Sport_Pilot

Sorry I must have been soo confused! Although I didn't think I would be offending someone to say that they didn't like remote needles. Some like them some don't, but I don't know why you would be offended by it. I assume some have had trouble with needles leaking air, which can sometimes be tolerated when the needle is right at the carb, but the air turns into big bubbles when it travels through that short fuel line. If the needle doesn't leak they work fine. Most OS needles don't leak, but some do. I haven't had that problem with a K&B needle yet.

Joss Stick

My Feedback: (1)

For Pete's sake! How in the name of all things great and small would you know my stand on remote needles? If we are going to assume things: I don't know why YOU and so many other people don't like cole slaw. Now I don't know you, but I"m going to assume you don't, just like you assumed I don't like remote needles. Yes I know cole slaw wasn't what we were talking about, but so weren't remote needles.

Oh I get it ... you have to have the last word. Go ahead! Respond to this post and I'll be quiet.

Sport_Pilot

Someone said they didn't like K&B because of the remote needle, but I cannot find it! Maybe they pulled their post.

Or maybe you are right and I am confused about my hatred of Cole Slaw!

Elwood

My Feedback: (2)

Could we just drop it and get back to the discussion about engines?

littlepiston

My Feedback: (12)

.

shoom

> OS makes great engines for beginers (ok, maybe not the raw > beginer but after the first year or so), and a few great engines > for the pro, but they leave someting to be desired in the > middle.

having said that, what WOULD you recommend for a beginner?

littlepiston

My Feedback: (12)

.

littlepiston

My Feedback: (12)

.

Scorpionjack

LittlePiston;
Stop making post if you have nothing to add to the forum! Your antics are not amusing.

Shoom what are you looking for a 2 Stroke or a 4 Stroke?

2 Strokes? hmmm OS, TT, GMS, Webra, Jett, Enya, Rossi, YS

4 Strokes? OS, TT,Saito,Magnum, ASP, Enya, YS

There are more engines Manufactures than that. bottom line is what are you looking for? What airframe? Longevity, weight?

BTW Littlepiston! Remote Needles have there place within this hobby also.

littlepiston

My Feedback: (12)

.

littlepiston

My Feedback: (12)

.

jimcork1

My Feedback: (4)

I have flown KB but only the .40.. All were great engines. The olde had the Perry Carb.. The new one was about 98,, and it was great until young son pulled up from dive in OK sun,, but,, realized he was inverted,,, Found the piston and rod,, then the cyl,, and finally the crankcase.. He wrote KB a nice letter mailed parts back and check as in instructions and wala.. new engine arrived w/note.. The .40's were ok,, flew OS plug,,, Cool power fuel 10x6 prop and elec start.. The breakin required leaving the plug heater on or it would die.. Jim

Johng

My Feedback: (4)

I have run 4 types of K&B engine, the .61, the .48 the sportster .35?(?) and the 1.00DF over the last 12 years.

The sportster was a peice o junk. Not much to say there, except that the sportster line wasn't worth it & K&B relized that after a period of time.

The .48 is on a friends plane - a .60 size plane and it supplies vertical performance. Massive power for an engine that size. Plus, with that power you get a dependable, friendly engine.

The 1.00 DF has been run a few times, but I haven't flown it yet. I was able to talk to Lewis Patton about them when he was flying jets with them for Century Jet Models. Simple engines to run, if you know what to do. Generally, the reason they were percieved as unreliable engines was that they were ofered in a market where the predominant fan unit(Dynamax)was too small for the power being output. In fact, it that fan is actually a bit too small for the OS .91 - thus all the tinkering necessary with those engines, their con rods, bearings, remote mixture, etc.

I think K&B's failure on this engine was one of marketing. They sold the motor into a market that was built around a smaller motor in all aspects. The fan issue was one thing, but they also had installation problems because the head is taller. The engine is happiest with a tuned pipe that is much larger than those normally used with the .91's. SO, the perception of the user who dropped the engine into the same hole that a .91 came out of was of a very bad overall experience. That doesn't mean that the K&B engine is bad when used as designed - but the customers needed to be educated much more about what that was.

Century Jets offered the K&B with the Ramtec fan, which loads the K&B more - making more thrust as well. This is the combo that should have been pushed alot harder. The ramtec is also a better engine for the .91 in my opinion, for these same reasons. FWIW - Lewis demoed all of CJM's planes with simple K&B remote needle valves that had been tuned with the simple pinch test that everyone uses. That impressed me.

I have the most experience with the .61, which has had about nine different lives as a design. They have very good power to weight ratios, even the old ones. The ringed version could spin up to a 13" prop, the ABC version will swing a 14" prop very well. They liked being loaded down, almost like a 4-stroke. First one I had was the old ringed version. The ringed version was a fine motor if;

>You open the backplate before running and cleaned out the chips - K&B had a QA problem in those days.
> You take your time breaking the engine in. ALL, that's ALL ringed engines need to be broken in slowly, regardless of manufacturer.

Another marketing problem for K&B was that this engine was still being made while OS had good ABC type engines out there. People were getting use to the easy break-in with ABC motors. Then, when they buy a K&B and treat it the same way - they assume it's a junk engine becuse it burned up during break in.

Then the engine was offered with a remote needle - which was an improvement in ease of use. Made adjusting the motor much simpler - like having a new carb. Didn't make it much easier to break-in though

Then the engine was subject to a major overhaul when they converted it to ABC design with the brass colored head and a completely new carb - with the brass disk low speed adjustment, also with remote needle. The screw-on design of the head is a little eccentric, but this redesign turned a good motor into a great one. With these mods this motor has every bit the power of an OS .61 FX while weighing less and costing about $40 less. Add the optional tuned muffler and it has more power than the competition -with the added weight, of course. The tuned muffler is what made this a loud engine. Using the std muffler gives normal exhaust noise levels.

Plus, the ABC engine is now stupid-simple to break-in. In fact, as the organizer of a college competition that had used the K&B ringed motor, a friend was given an ABC motor to try out. We did what we knew from experience what college kids would try to do with the motor. We hung a 14x5 prop on it and bench mounted it. We ran it once rich then leaned it to peak. We let it run that way for a couple of tankfulls - even when it sounded like it was sagging a bit. Then it was put on a plane and flown normally. That engine continues to deliver great performance 3+ years later.

Since K&B cut the sportster line and went with the bearing/ABC models their quality had been greatly improved. I've recieved about 8 .61's new from them over the years from the early ringed ones to the latest version - and the current ones have all shown up clean inside and out - with plenty of red preservative oil in & on them. They have all run very well too.

AS far as RJL, the jury is still out for me. I know that all of the gold-head engines I've seen came thru Randy, at least - but I think the parts had been manufactured by the old K&B. They were delivered clean and ready to run - so that's good.

I don't understand why Randy didn't get on the ball when all kinds of jet pilots were clamoring for the K&B .48 DF. People loved it. It's a great motor. Yet, even with people willing to pay $250-300 for a motor of that size, RJL couldn't get production in gear. Many people who had waited on a production run of that motor for as much as a year or more abandoned K&B/RJL to use the OS .46 VXDF - which is also a great, small DF motor. That was a major missed opportunity to deliver goods that people wanted - make money - and establish that motor as the leader in its class. RJL's action ( or inaction) on this motor does not compute.

With all this said, I have a good job, and I can afford pretty much any .60 size motor I want. But when my Prince America Tucano 60 ARF arrives next month - it'll be a K&B .61 that goes in it, or maybe a K&B .48

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

Johng...GREAT post. Right on the money.
To me, the bottom line is this. With so many other choices out there, I can think of many other engines I would recommend over the K&B.
Can you get good service out of some of them? Yes. But there are better out there.
I went through a big hassle with one of their 45's on a World Models Chipmunk I was teaching a friend of mine aerobatics with last year. One dead stick after another. One repair to the airframe after another. He finally swapped it out for an OS and never looked back. Maybe someone else could have gotten that engine sorted, eventually, but the OS just bolted on and RAN.
I missed the fracas with little piston. Too bad. Anything interesting there?
And...what happened to my post about cole slaw? That was really important stuff...

Johng

My Feedback: (4)

Thanks for the kind words, the .45 you write of is junk, but I disagree on the current .61 and .48. The OS engines have nothing on these pups from a design or performance perspective. In the sport (non-competition) price range there isn't a better motor. If you want to argue that the support network that OS has for spare parts and service is better - I will not contest that. However, both these motors are in the bolt-n-go category these days.

Being involved with the student competition I mentioned above, I've had the opportunity to see plenty of ugly treatment of engines. Leeme tell you a story.

The competition is about designing a plane of restricted wing area to lift maximum payload from a restricted runway length. I was watching a student team get ready for their competition flight - and they were going to pre-run the engine to get it tuned. Their leader had determined that the engine had lost compression( probably from being run over-lean) and had one of the students go get the spare engine. This engine came to the flight line in the box, with the heat-shrick wrapper still on. They took it out, assembled it, and bolted it in place. The first time it ever ran, was on the runway. The pilot tuned it for peak, and went flying - I think with 12lb of payload in the plane- so it was probably a 20 lb airplane. Of course, there was a big flat-pitch prop on there for thrust. This engine was being tortured

I figured that the engine might get them off the ground, but would quit when the plane pitched up - lasting maybe until the downwind turn. I was already wondering where we could get a trash bag. But to my surprise, the engine ran thru the whole flight, even idling happily down final approach.

So, while I admit I am kind of a "speciallist" with modern K&B engines, I have seen enough to know that the current(ABC) ones are just as good in quality and performance - and at least as good a value as the OS or Thunder Tiger. If it was just me, you could say that my experiences were because of my familiarity with the line. However, I have seen enough instances of newbies flying quite well on this engine ( as well as burning them up, as they honestly would any engine) to say that it is a fine engine for any sport flier.

I do not include the sportster models in this group - they were junk in their day and are no longer made - AFAIK. So, with your friend's .45 I would definietly agree, you are better off with OS. But you would be at least as well off with a K&B 48.

Good discussion here - glad I can be part of it.

BTW - I too am puzzled by this Littlepiston deal. What's with the dots??

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

I have three of the ringed type 61's. They areClarence Lee types. They are PDP ported and run very well. But they are the loudest engines I ever owned. They always started and ran fine. They are different ages. One has the Perry carb and the other two have the none finned K&B two needle carb.

The Perry carb is smaller than the other carbs. I put a 11-7 prop on that engine one day last fall to see what RPM it would do. I then put the same prop on a ST 61SK, MDS 68 & ST G61. The K&B would turn that 11-7 200 rpm faster than the other engines. I was surprised because the K&B is so much lighter than the other engines.

I bought one of them used at a low price and while it ran, it was rather poor. Upon inspection, the piston was busted. I got new parts from RJL (piston,sleeve,ring,and bearings) and then I sent it to Clarence Lee and he converted it over to the Perry Directional Port type. It runs like a new one now.

Clarence says that you should let his engines turn up the RPM with a 11-7 or so. That's what I use and they seem OK to me.

Jim

tombat1

Hello,
I would like to put my 2 cents in on this K&B topic, Back in 1985 I decided to get into RC and decided it would be a plane (trainer of course) so I went to the hobby shop and purchased a snark 20T ARF trainer I asked the clerk what engine I should use and his reply was " I have this K&B 20 sportster here" MAN!! am I so glad I bought it I never had any problems out of that little engine and to this day I would buy one of those just to have on a little stand on my shelf if I could find one. You can't go wrong with a K&B engine....

RLDIII

My Feedback: (1)

Just my 2 cents worth on this topic. I too have had many engines over the years and several have been K&B engines. I believe the first was a K&B .40, model #4011. Good, strong, and light motor. Still have it after 20 years, on my daughters trainer. Not as strong as some of todays ABC clones, but close, and definately smaller and lighter than many. Also have a K&B .61 with Perry carb. Another good, solid performer. I tried one of the .28 sportsters and found out too late about checking for metal filings in the case as noted in one of the posts above. It digested itself on the stand, but K&B made it good and gave me a brand new one that (at least for a sportster) ran great. Howvere, I will say that the Sportster lines as a whole was NOT their best work.

Now, coming up to more recent time, I bought (and still fly) one of the K&B .40 model 4050 ABC engines a few years back. They took a pipe timed ABC schnurley ported piston and sleeve and dropped it in the old side exhaust 4011 case. Mine came with a long, tuned muffler. It also has some of the SMOOTHEST bearings I have even owned in an engine. I believe that this engine was originally designed as a possible Quickee 500 type engine, and though very fast, was no match for the Nelsons, and Jetts. However, I still fly mine in a new Lanier Shrike .40 every month and people are amazed how fast the plane is with just sport 10% fuel and APC 10x6 prop. Some just plain don't believe me when I tell them it is a K&B engine. Unfortunately, I have seen the same engine sold with the regular sport muffler, and it is a DOG. Due to the pipe timing, it is a relatively peaky engine, and until you get it above about 13K with it's tuned muffler, it just doesn't make any power.

Finally, there is the K&B .48. I now own 2 of these jewels. I just can't say enough good stuff about them. Unlike my model 4050 .40 sized K&B, no tuned muffler is needed, and it is NOT peaky. It is really amazingly smooth and makes unreal power on sport fuel. The case is built like a tank (look at the webbing on the front of the case) and if you want, you can raise the Nitro to 20% and things just get better, but you don't HAVE to use high nitro. Some guys carp about some of these engines having a composite back plate, but I just figure that if I hit the ground hard enough to drive the crank out the back, it is probably toast anyway. I have had ZERO problems with the engine. I like it so well, that I bought a second just to keep on hand in case I need it, as like the above post notes, I am not sure exactly WHAT RJL has in line for this excellent motor.

Though I LOVE my ST and YS (2 stroke) engines too, I will put the .48 offerings from K&B up against any of them...

Lee

Johng

My Feedback: (4)

hey guys, they have updated their web site. Check out the deal on the .61 ABC. Geez, I already have a couple of these and want to get a few more at that price.

Sheesh, that really sounded like a HSN commercial didn't it?

http://www.modelengine.com/kbindex.htm

They have updated the web site quite nicely. All spare parts listed by number, with availablity and price. Also has price & availabilty on engines, as of January anyway. Most of the good ones aren't in stock though. I wouldn't guess they would put this kind of work into the web site if they weren't serious, but I don't get how they can leave their best engines out of stock for this long.

Woody218

My Feedback: (24)

I have owned many K & B engines over the years, and I have had very good service from each one of them. It's kind of sad to see RJL piddling away, not producing the best engines of any that he makes.

THOMKP J

My Feedback: (15)

WHEN I STARTED IN THIS HOBBY 20YEARS AGO.ONE OF THE FIRST ENGINES I OWNED WAS A K&B 40,AND IT GAVE ME GOOD SERVICE.YOU WILL GET THE SAME TYPE OF SERVICE WITH THE OTHER K&B BRANDS SPORT,DF,MARINE ETC.JUST FOLLOW THE MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS,AND YOU WON`T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS.I DON`T HAVE MUCH USE FOR THE K&B SPORT ENGINES ONLY BECAUSE I`M IN LOVE WITH THE SUPERTIGRE GS-40`S WHICH IS A HELL OF A ENGINE!THE ONLY K&B ENGINES I USE EXCLUSIVELY IS THE DUCTED FAN ENGINES.I OWN 4 7.5`S AND 2 82`S.THEY ARE GOOD STRONG RELIABLE RUNNING ENGINES.EASYTIGER PLEASE LISTEN TO SCORPIONJACK!

scrapwood

My Feedback: (1)

Had a sportster .45. Sold it for $25.00 and bought another TT 46. Got tired of dead sticks.

Fuel Dinosaur

Used to race with the old K & B Torpedo green heads and they were competitive at that time in rat race and other events. I bought a total of 6 K & B .48 engines. More longterm observations, they are VERY powerful and also about 2-3 ounces overweight. If you look at the back bearing size and crank, you will KNOW why. :-) Three of the six engines had good throttle response and the other three did NOT. The barrel is very soft aluminum or whatever and nicks easily even with some grass clippings and stems. Afterward, they leak like a sieve around the bearing. I put one on a Lanier Dart and it flew like a bat out of you know where. You can turn over a nice brass barrel if you like, that will help. Putting on a plain Perry carburetor did not help these three much. A pressure fitting and a Perry WILL fix these problems. Seems like carburetors on some engines are more an afterthought than a conscious design strategy. Other engines also suffer this malady. This is a very strong engine and with an UltraThrust muffler and 15% nitromethane, rpm in the range of 16,800 and better are quite possible. This .48 K & B engine puts out a LOT of air behind the airplane!!! I could not use the cheapo Tower plugs in this engine, they ate them for lunch. A good OS 3 or 8 is more in order. I would have to say that the two main detractors from this engine are the slight excess weight, more than made up for in raw power, and the relatively poor carburetor on some engines. For the record, I run these engines now on an 80/20 synthetic/castor based fuel at 18% oil and 10% nitromethane, either with the stock muffler or the UltraThrust muffler. My flying buddy is going to cut me out some brass carb barrels to replace that soft junk they have in the carb now. This engine with a good carb, a pressure fitting and an UltraThrust muffler is a very good performing engine and the 2 HP rating is not that wildly optimistic. My sense is that folks will either learn to love or hate this engine, depending on their own experiences. I SOLD 3 of them, but I KEPT the other 3. Hope this info helps.

agentbishop

I have a K&B 65 sportster I guess. Is the HP right on there web sight for this engine? 1.1 HP? I get that on my 40LA.

Sport_Pilot

It is about right for the Sportster. The HP for the LA is at a much higer RPM, and most likely an outright lie.