Ram Jet

Thanks for the reality check. My CL friend had me thinking that Fox engines were the best thing since sliced bread. He is actually a man of very little means and possibly used Fox engines are all he can afford. To his credit he can really make them sing with very little fuss. As far as the Cox .049s go, alright, it could be me but at least my little Enya .19 likes me. You ought to conbsider that you are flying the real McCoys (no pun intended) that ol' LeRoy Cox has put his blessing on. Not Chairman Mao.

Cheers,

Billabong

Ram Jet

Yes, and I remember my .049 P-40 always made me grin. Old man's memory or closer manufacturing tolerances? I still have a 1959 version in my Curtiss Pusher. I'll pop it out some day along with my never run Texaco and see if I can bring back the good old days. I din't pay $0.50 for them though.

Bill

buzzard bait

Worst I ever had was my very first engine, a Wen-Mac .049. Boy, was a Cox Baby Bee a god-send after wearing out my finger on that Wen-Mac. Every Cox I owned, or owned by anyone I knew, back in the early to mid 60s, was a first flip starter, from my Pee Wee .020 to my Tee Dee .15. Jim

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

I agree, but no other engine could do as well at what the Fox .35 Stunt was designed to do - er - something like that.

Frankly, I don't remember seeing very many other engines being flown in control line stunt, back when I was around such things as control line. I do miss control line flying.


Ed Cregger

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

I have always wondered what they changed between the Wen Mac Mk. II and the Mk. IV. I've never seen a Mk. III.

The Mk. II's were a bear to get running, even with their spring starter working properly. The Mk. IV was easy to start. All ran well once running, but the Mk. II could wear you down in an afternoon.

All of my Cox engines started easily except one and that was the Sportsman .15. I could never figure out the secret for quick starts with that engine. The easiest starting Cox .049 I ever had was a Space Bug .049 from the Fifties. And, in addition to starting easily, it really honked. Probably one of the fastest reed valve engines Cox made. My friend's family owned a variety store and they decided that the Space Bug had been around and unsold long enough, so they gave it to me. It is treasured just as much as an OK Cub .049 Diesel that a good friend gave to me some years later. While I know where the Diesel is, I haven't seen the Space Bug in decades, but I know it is there somewhere.


Ed Cregger

Luna_Rendezvous

Right now the worst engine in my pit box is a new Enya SS45Ring Pro after an extensive break-in it can only manage a disappointing 0.87Hp, well under it's claimed 1.30Hp [:'(] Looks like recent Enya's are very hit or miss, this my second dud enya in a row [sm=thumbs_down.gif]

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

Is it a brand new Enya .45SS R/C? Your engine should be fitted with a 10x6 sized prop during break-in and an Enya #4 or equivalent glow plug. I wouldn't run more than 15% nitro laced fuel through that engine. If the engine is bushing equipped on the crankshaft, you'll need 20 to 25% castor oil lubricant. Ball bearings on the crankshaft will tolerate 100% synthetic oil of 18% to 20% content just fine. A little castor oil would help the ball bearings last longer too.

Another possibility is that you, or a previous owner, had the engine apart and managed to put the cylinder sleeve back in 180 degrees out of phase. That would cause your low rpm readings and is easily remedied.

Enya engines just don't come through with all of the problems that I've been hearing about lately on RCU's forums and some of the other forums. Most of the engines I'm reading about were bought NIB, but were technically used, if you catch my drift. Lots of folks, that shouldn't be doing such things, are taking their new engines apart after purchasing them new and then are reassembling them incorrectly. Then the engines are sold as NIB because they haven't been ran, but they are assembled incorrectly. I'm not saying that this is what happened in your case. But I'm fairly certain that it happened in several other instances I've read about lately.

If you're still having a problem with this engine, write to Ken Enya at Enya in Japan. He is famous for helping folks out via email.


Ed Cregger

Luna_Rendezvous

Hi Ed,

Yes it's a brand new engine bought over the counter at my LHS, it's the SS45 Ring PL-Pro control line. Fuel was 10% nitro 24% Lube (50/50 castor synth) prop for break-in was 11x6 as suggested by Ken Enya himself, in fact I wrote to ken and all he could suggested was a larger venturi and removal of the head shim. Well the engine didn't come with any shim and the largest venturi available is the 8mm, and it's only 1mm bigger than what I have now, so I don't expect any real improvement. Had similar issues with a SS30S C/L not long ago, and ken had to replace a dud piston, but it doesn't appear he's going to help me out this time. [sm=thumbs_down.gif]

Mike.

Ram Jet

Uh oh. I've been reading here where some members are tearing down their brand new engines to insure that they are clean inside and assembled correctly. I recently bought a new never run Enya SS.40BB. Now I have another reason to check my engine out. It's not crazy to inspect a "new" engine as I bought a new Norton motorcycle in the 70s and at the first oil change at 500 miles aluminum drill shavings poured out with the engine oil.

Bill

Ram Jet

Oh great Luna. I've got a new/used never run Enya SS.40BB. I guess I should prepare myself for the worst.

Bill

Luna_Rendezvous

You'll just have to bolt it down and crank it over Bill, Enya quality is seems to be hit or miss. I would love to go around and tell all how wonderful my Enya’s are but unfortunately I can't.

Ram Jet

I've got my fingers crossed about how my .40 will run. I'm putting it in a CL Brodak Oriental. It was 17.5 degrees F below zero here this morning. It's likely I'll wait until April although my test stand is ready to go.

Cheers,
Bill

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

Bill, I guess its hot here in Burrginia, its 15 above, no engine running here either. That engine is never going to make those hp #s with an 11x6 but will make very good flying power which is far more important than a useless number.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

We had it nice here it only got down to -14 F last night. Sure is a pretty day.

Luna_Rendezvous

11x6 was used for break-in, as stated, and no it doesn't produce any "good flying power" no matter what prop it spins! I've used half a dozen different props in the 11x6 - 12x7 range and all produce around the 0.9 Hp mark well bellow what is needed to fly the intended aircraft with any authority. (Brodak legacy) sure it will fly it, but would it be competitive doing the pattern...nada! The engines a dud mate plain and simple. (pun intended)

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

Almost all manufacturers' HP ratings are at or near the maximum RPM. An APC 10x6 spinning at 15,100 requires 1.3hp. Enya rates your engine up to 15,000.

Except in the realm of high performance racing, modelers usually don't run their engines at the maximum rated RPM. So, the manufacturer's rated HP is never realized.

An APC 11x6 spinning at 11,600 requires .87hp. I guess your RPM was in that range.

That does sound weak for a Schneurle .45BB.

My OS AX .46 spins an APC 11x6 at 12,541 = 1.10hp

And my Super Tigre .45 spins an APC 11x6 at 12,853 = 1.18hp

But, Enyas do tend to get stronger the more they're run.

David

Luna_Rendezvous

David, it spins the APC 11x6 @ 11,100 Max on said fuel, difference in Hp depends on which static thrust calculator is used, I like this one, air density was 1.1604 kg/m3

If it managed between 1.1 and 1.2 then I would have been content, but 0.8~ that's well and truly in the realm of an average 35


Mike.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

Comparing dynamometer derived horsepower figures versus a chart that is derived from certain props at certain rpm points is a waste of time. Who knows what the equivalent load was with the dynomometer when the peak horsepower was derived during the engine testing?

This doesn't mean that the dynomometer figures are faulty or optimistic, it is just a different, but engineering accepted, means of establishing performance benchmarks.

I've bought several brand new Enya engines direct from Japan over the last several years. I can "see" no variance is today's quality versus that of the quality I received years ago. This is not to say that something could not have gone awry at the Enya factory. Everyone produces a turkey now and then, but at Enya, it has been rare. All I can go by is my experience.

Let us not forget that the SS series of Enya engines are not expected to be as hot as the Chrome series that is designated by an "X" or a "CX". The latter are Enya's high performance sport engines. Mine have never failed to deliver in the power department as well as in tractability.

RPM figures alone do not determine an engine's performance ability. I've had engines with carburetors that were so large that they would barely draw fuel in an average installation without the aid of a pump/pressure regulator/or combination pump/regulator (Perry). One of the reasons that YS two-strokes performed so well and earned such a stellar reputation was because of the pressurized fuel system with regulator. If you point the nose of the aircraft and the engine leans out too much, it is of no practical use in flying aerobatic routines.

My Enya .45CX may have been down a couple of hundred rpm versus other high performance sport engines, but when you pointed the nose straight up, the model just kept climbing and screaming its brains out. I gladly sacrificed the level flight rpm to have the ability to climb straight up without overheating and sagging (AAC piston/liner characteristic).

Yes, I do jump to the defense of Enya engines. Probably a bad habit as they really do not need defending. As said previously, I'm speaking for the "X" and "CX" series. While I own an SS ringed .50, I've never ran/flown it.


Ed Cregger

Telemaster Sales UK

Now what's all this sniping at the OS LA series of engines gentlemen? You wouldn't expect a cart horse to outrun a racehorse would you?

The LA replaced the OS FP series of engines which were very popular at least at my flying field for beginners' trainers or sports aircraft, not requiring a huge amount of power. I've owned two FP's and they were never any trouble. Both the LA and the FP series feature crankshafts running in phosphor-bronze (?) plain bearings or bushes, and simple air-bleed carburettors.

The LA is not a bad engine but has proved to be less popular than the FP for two reasons.

1. The growth of electric flight in recent years. Fully 50% of the models which turn up to my club site are electric powered these days. It is partly due to this that we have had had no noise complaints in over two years, that, and the two appallingly bad summers we had in 07 and 08!

2. Secondly, the price of the competition. An LA is an expensive engine for what it is. An OS 46LA is sold by a famous British mail order specialist for £49.99 about $74 US, but the same supplier is selling the following much more powerful engines, all fitted with twin ball bearing crankshafts and the more efficient twin needle caburettors for the following prices: Irvine 46 £54.50 ($81); Thunder Tiger 46 Pro £58.99 ($87), and the Chinese SC 46 for just £47.50 ($70).

If someone wanted a simple plain bearing two-stroke, the same firm offers the Thunder Tiger GP 42 for only £38.99 ($58). I have one of these and they're fine. That's why the LA is not selling.

In conclusion then, if you want a high-performance engine for your sports model or small pattern-ship, buy one of the above or a Super Tigre or even an OS AX if you're a millionaire, but don't compare the LA to a ball-raced motor.

A better comparison would be with the Thunder Tigre GP42 or the basic Enya engine. Anyone have the figures for these?

One brief note on Fox 35s not managing over 10,000rpm. We have carried out a series of noise tests over the past two years at our club and have found that all two-stroke engines of .29 cu.ins or above, fail to achieve the 82dBA limit at 7 metres (about 22 feet) if they exceed 10,500 rpm.

12,000 rpm ? Alright if you live in the middle of the Canadian Prairie I suppose!

Happy Landings

DD

Telemaster Sales UK

[quote]ORIGINAL: s. wallace

For me it was the HP 21 4 cycle. Neat looking but heavy and put out no more power than a good Cox TD 049! Would barely fly a 3 channel "Pronto"...


Yeah but they sound nice!

jeffie8696

The problem is that OS engines are so good that we need one to pick on and that is the LA series.

From the tach forum.

I have a nice well used TT GP42 that made the following numbers using an OS .40 size muffler with no baffle (cause that is all I had). On an APC 10X4 15,300 an APC 10X7 11,800. On 15% Magnum fuel and a Merlin red plug. 57 deg temp, 42% hum. 30.3in baro.

MJD

My Feedback: (1)

Did Ken Enya say that this engine would develop 1.1-1.2hp while spinning an 11-6 prop? Or does he just rate it at 1.1-1.2hp? Those are two entirely different things.

If you want 1.1-1.2 horsepower from a stunt timed engine into an 11-6 prop, sounds more like you need a .60 to me. Have you run a smaller prop yet? You went up in size but that is only going to reduce power output further.

MJD

Luna_Rendezvous

The engine is rated @ 1.3BHP without mentioning propeller used or at what rpm.

The recommended props are 11x6 to 12x7

Kens said to break the engine in on the 11x6

While I never really expected it to run @ 1.3BHP, not many engines do there rated HP figures but 1.1 to 1.2BHP would have been acceptable for the given purpose.

The 11K rpm I quoted before is its absolute max, yesterday it would only manage 10.8K the engine is definitely a dud!

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

Some engines are Duds.

The race guys will buy a half dozen engines and try them all out. Then they will keep the best two.

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

Try an APC 10x6 and see if you do better than my SS40BB:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8345393

The figures in the link above are about right for that engine on 5% nitro. If your SS45 does a little bit better I'd say it's performing fine.

David