fun51 engine
#1
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Niangua,
MO
im building a fun 51 dont know what engine i should it on as far as power and weight i have a 40& 46 la and a super tger 45 but didnt know witch would be best ?
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Colorado Springs,
CO
I would go with the LA40 since the plane is so light and get longer runtimes then the LA46. The Super Tiger is pretty heavy (about 6oz heavier! ) especially for a plane this size.
#4
Senior Member
My Feedback: (13)
I had a TT46 on mine, it would have hovered if the rudder and elevator were a little bigger.. If I were building another I would extend them both about an inch.. If your not looking for it to hover, built as is it'll KE all day, I'd put the 40 on it. If you modify the rudder and elevator, put the 46 on it. Just my $.02.
#6
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Incirlik, TURKEY
got the ST .45 on mine. the plane and engine were given to me free. the guy was sick of fixing where the landing gear mounts to the fuse (and had ripped itself clean a couple times) i think i got that prob whooped. the engine ran horribly when i got it. i tore it down (thinking it was junk) and found no damage really. just a ton of varnish. cleaned it, lubed it re-assembled and it runs much better. not what i would call perfect but at least acceptable. runs great in the mid to high rpm. and the plane flies awesome. almost unlimited vertical. it stops going up eventually, but i get bored going straight up and have to do something before it tops out anyway.
check out the crazy repairs i did to reinforce that weak point where the landing gear attaches. I think it will take on anything now. check out the re-construction thread [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_6091745/tm.htm]here[/link]
check out the crazy repairs i did to reinforce that weak point where the landing gear attaches. I think it will take on anything now. check out the re-construction thread [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_6091745/tm.htm]here[/link]
#9
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: St Louis,
MO
I just finished a Fun51. It has a ST 40 however I used the small ST muffler. The largerST muffler extends over the landing gear and that could be a problem on a ploop
landing. It has about 10 or 15 flights and I like it a lot. I'm concerned about the
vibration in the nose. I use a balanced 11x4 MAS prop. Its a great flyer.
#14
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: NE,
TX
Question guys, when you covered your Fun 51, did you cover the fuse, ailerons, tail parts individually? I've got everything but the fuse and wing covered and was wondering if it would be better to cover the fuse and then slide the wing in, glue the wing and then finish covering the wing?
#15
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
im building one, covering everthing before i assemble. i think i will have a problem w/ the servo heads hitting the fues as i slide it over (servo's installed before covering.
im putting a old os 40 fp in the plane. hopefully it will have enough power
im putting a old os 40 fp in the plane. hopefully it will have enough power
#16
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
just a update for anyone that may read this,
i put a gms.47 in mine i didnt like it. it was to nose heavy even w/ the engine as far back as possible and the plane would not harrier/float what so ever, it just wanted to stall when i slowed it down even w/ flaperon at 15 degrees.
w/ the fp i need 1 oz up front and the engine as far forward as possible to balance. it flies very well both w/ and w/o flaperons, you can slow it waayyyyy down which is really cool.
i think the os 46 la would be perfect, the 40fp (similer to 40 la) can almost hover on a apc 11x5 (going to try 12.25x3.75), and i bet you wouldnt need the oz up front to balance
i put a gms.47 in mine i didnt like it. it was to nose heavy even w/ the engine as far back as possible and the plane would not harrier/float what so ever, it just wanted to stall when i slowed it down even w/ flaperon at 15 degrees.
w/ the fp i need 1 oz up front and the engine as far forward as possible to balance. it flies very well both w/ and w/o flaperons, you can slow it waayyyyy down which is really cool.
i think the os 46 la would be perfect, the 40fp (similer to 40 la) can almost hover on a apc 11x5 (going to try 12.25x3.75), and i bet you wouldnt need the oz up front to balance
#18

My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 8,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Waseca,
MN
I started with a Webra 40 black head and it wasn't enough. Went to the OS .46fx which was plenty, but needed a bunch of tail weight to get it to tumble how i liked. It did an awesome climbing inverted spin. With its short moments, it tumbles pretty good and knife edge loops are a breeze, it just doesn't hove or harrier all that well. Fun plane, got lots of flights on mine.





