of it in pattern too. With and without a tuned pipe
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv0scgphQGU[/youtube]

Here is a example of a Russian MAC/MDS/Raduga 10cc pattern engine too
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN0_adZ7u-8[/youtube]

downunder

Seeing you mentioned Irvine, here are my two Irvine 61's. The one on the left is the standard (earlier) Dykes ringed 61R and the one on the right is a 61RLS which is completely different internally although both use the same crankcase. AFAIK the RLS was offered as a competitor to the Hanno Special. Both of these engines are brand new.

John Wells

My Feedback: (10)

Rossi hands down, but I haven't bought one in several years and wouldn't know where to get one.

MJD

My Feedback: (1)

I'd call that their 10cc sport engine. There actually is an MDS 10cc FIRE engine for pattern use, there are a handful in North America. I have one unrun example. From reports I've seen, decent power, weak con rod, and not surprisingly the carb is hit or miss (get out your leak detector). I need to fire mine up someday, not like it is worth anything now or in the future.

earlwb

Yes I have three of those MAC/MDS/Raduga 10cc front intake rear exhaust engines too. The Rossi or Fox rear exhaust tuned pipe setup fits on them like it was made for them. Considering that there aren't too many of those engines around, I was reluctant to menion them. As you stated they could need to have the carburetor fixed. A couple of guys did manage to break the crankshafts on them, but I haven't heard of any connecting rods breaking, The rods look to be pretty robust. The crankshaft has a large intake port opening cutout in it with sharp corners that could lead to stress risers.   But running a tuned pipe on a any engine could cause it to be too lean thus causing the rod to fail.

Since most of the pattern planes, that people can get easily nowadays, are setup for side exhaust engines, there is not a lot of use for rear exhaust engines nowadays.

MJD

My Feedback: (1)

It has been a while since I read the blurb someone wrote about their tests - it might have been the crank not the rod.

earlwb

Oh yeah, I forgot, but I think the classic pattern contests they hold nowadays prohibit tuned pipes too.
They mioght have changed it though, I haven't looked up the current rules.  At the time they had prohibited electric powered classic pattern planes too.

Quikturn

My Feedback: (12)

Hopefully someone can answer my question here if it's not too late.

I recently bought a used black head Rossi 60 and I'd like to clean it up before running it the first time. Upon closer inspection it appears the piston has a ring at the top. A dykes ring perhaps? I thought Rossi's were abc engines. How would this compare to an abc engine? Are these OK or is abc preferred over a ringed version? Thanks.

jeffie8696

Does it have good compression? Does it run well enough to pull your plane through your intended maneuvers? If so it shouldn't matter if its ringed or ABC. I like ringed because I can get a new ring and bearings and have a practically new engine while an ABC requires a new piston and liner which may or may not even be available and usually at a steep price.

Ernie Misner

I don't think anyone has mentioned the weight of the various engines. When I look at a .61 the first thing that pops into my mind.... hmmm, is this engine actually heavier than their .91 size? Many times this is actually the case because of being the same exact size but the .61 having a thicker brass sleeve because of the smaller bore. Of course you guys know that but why would anyone choose to run the .61 instead of the .91 unless in a 60 size competition? What is the 60 size engine that Clarence Lee modifies and sells? Has that been mentioned?

jeffie8696

My Kraft 61 weighs 20.4 oz.

downunder

My Enya 61 CXLRS weighs 11.6 ounces (bare) or 13.9 ounces with header and muffler. Add maybe another ounce for the RC version.

Quikturn

My Feedback: (12)

Jeffie, compression seems good for a ringed engine. Haven't run it yet. I plan on giving it a full crock pot cleaning and rebuild along with new o-rings and a set of bearings if it needs it. I'm surprised to see that Rossi made a ringed version of the 60. That blew my mind. I agree, its a good thing. I can order Bowman rings for it.

Ernie, you're right to point out many 90's are the same size/weight of 60's. I had a Super Hots with an OS 61 SF-P (Pitts muffler) on it and if flew the airplane very well. At full power it would hang on the prop with maybe a slight climb. I then put a Super Tigre 90 on it and it had ridiculous power. I must admit, it was fun. Vertical climbs were crazy. The down side was, it consumed more fuel. A lot of times I was flying the 90 at less than 50% power whereas the 61 was around 75% power for the same type of flying. And the ST 90 was starting to ruin my airplane by vibrating the wing mounts loose.

The bottom line is you have to consider the type of flying you want to do. And make sure the airframe can take it. If I were to fly 3D in a 60 size Extra, then sure let's put a 90 in it and have fun. But a 90 in a 60 size sport or pattern plane is overkill IMO.

earlwb

The engines have different purposes and performance characteristics. The .61 engines were high performance high RPM engines. As such they needed stronger crankcases, larger bearings, larger crankshafts, a bigger crankcase allowed for larger ports with better flow capability. The mufflers got larger so they could use tuned mufflers or go with tuned pipes. But the engines did tend to get large enough to be similar to a .91 engine. The earlier .60 or .61 engines tended to be real small in comparison to the later engines. Also the AMA and FAI limited pattern plane two stroke engine displacement to 10cc maximum. Thus they had to squeeze all the performance they could out of that size.

Now then the .91 engines were tuned to turn larger propellers for more scale like uses in scale airplanes. So they don't rev up as high as the .61 engines did. Thus their performance is more sedate in comparison to the .61 engines. The .91 engines first came out as a way to power the heavier .60 size scale planes of that time period. Scale didn't have engine displacement rules in place.

Nowadays the engines tend to overlap more in their usage so it is less important now.

jeffie8696

Here is a side by side of the Kraft 61, K&B 61 and Super Tigre V60. Weights are 20.4oz,18.7 and 17.6 respectively. The K&B and Super Tigre are both using the same muffler. An apple to orange comparison as the K&B and ST are baffle ported.

Ernie Misner

How in the world did they get this Enya so light? I see where an rc carb might add an ounce but this still weighs more like a 32 or bushing 40 doesn't it? And the Enya is a BB engine it looks like. Interesting.

jeffie8696

My Irvine red case 61 weighs a whopping 26.7 oz !!!!!!!

AMB

MVVS 10cc black pitt type muffler 20.8 oz with Davis diesel head martin ( thats my 0nly 60-61 lots of 50s, 40s, and down)

takEon

If you plan to use a pipe, choose an engine that will respond well to it. The new Nova Rossi's and Jett's come to the front of my mind. That Enya is interesting, but I have no knowledge of it other than Enya makes great engines.. You can find some info in the Classic Pattern Threads. With regards to weight's several guys have given you some great info. Are you limited to a specific displacement? There are some great choices available today. Have fun!

jeffie8696

I would post a weight for my OS65LA but its on the front of my Escapade 60 right now. However when I decide its good and broke in I will swap it out for something else , like my Irvine 72.

1QwkSport2.5r

My favorite .60 sized engine is my Enya 60-4C. 21.7oz without a muffler. 13,000rpm redline.

Broken Wings

My Feedback: (20)

Dubb Jett over at http://jettengineering.com/ will hook you up.... It's fun when your Draggy Old Stik airframe with tricycle landing gear goes around a plane with retracts.....Made in the USA as well.....

Sport-Jett ".61 Size" Big Block Features

Precision investment cast aluminum alloy crankcase - machined to demanding specs
Each engine personally signed and numbered by Dub Jett
Outstanding, reliable power in a compact .61 size engine! (OS .61 / .91FX mounting pattern)
Complete with famous RED-JETT carburetor and it's easy-to-adjust low idle and instant full throttle response
True ABC/AAC, Schnurle porting, with a special piston alloy developed for high-output engines
Twin ball bearings on a beefy crankshaft. A replaceable front stud saves money in a crash.
Outstanding performance on props ranging from 10x10 through 16x8
Develops it's full power and reliable low idle on a standard glow plug
Optional Turbo-Jett muffler available for scale or other in-cowl applications
Includes universal remote needle valve
Expert, World Champion flyers with over 70 years engine experience available for technical assitance
Parts available for 24 hour delivery

Broken Wings

My Feedback: (20)

He has those as well....

SCREWLOOSETC

Rotating the cylinder on a Fox does not give you the same engine as a rear exhaust from the factory.Ports only match up with the cylinder in the direction it left the factory in. Rear exhaust engine uses different timing carb. and head button Rear exhaust Fox a real killer.if you get a good one. The hawk was a real good engine its problem was people doidnt take the time to break it in properly. I flew a lightweight tigre 60 with the chrome sleeve on a stick for a long time. Also have one of the rear intake HPs that has been an awful good engine. If I were starting out new I would contact Fox and tell them your needs and let them build you an engine.
Tom