ICE_MAN

Ok theres a 6 Oz. savings...

Did anyone check out the RCSupergear site?

rctom

They were 2025, and no we don't sell them any more but I may look into resurrecting them.

TF

Nogyro

My Feedback: (10)

I wouldn't be surprised if the 2025 gear is lighter than the fiberglass ones and more durable. Cheaper too.

Nogyro

My Feedback: (10)

Corrections on the muffler weights. I checked my records this morning and the DA muffler is 5 oz. and the Slimline Pitts w/o smoke is 11 oz. Still a 6 oz saving though. Memory is fading, heck to get old.[:@]

ICE_MAN

Hey at least your not falling asleep in between charging your batteries, then again after you fuel up... Then again after you fly...

We got a couple like that at Paducah.. By the way Frank, I got my old trainer cleaned up, going to take it out tonight and start teaching dad to fly! So we'll have a new flying buddy

Nogyro

My Feedback: (10)

Be patient with him, us old farts don't learn new things very fast.

ICE_MAN

Eh I figure he should pick it up ok... He been flyuing his slowstick more than a year now

jimmyjoe

My Feedback: (21)

Don't want to argue about the HP numbers because we all know they are exagerated. However, there are various versions of the MVVS 58 in Europe and Canada. I saw HP dyno numbers on the version that Horizon is carring, GX, and the numbers were well above 6HP, the ZDZ 50NG is pushing that, so from that standpoint agree with you. However, the Evo 58 GX is closer to 7.5hp and even 8.0 with a tuned pipe.

I agree about weight, but if you a little tail heavy on a 18-19 lb plane there would be no comparison, go with the Evo 58GX

rctom

HP numbers are very deceptive.

HP is calculated by multiplying torque * RPM. So you can have an engine that puts out a lot of HP at a high RPM but very little at lower RPMs. If the peak HP is at an RPM that you cannot use then the number has no meaning. For example if the HP peak is at 10,000 RPM on a 58 cc engine that HP number would be useless in an aerobatic plane since the props you need to use would be very inefficient at that speed. It would be nice in a racer though.

So what we want to know is what is the HP figure at the engine's torque peak, this is the real sweet spot for power production.

Until such time as manufacturers put HP and torque graphs in their literature HP figures will continue to be useless, we will need to go by what works and what doesn't.

TF

DiscoWings

My Feedback: (76)

Go with the DA if you like sloppy throttle tranisition and constant problems.
Not to mention low power.
I have 2 evo 58s. They are turning a 24x10 at 6900 RPM, the best the DA did was a 22x10 at 6700.
The evo yanks the an extra lx likes its nothing, the DA struggles to get out of a hover, it does but not very impressively.
If you had a vertical race, the Evo would smoke the DA everytime and it doens't have the sluggish throttle DAs have.
For 100 cc and 150 cc DAs are great. But the 50 is an overated, over hyped, pos.[:'(]

Flyin Woodbutcher

My Feedback: (3)

Disco you need to read rctoms post more careful. Also the evo weighs a pound plus more than the DA fidi , you need the power to pull that fat pig out of a hover.[:'(]

Kent

jimmyjoe

My Feedback: (21)

the DA, ZDZ have the power to fly these planes. However, I own a 58gx and yes it does have lots of power and very easy to fly. Pull a wall into a hover and completely rocket out of the hover no problems. The DA, ZDZez need just a little more routine planning. It also sounds like there is a tunning issue with your DA Disco Wings. Those motors are very strong, but not as strong as the 58GX. Don't want to sound like I am bashing but I would take the extra weight with this horsepower anyday. Evolution 58 GX[sm=sunsmiley.gif]

DiscoWings

My Feedback: (76)

I"M NOT A DUCK!![:@][&o]

DiscoWings

My Feedback: (76)

I have flown 4 DA's 2 of them were before they came out with th R revision. On one of them, the crankshaft broke, on the other it had a messed up carb.

2 of them were the R version, thats exactly the time DA upped the price of the engine by 50 dollars (they used to be 549.99...)
On both of these engines their was this terrible throttle lag. The throttle was just mushy, don't get me wrong it had power but the lag was just bad. The throttle servo was a 5925, .08 digital servo on both engines, so speed was not the issue. The issue was with the engine it self.

For the people that have flow the DA-50 and other 50 cc gas engines, they will tell you, their is a throttle lag problem. Its not a tunning issue, even veterans know its just the way the engine is. Many people get used to it and that is fine. I however would choose the Evolution 45 or the ZDZ 50 over the DA-50 any day if weight was the prime target. However in a 28% you can easily put a 60 cc engine and be just fine, thus the EVO 58 is the engine of choice.

adrian-RCU

i have all three - DA50r - ZDZ50ng - mvvs58 - the two light weights are absolutely the same on power and identical exhaust - the DA has been back for crank problems - the ZDZ starts more complicated but has much better transition - the 58 smokes them both so bad you cant even put them in the same league - i think the mvvs 45 is a perfect match for the two 50cc engines - the zdz is in a aeroworks katana at 18 lbs - the DA is in a chip DV 16.5 lbs - the mvvs is in a yak toc/AM 30% at 17.5lbs- all the planes have there own caractor and all fly great - the mvvs is a step ahead - the zdz has the best throttle response i have ever seen - and the da is great - what i will buy next is the mvvs/evolution 45!!

RichD

Just last night I was looking at engines trying to decide if getting a gasser was feasible or not (with my budget). I was looking at the two mentioned engines also; the DA and the Evo, then the Brisson 3.2 joined the bunch. I am glad this thread got resurrected... answered several questions.

I was looking at the 28% edge myself.

If not, the baby edge will be for sure later this year (have an OS 1.60 for it already)

airborneSGT

My Feedback: (15)

Funny my DA 50 swings a 22x8 at 7000 or more I think. The FPE 3.2 will pull harder than a Brison 3.2 IMHO as I have flown both in the same airframe.

I would always go with a lighter engine overall. I think the DA 50 or ZDZ 50 are great. I also think the FPE 3.2 and the DA 50 seem about equal as far as power and transition. I used the same 5925 servo also for my throttle.

ICE_MAN

Man I forgot about this thread! Still some good info!

BTW, I wound up witha 3W 106Competition... Funny how things change

bluemagic98

ive flown the ultimate with a DA 50 for 40 hours and this year i got a new Evolution 58 for it and its a lot more motor the 24" props are swung with authority and that adds a lot of blast area for your 3-d pleasure. The extra pound is not an issue in the least. I often wonder why people keep saying lighter wing loading is the secret to 3-D when the wings are pointed up and the plane is hanging on the prop what load is the wing taking? the ultimate will sink a tad faster if you cut the throttle so getting back into them smooth as silk landings my take me a few days at the field but so far so good. Ide like to fly this plane with a DA again I may try a swap someday with my edge just for yucks but both engines have there place and power is a sweet thing if you ask me. when this new 58 gx 2 is broken in and tuned in im sure ill be a happier camper than i allready am.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

If it was mine it would already be running like it was made to run. I have problems with this "breaking in" thing on gassers. I've never found a need for it. Glow engine, you bet, but gassers no. Tweak that baby and don't look back because you won't have a need to.

bluemagic98

Try as i might the transition and mid range on this motor wont be neerly as smooth as it can be till she has had a few flights every 2 or three flights will need a touch of adjustment till it is all settled in even the little Evolution 46's need to be tweeked for a gal or so. My OS's are sweet out of the box My DA was sweet from day one this one if i lean the burble out of it i loose the transition she wont spool up unless she is 1/2 to 3/4 turn to the ritch my last 58 was the same till the 3rd gal could it be the break in oil shipped with this motor? Mystry to me

bluemagic98

let me ask you this setting the high speed do you allways set to the highes speed you can get? this one has about 1/2 turn between ritch and lean it will slow to the lean at 3 oclock and slow a tad to the rich at 9 oclock i run it at about 11 oclock where noon is the fastest speed the low speed is as sensative if not more at 9 oclock i an ritch with good transition at 3 oclock im lean and smooth as glass but no transition again 11 oclock seems good when hot but when cold forget it 10 oclock works best when cold Granted this has 4 10 min flights on it and im not expecting any better till it has 3-4 gal on it my last 58 was set at the 1 oclock spot and was very smooth and transition was awsome had zero complaints Im sure this one will get there. I know mixture settings have been covered a million times but i thought as you did for years Just fly it silly break in? when im done with a 425hp cat i load it up with gravel and climb the damn hill with it when i get to the top its all set Break in? Ya i change the oil sooner I run it harder than the driver will how els am i to know if he will break it? And no i never ever lost one i built. but this isnt a putty cat or a mack or a navistar i seen a navistar with a valve stuck in the piston on edge that sounded neet.

these settings are relative to the machining of the screw in the engine you are ussing and your engine may not reflect the same clock position but the relationship from rich to lean should be close no mater what time it is. just so no one sets theres at noon and complains to me because we all know engines run better at beer :30

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

You assessed what I (and many others) do with a new engine correctly. When it makes it to the nose of the plane it gets the needles set for max performance from the first run. As a rule I don't bench run any gasser. That first run is the one that sets things up for the rest of it's life, which is usually quite long unless it hits the ground. I know of at least one major university applied physics lab that recommended the same thing in the running of engines on other forms of air vehicles with smaller engines.

Let's move away from needle clock positions since it's really not relevant and do some rough needle settings. Start the engine and lean the low needle until it drops rpm. Back it out to peak again. Turn the high needle until max rpm and back off about 100 rpm. You don't need a tach, your ear will do fine. Check the transition from low to high. Go back and re-peak the low needle. Leave it at peak. Once again peak the high needle and back off just a touch. Check transition. Always leave the high needle just rich of peak, and the low right at peak. Amazing how often someone will be tweaking the high needle when it's the low needle that needs to move about 1/16 turn to balance it all out.

Remember to do all this in short running sessions on the ground, 3 to 4 minutes, or less, if possible, leaving about 1/2 hour between runs to let the engine cool. No cowl!! 150c (302f) is as high as you ever want to get with the engine temp. Those little heat guns are terribly inaccurate, but better than nothing. If you use one always aim it at the base of the spark plug for a reference location.

Back to the needles. You should be very close at this point. Close enough to get some pretty nice flying in withut concerns about the engine. It may need some minor adjustments from this point as it breaks in. Use the oil you intend to run forever from the first day unless the manufacturer is anal about a break in oil. I prefer synthetics for their superior lubricating properties, but some manufacturers are still locked in the stone age and like nautural oils. To me the purpose of oil is to lubricate, cool. clean, and minimize wear. Why would I ever want to maximize wear with a lesser quality of oil? You wouldn't run Quaker State in a 425 kitty, would you?

Edit below;

I forgot to note that 95% of transition adjustments will be made at the low needle, about 1/16 of a turn at a time either way.

For those just getting their first gasser, note that the needle settings are much finer than those of a glow engine. Where you used to be able to adjust things in increments of 1/2 turn or so you will find gassers are much more sensitive and require all the needle adjustments to be done in finer steps. A 1/8 to 1/16 of a turn can be quite a difference.

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Not all 3D is pointed straight up, lighter will fly better.

rctom

There is one time that you can use less lubrication, and that is during the first few minutes of the engine's life.

When the cylinder is manufactured its surface is honed to a finish which, if viewed with a microscope, would look like zillions of peaks and valleys. The face of the piston ring is also not perfectly smooth.

During the first few minutes of operation the piston ring moves across the peaks and knocks off the tops, leaving valleys and mountains with flat tops. The ring rides on the flat tops and the valleys retain lubricating oil. Also the ring's microscopic imperfections wear and the ring conforms to the cylinder's shape. This is what happens when the ring seats.

If you have too much lubricity on the first run the anitcipated wear does not occur, and the ring never really seals in the cylinder. This is why manufacturers suggest mineral oil for break-in, synthetic oil can retard ring seating.

I agree that running the engine fairly hard from the start is not only permissable, it will help all those parts inside to get to know one-another more quickly.


TF