How is this combination? Since DA 50 would be more power to weight ratio as compared to a Zenoah 62, will this be a good option for a Stuka? I am getting a 29% Edge and a DA50 would go there...But it would be nice to use it elsewhere too...like a stuka.

Anurag

Anurag: Hope the plans and materials list helped. I also was considering a DA 50, (Iwas told they will be available in July), I saw a prototype at Toledo, and it looks great. However I finally decided on a ZDZ 60 for my Stuka. it weighs about a 1/4 oz. more but puts out proportionalely more power, and is about $50.00 cheaper. Close inspection indicates no difference in quality of machining, etc.

Bill

Thanks for the material list Bill. Did'nt you get my confirmation of reciept? I sent one to you and one to Jay. Thank you once again for that. I was told that the zdz needs a higher than normal octane fuel for good functioning? In india we still use 87 octane for regular road cars.

Anurag

Here is something to think about. Unlike aerobatic airplanes, most, if not all, warbirds need nose weight. Aerobatic airplanes are concerned about vertical performance whereas warbirds are not as concerned about vertical performance. Warbirds do not need unlimited vertical since they are not meant to hover or 3D. If you use a light engine on a warbird you will need to add more nose weight than if you used a heavier engine. IMHO it is better to use a heavier engine instead of dead weight to balance the plane. When you look at the power-to-weight of an engine you must take into account the full weight that engine will be pulling, not just the weight of the engine. The weight Desert Aircraft is publishing does not include the weight of the electronic ignition and the batteries needed to make it work. From experience I have found that an electronic ignition engine usually weighs as much and sometimes more than a magneto ignition engine once all the components are weighed together. Plus, the electronic ignition engine as the potential to have more problems than a magneto ignition engine. The choice is yours and it is an expensive choice so take a look at the big picture and decide from there. Good luck with the edge and the stuka.

Hi Anurag,

I think Kirk has a very valid point here and should not be overlooked.

Regards

Reuben
Malta

Because of the narrow cowling on the Stuka, you might want to consider the ZDZ 40 rear exhaust engine. Just a thought.

I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE DA50, BUT IF ITS A 50CC ENGINE, THAT WONT GET A ZIROLI STUKA OFF THE GROUND. I OWN A ZIROLI STUKA 29LBS. AND ITS POWERED WITH A G-62 WHICH FLY'S IT VERY SCALE ON A MEZJLIK 22X10 3 BLADED PROP. ITS FAR FROM ANY SPEED DEMON. THE STUKA IS EXTREMELY DIRTY. WITH ITS FLIGHT CONTROLS HANGING BELOW THE WING, DIVEBRAKES HANGING UNDER THE WING, AND HUGE SPATZ, NOT TO MENTION LOWER HORIZONAL STRUTS. IT TAKES ALOT OF HP TO GET THIS BIRD FLYING. ALTHOUGH, I WILL ADMIT THAT STALL SPEEDS ARE QUITE LOW WITH NO BAD HABITS, BUT ITS STILL A 101"W/S. THIS IS A LARGE WARBIRD. I JUST DONT SEE 50CC'S CUTTIG THE MUSTARD.

thanks for the advise guys..I guess it will be the g62 in this case. Does the ZDZ run with regular gasoline? In India normal petrol means 83 octane. I heard someone say it (ZDZ) runs best with a higher octane fuel like 93 or 97 octane. We run our G62's on regular unleaded 83 octane fuel.

Thanks,
Anurag

Too bad, the ZDZ actually offers more power then the G62, but it also uses the higher octane gasoline.

THE ZIRLI STUKA DOES'NT REQUIRE ANYMORE POWER THAN THE G-62. THE G-62 FITS VERY NICELY INSIDE THE COWL WITH MINIMAL BUTCHERING. WITH A "BOLD MUFFLER" PITTS STYLE MUFFLER THE EXHAUST TUBES STICK OUT THE BACK OF THE ENGINE AD ARE BARELY NOTICABLE. THE G-62 WITH A MEZJLIK 22X10 THREE BLADE PROP AND YOU HAVE A VERY SCALE FLYING AIRCRAFT. THE FULL SCALE WAS AS FAST AS TODAYS CESSNA 182. THERE IS NO NEED TO GO ANY LARGER THAN THE G-62. THE WEIGHT OF THE G-62 IS ALSO A PERFECT COMBINATION AS NO ADDED BALLAST IS NEEDED. TO BALANCE THE BIRD. AS FAR AS PRICE AND RELIABILITY, THE WHOLE ZENOAH LINE SPEAKS FOR THEMSELVES.

I think some people are assuming the displacement is all that matters. Shouldn't we be looking at horsepower, torque, or on an airplane, more importantly thrust? There are many many examples of smaller engines being MUCH more powerful than larger ones, Take a 600 cc streetbike (crotch rocket) compared to say a 1340cc Harley, Less than half the size, more than double the HP. My wife has a 1.8 L New Beetle that easily outruns my 5.0 L Firebird ( took them both to the drag strip last week) The R/C gas engines are finally following the same trend, smaller, lighter and more powerful too, I am very happy to see that

How about the stuka with a 3w 60? I believe these 3w's are with a rear carb and since the stuka has a long cowl, it will fully get submerged inside it, unlike the g62 (where the carb shows).

Any comments?
Anurag

The 3W is very similar to the ZDZ line in design. ZDZ make a 60 also. These would be the ultimate motors for the stuka as they would be completly hidden(rear carbs and all). The ZDZ is within a hundred dollars of the G62.

I have seen Stuka Barry's plane fly. I have also seen Nick Ziroli's stuka fly many times (I think he used a G-62 also). Neither of these two fine modelers seemed to have ANY power problems.

Mace Gill
The Aeroplane Works

Yes, I know the g62 is the number one choice for this magnificent bird...I am only exploring options. If all else fails, I too will get a g62. I was interested in 3w due to its rear carb which will probably not stick out of the cowl.

Anurag