RE: Gilbert .11 - equivalent engine?
Thank you for the detailed response. I am currently running 7-3s on mine - the 7-3.5 just would *not* exceed a certain speed - there was no up or down, no range at all. I was running Hangar 9 aero blend with 15% nitro. Yes, I have gathered from a number of sources that this engine is equivalent to a .09. Fair enough. At least it runs well and there are plenty in the box. Now to find a plane from Brodak that will take an engine this size and fly reasonably well. Not gonna smoke the circle, but hey, it's almost fifty years old. I am glad it *runs*. Steve
Posted on: 7/7/2012 6:55 PM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11147032

RE: 1977 Blue Can Cox glow fuel...
Thank you! I copied the blueprint for my own records. Thanks for supplying it. I am wondering if my Gilbert .11 will run okay on that mixture.
Posted on: 5/26/2012 5:50 PM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11095672

1977 Blue Can Cox glow fuel...
I have about fifteen of these cans, all unopened. What percentage nitro did this fuel have, and is the stuff likely to still be good? Cent13
Posted on: 5/26/2012 3:53 PM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11095608

RE: Gilbert .11 - equivalent engine?
[quote]ORIGINAL: controlliner I've run my .11's and .07 and they are quite spirited engines with the right prop. I have found that the .11 will except the Cox .15 medallion head and run well. I have also used the glow plug adaptor sold by McDaniels R/C in the 1980's. The ball and socket reset tool for the Cox .09 work on the Gilbert .11 piston with excellent results. You just have to not use the receptacle for the Cox .09 piston. [/quote] Which props gave you the best performance with the Gilbert .11? I tried getting hold of some 7-3.5 props, but all I could find were Thimble Drome plastic jobs, and after forty years in the package, the darned thing snapped right off as I was flip starting it! Steve
Posted on: 5/8/2012 10:04 PM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11073794

RE: Gilbert .11 - equivalent engine?
An interesting illustration of the power of the internet - there is no way I would have thought to examine the actual function of the Gilbert engine. Thank you. That said, your comments prompted me to study three-port design. I believe, though I am ready to be set straight, there may not be as much blow-back of the fuel/air charge as you suggest. I have no data to back this up, other than the successful running of the engine and the notion that the inertia of the incoming charge itself may go some way towards resisting blow-back before the downward-traveling piston closes off that port. At any rate, it would appear this type of engine produces what power it has at lower RPMs than a reed or rotary valve engine of similar displacement. At some point the moving piston and the inertia of the air itself will achieve equilibrium. Yes, the Gilbert .11 probably has only the power of a reed-valve .049 Cox, one of the ordinary Baby Bee versions instead of the hot-rod types. I am unsure as to why Gilbert settled for such a design when engine technology in the early 1960s was already well beyond the performance of the three-port design. The planes powered by these engines were fairly narrow chord, built for looks rather than performance, and heavy in their own right. I have had little trouble starting mine in the correct direction; though there have been a few reverse starts, stopping the engine dead is a simple matter of covering the intake vent with a finger. The engine mount holes require drilling out, as the screw size a stock engine permits is inadequate for quick, safe mounting without liberal use of washers to spread out the load on the mounts. Also, some loctite seems to be in order for the exhaust stacks, whose single attachment screw seems to want to walk itself out during a run. I discovered this during the test phase - perhaps propeller balancing is in order to reduce the vibration? And someone, somewhere, suggested a bit of steel wool stuffed gently into the exhaust stacks might dampen the noise a bit, but I hesitate to mess with them - backpressure can only reduce the output of this engine, to my mind. I am betting that a 36 inch wingspan combined with a seven inch chord should provide the lift to counter the weight of the engine, tank and fuel. The result will not be fast, but it will perform aerobatics and represent for a generation of flyers who are passing away with every day. Thoughts? Steve
Posted on: 5/8/2012 9:53 PM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11073786

RE: Gilbert .11 - equivalent engine?
[quote]ORIGINAL: controlliner I've run my .11's and .07 and they are quite spirited engines with the right prop. I have found that the .11 will except the Cox .15 medallion head and run well. I have also used the glow plug adaptor sold by McDaniels R/C in the 1980's. The ball and socket reset tool for the Cox .09 work on the Gilbert .11 piston with excellent results. You just have to not use the receptacle for the Cox .09 piston. [/quote] In the case of the .11, what would be the 'right prop'? Cent13
Posted on: 4/16/2012 5:25 PM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11044827

RE: Gilbert .11 - equivalent engine?
[quote]ORIGINAL: aspeed I figure it is 14,000 rpm with my method (A# on the synthesizer) 40 mph on a clean plane. Not really that bad, but a Thunder Tiger .10 does that with a 7-4, and an OS LA .10 does 16,200 with a 7-4 which is a bigger load. Really a Jumping Bean would be ok on longer lines like maybe 45 to 50 feet but would be nose heavy.  [/quote] I am thinking a Flying Clown from Brodak will fit the bill. They are out of them, but there are other similar frames that will do the job. I came into three of them from a friend, and bought three more online. So now I just need to get the plane! Thanks. Cent13
Posted on: 4/15/2012 6:59 PM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11043466

RE: Gilbert .11 - equivalent engine?
Well, have not put a tachometer to it but you can see it run in my garage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onmKTO1KG7I and I have read that it moves around 8-10,000 rpm. There are a few other demos of this engine on YouTube and I believe one of them puts a tach to the .07 Gilbert (much faster). Again, this is with a 7-3 prop - the stock prop was a 7-4 plastic number, and I have also read that a 7-3.5 (if such a thing exists) would be ideal. The issue for me is to find a profile C/L plane that uses an engine of this size - say, a .10 or so. I am not going to put it on a Jumpin' Bean - much as I like them, the wing area simply is not enough. I am not the most proficient at building from blueprints, so for me it would be ideal to build from a kit less than 10 years old. Cent13
Posted on: 4/15/2012 2:09 PM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11042951

Gilbert .11 - equivalent engine?
I have several of these beauties and would like to know in which Control Line model they would work best. What engine are they equivalent to? A Cox .10? An OS .15? I am running them with 7-3 props. Thanks, Cent13
Posted on: 4/14/2012 2:48 PM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11041862

RE: Brodak Gladiator?
[quote]ORIGINAL: cutaway Should fly better than a Lil Satan ;-> [/quote] Agreed. Those flew well, but I don't recall them being all that maneuverable. Having constructed a similarly-sized series of planes for my son, I can vouch for the flying characteristics, though mine are self-designed and built. Cent13
Posted on: 12/1/2008 2:25 PM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8201721

Cox .049 Cast Engines
Bought a few of these off Ebay the other day and I actually have one of the red tanks kicking around someplace. Was wondering (1) if the narrow slot exhaust ports inhibit performance and (2) whether these engines are good performers on their own or simply a source of spare parts. Cent13
Posted on: 12/1/2008 2:09 PM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8201668

RE: LIL WIZARD
[quote]ORIGINAL: green river rc It got about 1/4" chipped off one end so I just evened them up a little....Come on guys, we have all done it[sm=72_72.gif]. [/quote] Not me. Not only do I not have the skill at balancing the prop after trimming it, I would be afraid of ruining the bearing on the engine. Maybe I need to grow more spine, but those little engines are not very forgiving. I tighten the pistons every so often with that nifty gadget Davis Diesel sells, but if the prop gets a nick, I just get another prop. They're cheaper than a sixty-dollar engine. Cent13
Posted on: 7/4/2007 2:02 PM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6070240

RE: LIL WIZARD
I still have the Wizard in the box. My own design for my son worked beautifully, until the sixth time it rammed the ground from a wingover. The firewall just fell off. I salvaged the plane and we are reinforcing the fuselage box for the next plane, which is the same thing (I cut three sets of balsa parts for each design to save effort). He likes flying. Can you believe it? Now I just have to get him to enjoy building them.... Cent13
Posted on: 6/15/2007 12:40 AM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5989819

RE: LIL WIZARD
[quote]ORIGINAL: Phlip The LW's claim to fame is that it'll fly on long lines and stay tight, which it does. It's also pretty tough ... it'll take a lot of abuse.... I think if you're going to change everything, why not build your own design? Good luck, Phil [/quote] Good point, and you're right. But I like the looks, and don't think adding area to the wing and the elevator will affect its current claims to fame. However, I have been thinking long and hard on the damage I saw on the Stuntman 23's fuselage just aft of the trailing edge. That is suspiciously like the damage to my old Bean, and it may be that in crashing a balsa wood profile plane, this is the traditional weak point. Am I right? Therefore, I will have to reinforce the area with plywood stiffeners. Especially if I intend to extent the wing chord. But all I'm really trying to do is improve the response on this beauty, so maybe not figure eights, but loops and wingovers are possible. Regards, Cent13
Posted on: 9/2/2006 9:31 PM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4702578

RE: LIL WIZARD
Weeeeelll....the trailing edge of that nicely curved wing is just thick enough to attach a 3/32nd thick sheet. The present chord is 3.5 inches - I could easily extend it another 2 inches, at least. I was thinking of extending the fuselage a bit, a couple of inches. But that would be a matter of copying the original, then inserting the extra length into the template, and [i]then[/i] moving to new balsa. How much would that or simply extending the wing spoil the original design's performance? As it stands, the original is a fancy plank with a motor strapped on. The plastic Testor's planes from the store would perform just as well. Regards, Cent13
Posted on: 9/2/2006 9:24 PM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4701481

RE: LIL WIZARD
Just got a Li'l Wizard from a fellow in Tacoma. Still in the wrapper. Ebay. Looked at the wing and it's an airfoil shape, so it will be tough to replace it with something a bit bigger. I would like to modify the wing for more area (along the lines of the Stuntman 23, another boardwing I tried and failed to get from Ebay), and possibly increase the area of the elevator. I may have to forgo the wonderful airfoil shape wing (can anyone tell me if it is more effective than a straight plank?), because it is just too small. Also, going to adjust the CG if I can, to about 20% behind the leading edge, if my memory serves me. I usually design and build my own, but I need something 'off the shelf' for quick building. Thought I would deconstruct the really old Stuntman 23 and copy the parts, but even after successfully taking it apart, the model (over 30 years old) will be hard to copy. The wing was built up out of four seperate pieces of sheet balsa. I would probably have been better off with a Jumpin' Bean, but boardwings are fun to fly, too, and the cheapest way I know to get the neighborhood kids involved. Cent13
Posted on: 9/2/2006 1:16 AM by Author "Centurion13" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4699879