RE: morning all
[quote]ORIGINAL: AMB morning all and Hobbsy site a bit quiet martin [/quote] Thanks Martin, Good morning and good all day long to you. Tony (Corona, Calif)
Posted on: 8/11/2012 9:25 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11189330

RE: Simple Trainer for a .15?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Jim Thomerson Here is one of my Guillows #2 trainers. It has hundreds of flights on it. Engine is a worn out McCoy 19 with 9 x 4 prop. In a fourstroke it gives 7 sec laps on 65 ft 015 lines. Not uniflow, so the last few laps are down to 6 sec; about 28 laps total. Dimensions are; span 30 in, Chord 7 in to 5 1/2 at tip, fixed flap, wing 3/8 thick. 5 in from LE of wing to glowplug, 15.5 from LE of wing to elevator hinge line, stab span 13 in, stab 2 1/2in center with 2 in tips. Elevator 1 5/8 in center with 1 3/8 tips. CG 3/4 in back of wing LE. Fuselage 3/4 balsa, engine mount 3/4 in hardwood. [/quote] Hi Jim, My Dad bought the precurser to that model, I believe it was simply called the Trixter Trainer. It had a 28" wing span, and came with wire landing gear and a pair of turned hardwood wheels. My Dad mounted an OS Max-1 .35 in it. It actually was a great flying model, My Dad flew solo on his second flight. I flew it several times and managed to fly it inverted from a wingover entry. That was rather bold(stupid..!) of me since it had the cumpulsory 2 ounce Rectank. My dad flew it on .015" X 60' lines. He gave the model to some kid at the flying field(Hawthorne HS Calif) several months later, but kept the engine and installed it in an AJ Firecat. My Dad probably flew the Trainer over 250 times. I'm sure it would have flown much better with your McCoy .19, because it didn't glide very well with Max-1 .35 in the nose. Thanks for jogging my memory with your pics and comments.[;)] Tony
Posted on: 8/11/2012 9:11 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11189316

RE: Corehouse Li'l Hacker
[quote]ORIGINAL: Aero Antics OK Tony, now I understand! Using a stunt kite on a single handle sounds like great fun and a new way to practice. I have a nice kite that will work great for that. I just bought new lines for it a while back so I will make up some kind of a handle for it and try it out. [/quote] Good For You Allen! I used a 7/8" dowel with two eyelets spaced 15 inches apart, for medium size kites. You can try smaller spacings if you wish. Best of luck; Tony
Posted on: 8/9/2012 10:15 PM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11187809

RE: More 2.5cc Diesels
[quote]ORIGINAL: ffkiwi Disappointing to hear that its no good for Classic T/R! Not much you can do about cylinder timing-presumably it must be timed too high? Can you give any details on what the perceived limitations were? Otherwise the liner could be shimmed.... If it was induction, then a new drum could be madeI've only bench run it-on F/F style props-and didn't tach it-but the handling is impeccable.............next time I run it I'll try and remember to tach it on a few different prop sizes............I didn't get it new-it came from a deceased estate via a third party-the purchase documentation is still in the box-it was purchased from Engines Unlimited in the UK , Feb 7th, 1997. It hasn't had a lot of running I estimate-but is run-in. ChrisM 'ffkiwi' [/quote] Hi Chris, I have two Pfeffer 2.5CC replicas , yet I've only run one of them for a few very short runs. I don't understand the low performance reported about this engine. My preliminary testing with a very tight and not run-in engine was very promising. My moth-eaten documentation shows 15,500+ rpms with a Russian 8" X 4" prop. The engine ran very smoothly; so I gave the fuel line a pinch for several seconds and the tach showed rpm spikes over 16,000. I lost interest in everything concerning model testing around that time. I'm retired now and old modeling urges are sneeking up on me again.[:D] I forgot to mention that my two Pfeffer replicas are different versions. The version I test ran is just like the ones you've pictured. My other un-run version is the "Special Edition" Team Race version that comes with a spinner and integral fuel shutoff, also a display stand and plaque. I think they're serial numbered 451-500 or something. Tony
Posted on: 8/7/2012 9:24 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11184312

RE: Corehouse Li'l Hacker
Well Allen, In that case, I'm sure your son will do just fine flying a stunt kite using a single handle for both lines; he should learn very quickly. I do repeat, flying a stunt kite using handles in both hands is not the same process and requires very different learning. In essence, your son has trained both lobes of his cortex when he learned to fly the kites. He will need to train a single lobe for both line inputs. With his experience, I suggest that your son get a Prism Micron and fly on 60' 30 lb Spectra. He'll probably love it. The Micron is extremely fast and will speed over 65 mph in 18 mph wind. In 16-18 mph wind, the Micron will pull as hard as an FAI combat ship and will turn faster than a 1/2A Combat model. I still believe the stunt kite is the best intro to control line areobatics, and it can survive countless crashes without breaking. Stunt kites can do all aerobatics except overhead stuff. Tony
Posted on: 8/6/2012 8:54 PM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11183729

RE: Corehouse Li'l Hacker
[quote]ORIGINAL: Aero Antics I just finished a pair of Hackers. One has a Norvel with a 6x3 and one has Tee Dee. Covered them with scraps of low-temp covering. I have flown the Norvel powered one. Running the suction tank and found out real quick that it would turn quick enough to kill the engine. Never flown combat and most likely won't, but the Hacker is a blast to fly. I'm got them so my son could learn the stunt pattern. I like it! [/quote] Hi Allen, Muffler pressure will not cut it when trying to get constant fuel delivery when flying a 1/2A Combat model. You absolutely will need a fuel bladder tank. Phil Cartier has the components to make bladder tanks and I believe he has bladder tanks ready to go. Reach him at his business: The Core House http://home.earthlink.net/~philcartier/webcat/pricelist.html Your Lil Hackers will fly much better when you change your 6 X 3 for 5" X 3" props. The 6x3 prop holds those engines back too much. The model will fly faster and turn much tighter. The larger dia. prop will be okay if your just learning to fly a 1/2A Combat model... for several first flights; change to a 5" X 3" as soon as you can. If you want to your son to really learn to fly Stunt; then I strongly suggest you buy him a two-line Stunt Kite, attach both lines to a single 15" handle, and fly it on 75' length lines. Fly in medium wind: 08-12 mph (approx). We've taught many new flyers using stunt kites; and all of the neophytes(9-40 yrs old) were able to fly insides, outsides, and lazy eights on their very first powered control line attempt. You'll save a small fortune using a stunt kite as a primary trainer. [;)] Best of luck; Tony
Posted on: 8/5/2012 5:50 PM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11182204

RE: 1/2A Combat engine ?
[b][/b]Thanks Ken, That is a perfect description of the model and your efforts to get it trimmed. I probably would have written it off as hopeless, but then I'm lazy. Since many flyers are now flying 1/2A Combat with provisional rules allowing "Run what you brung" displacement flexability, that is probably best, just to keep the fun going. Tony[b][/b]
Posted on: 8/3/2012 4:55 PM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11180113

RE: 1/2A Combat engine ?
Hi Ken, can you describe the "GLADIATOR" design, that is, how much is the wing area and total flying weight? I stopped flying 1/2A combat 20 years ago, this was just before the Foras and other super peformance .049s displaced the Cox TDs. That was in the 35' X .012" lines days. The entry of the Hyper-performance .049s caused a rules change to 42' lines. This actually caused the almost total demise of the popularity of the 1/2A event. It cost too much to field 3-4 engines, and most competitors stopped designing and building their own models; they simply bought RTF models at approx $50 each. The real paradox was that even though the new models with modern engines were capable of flying 8-10 mph faster than the TD models; on 42' lines, the modern 1/2A models were flying the same lap times as the older TD ships!! My TD 1/2A Combat models were as fast as anybody's models that I flew against; and I could trim my models to fly faster than I could control them. I flew my models at 72-73 mph, My son could control the same model at 75-76 mph. He was young and had the reflexes of a squirrel. My ships were 200sq" designs. With the advent of the modern .049 engine, I surmised that the new engines woud need a 320-335sq" wing to slow them down to 73-75 mph. but they would have a lighter wing loading and out turn the TD ships...on 35' lines. [8|] Apologies for the tome. Tony
Posted on: 8/2/2012 9:21 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11178471

RE: CL 1949 Puddle Jumper with AH Drone diesel
[quote]ORIGINAL: bobsrc Sig Mfg. Co. is now making updated kits for the Berkeley Mini-Zilch which is a perfect control line airoplane for these small diesels. Laser cutting and first rate wood with the original Berkeley planes. It has a 19'' span built up wing and full fuselage and is as cute as a bugs ear. [/quote] Hi Bob, how do we go about ordering one of these Mini Zilch models? I built two in my life. One was back in 1951(??) for my Baby Spitfire .045 that came from my Wen Mac AeroMite. The other was about 20 years ago from third or fourth hand plans. An ebay Baby Spitfire went into that one. I do recommend a very small displacement diesel engine; such as a weak .50cc or strong .35cc diesel engine. The Mini Zilch is a very tiny minimal wing area design and an engine such as a PAW .5cc would really be overkill. While I'm at it, I'd love to see SIG produce kits of the [b][/b]WEE DUPER ZILCH [b][/b] and [b][/b]LIL DUPER ZILCH[b][/b]. Thanks for the heads up; Tony
Posted on: 7/31/2012 11:03 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11176038

RE: Voodoo Plane
Hi EHE, That Voodoo looks an awful lot like a SNEEKER to me. That's good because the SNEEKER flies a lot better than a Voodoo. Tony
Posted on: 7/30/2012 10:43 PM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11175502

RE: Corehouse Li'l Hacker
[quote]ORIGINAL: Godsey I picked up some balloons today. I am going to see if I can work up a pressureless system. I have an idea on how to do it. [/quote] Hi Godsey, If you prop your TD for RPMs correctly, you'l use as 5X3 prop. The Lil Hacker is capable of G forces that will ruin a suction system delivery. You do need to run the TD on pressure when flying a well designed 1/2A combat model....you really have no choice. So check on any Combat forums that you may find, and ask how to make and use a pressure fuel system. All of us old retired Combat flyers learned by asking the appropriate person. You may have to mail order the components such as rocket tubes, 1/32" wall 3/16" OD surgical tubing and a set of forceps to pinch off the fuel flow. Almost forgot; a fuel syringe. Tony
Posted on: 7/28/2012 6:51 PM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11172711

RE: 1/2a Combat
[quote]ORIGINAL: Godsey I have been looking for plans for 1/2a Combat Wings. I have checked outerzone. Not a whole lot there. What plans do you all have hidden away? Rolla [/quote] Well, Randy has pointed you to an excellent source compiled by Barry Baxter. Before you select a plan, What genera are you looking for? Is it the current 42' line length designs or are you interested in the prior generation TD powered designs? If you're looking at contemporary models, you are looking at 250-300sq" wing areas; TD stuff can be 189-220 sq" wings. before that period, you will be looking at the too smallish wing area model and kits. I think Barry has all bases covered, and if you want a model for modern combat engines, He can increase the plan size to yield suitable models in the 250-300sq" area range. Barry's 1/2A DoomBat is a excellent flying and strong model that is perfect for TD Combat. It has built up wing with a foam leading edge and I believe the ready to fly weight is around 5 1/4ozs. Tony
Posted on: 7/28/2012 6:30 PM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11172688

RE: Corehouse Li'l Hacker
[quote]ORIGINAL: aspeed There are some bladders that are being used that look like a kitten sized condom.  They are used for resealing caulking tubes and are available at Lee Valley Tools in Canada for about $5 for 20 of them. They are a very thin wall, low pressure balloon thickness pretty much like a pacifier. They don't last too long but are ok for a couple of sessions likely. A normal needle could be used because of the lower pressure.  I just bought some latex tubing from the medical supply store that is surgical tubing with a 1/16'' hole and a 1/8'' OD that I plan to use for a bladder.  We used to use a cigar aluminum case or a suitable sized syringe without the plunger that was trimmed and screwed on to the side of the plane's profile fuselage. It could be stuffed into a combat likely too, or just attached to the top of the wing somewhere handy. [/quote] Hi aspeed, I've used 1/8" OD surical tubing for 1/2A combat and 1/2A speed bladders before. That size basically has pressure that is to high for easy and consistent needle settings. I then switched to 1/32" wall by 3/16" or 1/4" OD and the pressure was much easier to set and the bladders lasted MUCH longer! I was using Dale Kirn's and Joe Klause's fine thread needle assys on my TD 049s.. These were encased in either 7/8" or 1" rocket tubes. exposed external floppy tubing tanks are subject to cutting breakage or impact hysterisis(reduced pressure) caused by bumping the airframe, by glancing opponents models. Tony
Posted on: 7/25/2012 9:14 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11168593

RE: CL 1949 Puddle Jumper with AH Drone diesel
[b]Jim, I'm so envious, that I hate myself. What a beautiful model you've built and flown. I've built Berkeley's second version. It's called the Junior Puddle Jumper; it's the version with the twin-foil sheeted wing and has a die-printed fuselage and stamped metal cowling. It is yet unpainted , but it is already too heavy for decent flight performance with the DC Dart I was planning on using. Great Effort Jim! Tony[/b]
Posted on: 7/22/2012 6:06 PM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11165028

RE: MVVS 09 diesel
[b]Hi Gaz, Your photos show the same CS 09BB diesel that I have. I guess mine is not fit as tight as yours; mine was very easy to start. I had no problem with restarts too. Tony[/b]
Posted on: 7/16/2012 6:31 PM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11157170

RE: New 09 Diesel
[quote]ORIGINAL: Jim Thomerson After some 55 years the TD 09, a 1.5cc engine, is still the standard of comparison. As said the 09 size engines were orphans in the USA, not really paid attention to. I think the TD 09 would have been a good free flight engine, but I've only seen one or two at contests. There was some thought at one time that the FAI was going to go from 2.5cc to 1.5cc for free flight. The Johnson Bulldog 09 was designed to offer another American 1.5cc engine, but the change did not occur. [/quote] Hi Jim, The Cox TD .09 was an awsome FF class A engine for me. I scaled up Lee Hines' Ramrod 250 design to 450 sq"s. The entire model minus fuel weighed 12 ozs. I won a lot of class A FF contests with that model; I even briefly set the Class A national record during a Flyoff with Ron Young and his 600 Texan. Then Ron beat my time on his last flight, 10 minutes after I posted my time. Lee Hines' Ramrod 250 was a correction to Ron St Jeans Ramrod 250 version, because St Jean made a mistake in scaling down to 250s" size. This mistake was never corrected in the magazine or kit version. I'm guessing this was around 1966. So, like the MVVS, the Cox TD had similar qualities, both are light and both put out excellent power(for the time). Tony
Posted on: 7/11/2012 9:31 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11151402

RE: MVVS 09 diesel
[quote]ORIGINAL: AMB Fiery Point well taken yes I have the MP 061 NIB and one MVVS 09 which has a fair amount of air time martin forget the para has push/pull head too big improvment [/quote] I guess I agree with AMB and Fiery, except that my 15 year old CS .09 BB diesel will out turn and out run the Parra .09. I know that a few modelers in OZ were using the CS in 1/2A( .09cu" ) racing. I guess they were never very available. Fiery, my CS .09 BB will turn an APC 7 X 3" at 22,300 rpm; using the exact same fuel as used in the prior thread. The CS is the front intake rear exhaust version. My MVVS .09 was used to power a 260sq" combat design, way back when a few of us tried 1/2A Combat, UK style. We flew the models on 42' x .012" lines. The MVVS pulled those models at 70-75 mph. When I bought my MVVS .09 from Ed Carlson; it only cost about $52.00. I wish I had bought 2 more at that price. Anyway, I would like to see the MVVS brought back into production at a reasonable price. The nice thing about the MVVS is that it's very light and has very good power for a plain bearing engine. Also the MVVS engine is very easily adjusted. [:D] Tony
Posted on: 7/11/2012 9:14 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11151386

RE: Sterling Viper
Hi Dan, The Viper model is too darned small for those engines. I suggest the Wee Duper Zilch is more in line with your engine choice. I built a WDZ in 1954 and powered it with a Mc Coy .098, then I swapped it out for a Cub .099. The WDZ flew best with the Cub .099. In an earlier reply, I mentioned that the Viper is a really small model(wing area) and I flew my Viper with a Dart diesel. You also have other better choices than the Viper, such as the Flitestreak Jr and the Ringmaster Jr. The Viper's diamond airfoil is a reason for the Viper's very mediocre performance. Tony
Posted on: 6/21/2012 10:54 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11126185

RE: Pusher configuration
[quote]ORIGINAL: steve111 There's no reverse crank on PAWs spares list, and I've never heard of such a thing - still, it wouldn't hurt to ask them. You didn't mention whether this is a ballraced engine - would you really want to be running a plain bearing engine as a pusher? [/quote] Hi Steve, I bought a PAW .19 TBR in left-hand crank version several years ago. Yes, they probably do have left-hand cranks as spares. But I agree with the others, I wouldn't use a plain bearing engine in a pusher configuration either. Tony
Posted on: 6/3/2012 3:26 PM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11105039

RE: Club Silver Swallow
Hi Guys, I'm not sure why or how I ended up with five 2.49cc Silver Swallows, one 1.49cc SS and two Jin Shi 2.49cc engines; but I did. I've run and flown all of them. I hate the 1.49, the SS 2.49ccs run very well, but I prefer the Jin Shis because they have noticeabley more power than the SS engines. Regretably, I've got a CS 2.49 Silver Swallow copy, that has a contrapiston that is too loose to run. [&o] Tony
Posted on: 6/2/2012 6:30 PM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11104168

RE: Arne Hende .5cc Drone minature
Jim, try regular 1/2A diesel fuel from DDD. These small engines NEED more ether%; and much less Castor. If too much Castor is used, your engine will start running hotter. I have run my Arne Hende .63cc diesel Dooling on 20% Castor, 35% Ether, 1.5% Amyl Nitrate and the rest Kerosene. After sorting some design oversights, it ran beautifully. I believe Barry Baxter runs his AH .5cc Drone using the same fuel formula. I am building a 1/2A Hell Razor for my AH Dooling and Barry plans to build a scaled down OT Secret Weapon for his engine. Please remember, AH engines are not rendered with the same metals as the old engines were. The are fabricated with modern steels and alloys; so they need different fuel than the post Diluvial formulas. This is the reason that a lower quality CS Oliver Tiger MKIII will out turn an original MKIII by almost 1500rpm using same fuel and same prop, run 10 minutes apart . Tony .
Posted on: 5/9/2012 9:30 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11074400

RE: Nitrate dope and Diesel ?
[quote]ORIGINAL: tweedy I am new to Diesel Engines and have a ? My normal finishing system is silk or silkspan, applied and shrunk with nitrate dope, with final coats of KlassKote epoxy, my question is: With a diesel powered plane, can I forgo the KlassKote fuel proofer and have the Nitrate be my final finish? [/quote] [font="Arial"][/font] Hi Tweedy, I have used Nitrate dope on CL models and I've had no problems. I think on engine compartments, it wouldn't hurt to use epoxy/ KlassKote. My friend and I have considerable experience with Diesel engines in Control line models. He lives near you in Brea and I live the other side of the canyon in Corona. We would be delighted to help you with Diesel questions. Tony
Posted on: 5/4/2012 8:06 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11068153

RE: Davis Killer crank for Cox 049/051
Hi All, Well, I don't know about these two sources, since I bought a couple of of these heavy duty cranks many years ago from my friend, Dale Kirn. I'm not totally sure, but I think Cox made them for some of their ready to run car engines. As an aside, my prepped Class 1 Mouse race engines that had stock cranks, would turn 22,000 to 22,500 on my break-in prop. those cranks never failed even at those high RPMs. However, I know of several friend's stock cranks that did fail when running diesel heads on their reed valve engines. I put one of those heavy duty cranks in a reed valve Cox because I decided to try a diesel head, and it worked really well powering a C/L Stunt/Sport model. Tony
Posted on: 4/24/2012 6:50 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11054774

RE: Russian Elfin 149 ABC Repro
[quote]ORIGINAL: earlwb I bought my two Elfin's from Ed Carlson too. But I see no reason to bother him with the fact they didn't work. it is sort of a challenge. Even if I have to make new cylinders for them or something. [/quote] Well Earl, I did bother Ed, he was glad to send me the steel version, and he had a spare steel pistol and liner that he sent as well. Now I've got two working steel Elfin 1.49 repros. Of course, this must have been 15-20 years ago. Tony
Posted on: 4/14/2012 3:04 PM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11041882

RE: Sterling Viper
Excellent Idea! Mine is a drab pinkish red and maroon. Tony
Posted on: 3/27/2012 9:29 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11017062

RE: Muffler for CS Olover Tiger 2.5 diesel
Charles, Is a muffler required where you fly. If not, I see no reason to add one to your engine. It is not that loud in use. My CS Oliver is much quieter when flying than other glow engines of similar displacement(Veco Tomahawk - .015" X 58' lines). Tony
Posted on: 3/23/2012 10:57 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11012022

RE: Sterling Viper
Build it, it flys okay, do not expect combat like performance. It's too small for that; but it's not too small for fun flying. I flew mine decades ago using a DC Dart .5cc diesel engine. This kit is not and should not be a person's "Rosebud" Tony
Posted on: 3/23/2012 10:47 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11012009

RE: How to calculate line pull
Thanks for the math exerciser. I ran my CAT-JET(old Hoyt jet kit) specs through your formula; 155mph, 2lb flying wgt, 70'x .018 solids. The model pulls 46lbs in flight at the speed. I feel very sorry for the serious jet flyers that play at 210-220 mph. Tony
Posted on: 2/23/2012 9:17 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10972226

RE: Combat/Stunt for Fox 35
Hi, Build a FliteStreak; nothing with a Fox 35 Stunt will fly better. DO Not Get the ARF. The kit is a better model in all ways. This model will fly a great stunt pattern and it will fly as a proper Combat ship of those days; it just depends upon where you place the CG. Tony
Posted on: 2/15/2012 9:17 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10960098

RE: Diesel engines
Hi Chuck, go to this forum for diesel buddies with lotsa info: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/forumid_87/tt.htm I hope you find a used Oliver Tiger that is affordable; used ones are extremely collectable and will cost you $250-$300. For what it's worth, a good C.S. Oliver repro will out turn an original mkIII by 1,000rpm. I did the test myself. I pitted the repro against an Original Oliver mkIII, run just 15 miutes apart. I used the same prop and the same fuel. The CS engine actually turned 1,050 rpm faster than the original engine. However, the Original Ollie is fabricated to a much higher quality. I recommend that instead of the "Real Ollie", You find a new or used PAW .19 TBR instead. The .19 TBR is a twin ball bearing, very easy handling engine that has the same power as a Fox 35 stunt. It also has noticably more power than the PAW .15 TBR. Good luck; [;)] Tony
Posted on: 1/3/2012 8:59 AM by Author "paw080" in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10889414