Ed,

These are very similar numbers to what I'm getting with my gas conversion OS160 on an aeroslave pipe. I'm flying the APC 18.1X10 prop at around 77500 rpms on the ground.

George

Great.

If you get the 26G pipe and try it on the engine, please report back on performance. We really liked the complete package the 40G results in (useful power output, sound quality/noise reduction, etc.) but isn't the only option. We simply don't have one to try

Important to understand that the baffle is set at 27 1/8" from the plug, straight line. At this setting, the engine was on pipe throughout the flight envelope. We still have some small mixture adjustments to make while the engine is breaking in, but that should give you guys a good, solid starting point. I wouldn't go any shorter than this length; 1/4" longer wouldn't hurt and may actually help a little

MattK

Of course I have been following this with interest since I have the 40G on order, but still have the option to change over to the 26G.

For now, I will stay with the 40G.

....

Would like to see how this all ends up..

Bob,

I may have mentioned that the weight of the 40G is 3.5 ozs. Mine is 1" shorter than the standard pipe Ed Skorepa produces, to accomodate my plane's tunnel. If you get the standard length, add a few grams.

Matt

Guys, where could i find any information about 26G or 40G pipes?

D.N.

http://www.escomposites.com/

Email Ed Skorepa, info is on the site.

Thanks, Matt.

I am sure that I will have some more questions about the soft mount (and nose ring?) and the header/pipe coupling, tuning, etc.

However, I will do much searching and reading beforehand to get familiar with the subject.

Assuming the 2M Vanquish roll-out gets massively delayed, I may also start looking at some other airframes. I sent an email to EF and got the standard response with photos, but no time frame except "late 2009".

not many days to go on the vanquish before it's not 2009...

Price?

For the Vanquish, seems I read it is to cost around $650

Yep, I just didn't want to rub it in.

If you look at the website, for many of the models that are currently out of stock a "late December" delivery is indicated. Maybe there will be some Vanquishes in there.

650$ seems to be a great price, if it delivers...which I am sure it will...

I'm only hoping that PA (who I beleive are the agents for EF in australia) import some.

Shipping things like engines to aus is cheap, (heavy, and small boxes) whereas aircraft aren't.

I know this is abit broad topic.......
Since the inception of this engine and other Gasoline engines that were made in attempt
to satisfy a Gasoline pattern engine, I kept thinking that there needs to be some
radical change with engines in order to be light and powerfullenough to
work in the highest pattern contests.....but something occured to me....
Just change the rules!!
If F3A, is to Formula 1, as to 1/8th scale onroad r/c cars....Why don't they just change the rules
to accomidate the gas engines?? They did it with the 4-strokes?
It is for there reasons why IMAC has gone way above and beyond the entree's and the technology??
Not much going on in pattern...
Where the Governing Pattern body wants to take themselves, not sure, but either they change with the
times (perhaps add a class of planes, or let the planes be bigger, and heavier) or they will
be soon called the Jr SPA...

Has anyone had a chance to compare notes with this SAP180 to the DL30?

As I discussed initially at the start of this thread, I purchased a Mintor 37 cc and sent it back...couldn't accommodate the funny angle of the carburetor on the side of the crankcase. The side exhaust was thought through and Mintor does have a return to center header and a very nice aluminum pipe that would probably work well with the 30-40 cc engines.

I've taken a very quick look at the DLE and decided not to purchase one. I don't care for the side mounted carb and side exhaust. Besides that, performance wise, it may be pretty good also. What it's table manners are and how it behaves long term, has to be seen....I know the table manners of the Syssa are excellent, on par with glow 2 strokes (on rather limited runs, I need to add so this may change over time), but don't have a clue on longevity.

Todd Syssa discussed with Ed and I his design philosophy as to why he chose certain materials (a steel rod, for example, rather than aluminum...or needle bearings on both ends of the rod....or, quadruple sealed bearings up front, etc etc), and I must say that sold me. After flying the engine in an overweight and oversized Pattern model, performence sold me again. To me, there is no need to change any rules to accommodate anything.

A side note, the bores and strokes of the DLE and SAP engines are the same.

MattK

The timing must be very different as the DLE makes about 1/2hp more on stock exhaust than the Syssa on it's exhaust sans inserts.

Most gas engines have ferrous con rods except the MVVS/Evo 26GT. All have roller bearings rods on both ends.

To make a useful comparison, please run a DLE with representative propellors and post the results. MFGs HP claims are meaningless.

Kochj

This engine was not specifically designed for pattern, but pattern is a suitable application as the testing by Matt and Ed has shown. Certainly it has an extremely good (if not the best) power to weight ratio for a gas engine.

The highest performance levels in pattern require the highest power to weight ratios....there is no magical engine that will do this on gasoline.....methanol simply produces more power than gas, so glow engines will always make more power.


Yes, rules were changed to allow 120 4C.....and proponents advocated the cost of the event would go down, and engine options would go up. The opposite occured. Engines, planes, fuel, servos, etc. all got more expensive. And this exact same flawed logic was tried again with the unlimited engine rule.....proponents again advocated the cost of the event would go down as larger cheaper engines would be used, and as we found out (and some of us predicted, myself included), the costs simply went up again as no one used the larger cheaper engines because they did not have the best power to weight ratio. Current day, the best power to weight ratio powerplants suitable for pattern are YS and electric....and electric is rapidly improving. This is not to say that gasoline engines can not be used in pattern now or in the future, but they are not going to be the most competitive (in terms of power for weight, which is very high priority in pattern), and never will be. For pilots that prioritize other aspects (fuel costs), the SAP 180 might be the best engine for them. Certainly is nice to have the option.

Regards,

Dave

Any performance gains running one of these on Glow. I can see where you would have to carry a bigger fuel tank though I can imagine how thirsty this engine would be on glow.... I remember seeing it done(Dave Patrick) on IMAC planes years ago..

I just noticed that sentence rhymed !

Frank

Frank:
As you might guess, that's something we will be trying!

WOW NJRCFLYER2..I just noticed we're both in Randolph !! I'm off Pleasant Hill rd.

If Alcohol is the way to go in planes, then WHY do we all
run 50cc gasoline singles 2-strokes in our 80-86 wingspan aerobatic aircrafts???

These do not cost 4000$ dollars , and do they NOT, FLY lighter than a 2METER pattern plane with
a 3m 1.70 or a ys 1.70???? Or am I wrong?

I think the reality of it all is that, with the current rules, NO manufacture will make a pattern engine
that is LIght enough or powerfull enough to compete in the highest levels of pattern..
It just isn't going to happen..

I believe the price of the engines went up, because Japan had a revolution of wages, and they realized that they were
Producing far superior metallurgies that other countries..
The same will eventually occur with China... It will just take some more time..
The switch from simple 2-strokes to complex 4-stroke engines didn't help the casue either...