Engine dilemma.............advice, please.
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (27)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Simpsonville,
SC
Hello All,
I'm planning on building a 116" twin-engine Ju-88 bomber. The designer has not recommended an engine size to use and I could use some input here.
Like everyone else in the world, I want to keep the engines inside the cowls as this will be built for scale competition and I'll need all the points I can get. The plane will be 1/7th scale and I figure the cowls should work out to be 6.500" in diameter. OS .91 FX's would fit but from what I've read in the engine forums they can be problematic.........not what one wants with a twin or any airplane, for that matter. RCV has a terrific option with their RCV 1.20 but they are expensive times two and I have yet to see or hear one.
Remember, this will be a bomber. No loops nor rolls nor 400mph blasts down the runway centerline. Just a bunch of simulated aluminum flying merrily along waiting to drop death and destruction from above in a nice, sedate sort of way. (No, I'm NOT a pervert! I have a Hawker Typhoon that gets with the program and that's the way I get my jollies!)
One other factor, I live in an area that is less than 100 feet above sea level and I doubt if any of the neighboring fields will exceed that by very much. I will not be flying in the Rockies where you need a Saito 1.50 to lift your trainer 40 into the wild blue.
Any and all help will be greatly appreciated.
Al
40's style heavy metal!
I'm planning on building a 116" twin-engine Ju-88 bomber. The designer has not recommended an engine size to use and I could use some input here.
Like everyone else in the world, I want to keep the engines inside the cowls as this will be built for scale competition and I'll need all the points I can get. The plane will be 1/7th scale and I figure the cowls should work out to be 6.500" in diameter. OS .91 FX's would fit but from what I've read in the engine forums they can be problematic.........not what one wants with a twin or any airplane, for that matter. RCV has a terrific option with their RCV 1.20 but they are expensive times two and I have yet to see or hear one.
Remember, this will be a bomber. No loops nor rolls nor 400mph blasts down the runway centerline. Just a bunch of simulated aluminum flying merrily along waiting to drop death and destruction from above in a nice, sedate sort of way. (No, I'm NOT a pervert! I have a Hawker Typhoon that gets with the program and that's the way I get my jollies!)
One other factor, I live in an area that is less than 100 feet above sea level and I doubt if any of the neighboring fields will exceed that by very much. I will not be flying in the Rockies where you need a Saito 1.50 to lift your trainer 40 into the wild blue.
Any and all help will be greatly appreciated.
Al
40's style heavy metal!




