Everything Radial Engines
08-02-2015, 11:14 AM
#3702
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reggio Emilia, ITALY
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Rv7garage, do you mean the airplane in the last photo or the engine? If it's the plane I haven't completed it yet, but I'm hoping for sub-1500g weight including everything minus fuel. That's with the Wankel engine, of course...
The Il-300 is listed at 2350g. I haven't weighted it to check whether this figure is accurate or not though.
Andrea.
The Il-300 is listed at 2350g. I haven't weighted it to check whether this figure is accurate or not though.
Andrea.
08-02-2015, 07:28 PM
#3703
The initial idea was to use the Il-300 in a P-51, but then I realized that such a choice is just too obvious. A less common alternative would be a Bf-109K, but then I found the perfect plane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggiane_Re.2005 . Very clean and beautiful lines, almost no one has it, smallish fullsize wingspan so that it can be built at a farly large scale without the plane getting to big and/or heavy while at the same time offering a reasonable amount of space in the nose for the engine. And it was built here in my town (the old factory still exists, even though it's abandoned now)!
I'll have to figure out how to mount the engine fully enclosed, drawing in cooling air from the radiator scoop under the belly. And also I'll have to somehow get a rather long prop extension, which will have to be supported at the front end.
08-02-2015, 11:38 PM
#3704
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reggio Emilia, ITALY
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrea, the other issue you will most likely have with the IL300 is that it will not run successfully inverted, at least in my experience. I know at least two people who have tried, both with the engine inverted in Tiger Moths, and neither had much success it getting the engine to run properly inverted. Hence the reason why I plan to put mine in a Gypsy Moth, upright. You might have better luck installing it upright with a reduction drive that puts the prop drive inline with the cylinder heads, so the engine can fit inside the cowl. Much like the full size inline aircraft do (e.g. P-51). You can then also swing a bigger multi-bladed scale prop. Just my two cents worth.
For sure I'd prefer to mount the engine upright anyway (why does the text editor always want to write "Mount" with a capital letter?), as it makes flooding less likely and would ease the oiling of the valvetrain before each flight.
I thought about the reduction drive option, but came to the conclusion that it's a much higher risk option: with a prop extension all one has to worry about is to add a properly supported ball bearing at the front. The engine takes care of the radial support at the rear end and also provides longitudinal support (i.e. it takes all of the prop thrust). A reduction drive (be it gear or belt) would need a completely independent prop shaft, which would require a much more capable support system able to take axial, radial and (possibly) tilting loads. I'd love to do it, but for now I'll pass...
The 1:5 scale prop for that plane would be a 24" 3 blade prop. I know that the engine can spin a 20" 2 blade, so a 18" 3 blade should be doable. Perhaps after some experimentation and when the engine is fully broken in it may be possible to switch to a 20" 3 blade. And the scale spinner would be 6" in diameter, so perhaps it may cover a little bit of the prop and give a small rpm boost. I've never used large prop spinners, so I'm not sure what to expect in that regard. Not a scale prop, but not too far either IMHO.
Just a little question for anyone willing to answer: the serial number in my Il-300 seems really low (less than 170). The engine has been available since 2006, so I was expecting something above 1000. 170 engines in 9 years mean what, less than 20 engines per year worldwide? I know these engines do not sell in large numbers, but I was expecting a little more...
My FR5-300 has a serial number close to 2000. True, it's been on sale since the mid '80s, but that figure indicates an average of 100 engines per year worldwide. Perhaps my Il-300 was stocked by the importer a long time ago and sold only now? Does anyone have any info about other serial numbers to compare (doesn't need to be the exact number, just an idea of what kind of figure it is)? No real need for this, it's just that I'm curious...
Andrea.
08-05-2015, 07:29 AM
#3708
Probably has a bit to do with the fact that there aren't very many good matches as far as airframes available, given the size and power output of the engine. So you're restricted to mostly kit builds, and kit builds of a specific plane type. Both of which lead to reduced popularity of an engine 
08-06-2015, 08:14 AM
#3709
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reggio Emilia, ITALY
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably has a bit to do with the fact that there aren't very many good matches as far as airframes available, given the size and power output of the engine. So you're restricted to mostly kit builds, and kit builds of a specific plane type. Both of which lead to reduced popularity of an engine
I wish OS would make a "short cylinder" version of this engine with, say, 1 to 1.5cm shorter cylinders. Same everything else. It would be so much easier to cowl...
Andrea.
08-06-2015, 04:40 PM
#3710
Another good point. I think it was said a long time ago that the Il-300 uses cylinders that are much too long when compared to the actual stroke of the pistons. I seem to recall that the explanation was about having a more scale like engine for certain applications (perhaps WWI inline engines?). The downside is that this makes the engine unnecessarily tall, making it harder to cowl than it should be.
I wish OS would make a "short cylinder" version of this engine with, say, 1 to 1.5cm shorter cylinders. Same everything else. It would be so much easier to cowl...
Andrea.
I wish OS would make a "short cylinder" version of this engine with, say, 1 to 1.5cm shorter cylinders. Same everything else. It would be so much easier to cowl...
Andrea.
http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/ph...ine_gypsy1.jpg
But yes, it is also suited to a lot of WWI aircraft too.
08-07-2015, 08:38 AM
#3711
My Feedback: (2)
I read some years ago that Mr OS. produced the engine to fulfill a promise to a friend. Had he put the exhaust on the other side he would have had a better audience for his product. I can think of a lot of 1/4 scale WWI planes that used the Mercedes 4 cylinder engine where that would work great in.
04-05-2016, 04:15 AM
#3713
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Warrenton, VA
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-22-2016, 11:01 PM
#3716
G'day mate. I'm no expert in glow to gas conversions, but I have read that you will probably lose around 20-30% in power with the conversion. I believe the 2-blade prop range for this engine in its glow form is 18"-22". I'd suggest you be looking at a 4-blade in the range of 14"-16".
05-23-2016, 05:20 AM
#3718
My Feedback: (128)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Naperville,
IL
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glow (alcohol) fuels generate more power than gasoline because you can put more fuel through them. The air:fuel ratio for gasoline is more than twice that of methanol.
05-23-2016, 06:15 AM
#3719
My Feedback: (34)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Modesto,
CA
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I seriously cannot recall if I have ever heard that before but its a very good bit of information. I switched over the gas years ago because of the the mess the glow engines leave on my plane, never considered the power aspect of it...but still going gas...just good to have this info.. Thank you guys!
BTW, does glow make the engine louder than gas? Reason I ask because on this particular engine I purchased it because I like the LOUD sound of a radial (first radial engine)
Still need that 4 blade prop Might consider staying glow.. but prop is a must have
BTW, does glow make the engine louder than gas? Reason I ask because on this particular engine I purchased it because I like the LOUD sound of a radial (first radial engine)
Still need that 4 blade prop
Might consider staying glow.. but prop is a must have
05-23-2016, 06:29 AM
#3720
My Feedback: (34)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Modesto,
CA
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, I know once converted to gas you can use the same carb, or switch over the a Walbro... would one be better than the other when converting to gas as far as getting back some of the power loss?
05-23-2016, 06:39 AM
#3721
My Feedback: (2)
Here's the deal with gas vs methanol. Gas actually has higher btu's but Methanol supplies better/more Oxidation for combustion. So it burns faster for a given volume.
No carb will make up the difference in power so far as I know. If your carb. is presently working fine it shouldn't make a difference if you switch to a Walbro or not.
No carb will make up the difference in power so far as I know. If your carb. is presently working fine it shouldn't make a difference if you switch to a Walbro or not.
06-25-2016, 11:58 PM
#3723
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Bad Salzuflen, GERMANY
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Armin de Vries; 06-26-2016 at 12:04 AM.
06-26-2016, 01:04 AM
#3724
07-01-2016, 09:07 AM
#3725
My Feedback: (34)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Modesto,
CA
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My ASP400 is going in a Bates Dauntless. Converted to gas will probably start break-in next week.
So I'm at a point where Jeff Miko is needing to know what engine I am installing in my Hellcat so he can install my engine box
I am having a hard time deciding between the Moki 180 or the Evolution 160.
7 cylinders look better than 5.
Price difference is roughly 700.00 which is a huge difference but I can make that up just need some more input. I know where I want to go I just need a little nudge.
Thank you guys, any input is valuable to me and I appreciate it.
