I'm about to start the assembly of my 1st glow powered plane.

I've been actively involved with R/C for almost 5 years (but I learn very slowly ). I've been all electric until now. My hangar is comprised of 4 helicopters, 300 size (23" rotor) to 550 size (49" rotor), and 5 planes, a 14" WS Ember up to a 52" WS Escapade (low wing sport plane). I would say I'm a passable pilot with both fixed and rotary wing craft. Just sport stuff, no 3d, minor aerobatics.

Plane number 5 will be a 61" WS Lancair 52 ARF. It's another low wing sport plane, modeled after the full size homebuilt line. Nitroplanes used to sell 'em. I got a deal on a NIB airframe locally and decided I would go glow with this one.

Manual suggests a .46 to .52 size 2 stroke or a .60 to .70 size 4 stroke. Flying weight is listed as 5 -6 lbs. I'm on a very tight budget, so would like advice on choosing a decent, inexpensive, easy to live with glow engine. Probably a 2 stroke, as these appear to be less expensive and mechanically simpler, and will stick out of the cowl less (engine will mount with cylinder to the right side of the plane.), though I really like the sound of a 4 stroke.


Suggesting good search terms is welcome. Recommendations of specific brands or models of engine also welcome.

Thanks for taking the time.

Dave

(having your rocker covers stick out of the cowl is a cool badge for most people)

pretty much anything can be reliable. if it were me id still grab a 4-stroke. they're just better for this kinda stuff where you don't need the absolutely most compact highest power / weight ratio possible. even if the budget says you have to buy a used engine and clean it up (hello warm antifreeze bath (crockpot))

i digress. pick anything in the recommended size range & it'll work. not evolution. my love of horizon does not extend to those anemic lumps

Thanks, toysrme. Yeah, I wouldn't mind the valve gear sticking out so much, but it looks like I have about 2.5" from prop shaft to the cowl, and what appear to be appropriately sized 4 strokes (.62 - .72) measure 3.4" to 3.8". Not sure how tall just the valve gear covers are, but an inch and 3 eighths seems like a lot of metal to hang out there? Maybe that's more common than I think?

Dave

Here's a pic of the plane (from the Nitroplanes.com site) to give an idea of the cowl:

cheap...ok how about an LA 46 from OS?

I just bought a super tigre 51 and I love it. can't beat the price. very fuel effecient compared to my os 50 sx heli engine.

Thanks for the suggestions, guys. Keep 'em coming.

Jetmech, I'm a bit leery of plain bearing engines. But what do I know? The LA engines are certainly less costly than the AX line.

Who makes Super Tigre?

Dave

The LA series engines are bushing type not bearings...but work very well and last along time...my first 40 and 60 sized engines were LA's

By 'plain bearing' I meant bushing. No biggie.

Actually, I bought an engine from a club mate last night. More than I intended to spend, but a good deal. It's a new-out-of-the-box OS .52 four stroke. I got it with a guarantee that if the plane turns out to be underpowered, he'll take it back or swap it for something bigger.

The size is about perfect -- mounting tab to top of head is barely over 2.5", to top of valve cover it's about 3.3". So mostly just the valve cover and exhaust will poke out of the cowl.

Dave

In my opinion, The Magnum engines represent a good value. I've sold many Magnums and my customers experiences have been overwhelmingly positive.

I visited my seller today -- we had an engine running session. I decided I'd rather have a power cushion and that it wasn't such an eyesore for the top of the cylinder head to poke out of the cowling, so I traded back the OS .52 for an OS .70. The .70 ran fine, but the .52 was particularly sweet.

Dave

Update. At long last the airframe is complete, and the engine has been run a couple of times. The FS-70 sticks out of the cowl cheek a fair amount, but doesn't look unsightly. Plane looks good, have received many favorable comments from fellow club members.

However, I have learned that this engine is an FS70s, either the first or nearly the first of the OS Surpass line, design dating to 1988. Would have thought thrice about buying had I known that at the time. Club engine guru has pronounced that it needs main bearings, and his tuning efforts have not been rewarded with a reliably running engine. I am collecting some replacement parts (not easy because some are out of production) and have acquired the bearings, a new glow plug, an intake manifold gasket, and all but 1 (I think) o-ring for the carb.

Experienced engine guys in the club have kindly offered to replace the bearings, and I am going to take up that offer.

Dave

Originally Posted by hancockdw

Update. At long last the airframe is complete, and the engine has been run a couple of times. The FS-70 sticks out of the cowl cheek a fair amount, but doesn't look unsightly. Plane looks good, have received many favorable comments from fellow club members.

However, I have learned that this engine is an FS70s, either the first or nearly the first of the OS Surpass line, design dating to 1988. Would have thought thrice about buying had I known that at the time. Club engine guru has pronounced that it needs main bearings, and his tuning efforts have not been rewarded with a reliably running engine. I am collecting some replacement parts (not easy because some are out of production) and have acquired the bearings, a new glow plug, an intake manifold gasket, and all but 1 (I think) o-ring for the carb.

Experienced engine guys in the club have kindly offered to replace the bearings, and I am going to take up that offer.

Dave

Sounds like you are in with a good bunch and your engine will run fine for many flights! Let us know how the refreshed 70 pulls the plane around.

Yes, I think I am in pretty good hands. Several of the guys in the club are very competent mechanics, we have electrical engineers, high-powered programmers, and then some duffers like me!

I have actually taxied the plane a little, and that plus subjective judgment of thrust on the test stand predict this puppy won't have a shortage of power. All up weight is only going to be 5 1/2 or 6 pounds. I have had a 12" prop on her but reviewing the docs for the engine I saw that for "scale" use a 13 x 6 is recommended, so I bought a couple yesterday.

Dave

Dave , i had the nitroplanes lancair a few years back , when i ran nitro before i moved to electric and gas.... I had a magnum .52 four stroke in and it it had pulled it around just fine , it wasnt a speed demon by any means but it was not underpowered , i imagine with a .70 in it it would scoot around no problem , however the only thing i might see being an issue is weight , my lancair had required a bit of speed on landing to keep it from stalling , with the extra weight in the nose from the OS .70 be careful on landing and keep your speed up , other than that im sure she will be a rocket!!!!
Gary

Thanks for the post, Gary. Nice to hear from someone else who has experience with this plane. It certainly gets a lot of approving looks from club members.

It looks like it will be a little bouncy in ground handling on grass because of the short wheelbase. And I'm still not very good at landings in general. I frequently bounce my electric Escapade. By my earlier calculations the Lancair will have a slightly lower wing loading. So hopefully it will be no worse. I just need more practice, I think.

Dave

By the way, I bought a big box of o-rings at Harbor freight yesterday. They are made of nitrile "rubber" -- box claims they are heat-resistant. I hope a couple of them are the right size to replace the ones I haven't found for the carburetor. And that they won't burn or melt!