corsair44

My Feedback: (4)

i know a lot about the glow world, but am just starting out in gas. what brands, size etc start the best, have the best bang for the buck etc? how are they sized? ie what does G-23 mean? quadro 35?

appreciate any and all info!

crashergs

My Feedback: (8)

go with the g26 zenoah, it has approx 800 more rpms and about 2 ounces lighter...... this would be for something like 10-18 lb aircraft.

joel_jones

My Feedback: (111)

I HAVE SOME ZENOAH'S, FIRST PLACE ENGINES(FPE) & DA150.. LOVE THEM ALL .. BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK IS THE FPE. ALL ARE GREAT, JUST DEPENDS WANT U WANT THE ENGINE TO DO..



SMOKE ON.!

corsair44

My Feedback: (4)

seems to be a lot of talk about the DAs.....what is their claim to fame? can someone explain the engine size ratings? i have seen ccs used...and other ratings

F1race79

My Feedback: (6)

It's either cc or cubic inch.

3W, DA, ect use 100, 150, ect = cc = cubic cent.

Brison, FPE, ect use 2.4, 3.2, 4.2, ect = cubic inch.

famousdave

My Feedback: (61)

To go looking for engines without a specific airframe in mind is exactly what most newbies do in gas... a common mistake. I know many people new to gas who bought the engine first, only to find out it would not work in most of the planes they were interested it... then ended up selling the original.. (myself included).

There are a ton of engines out there.. most of them are good but there are a few dogs. Go find a plane that interests you then ask the forums which engine... with the cost of gas engines, you only want to make that purchase once! Best solution yet - ask some of the gas flyers are your club... save yourself a lot of headaches... and wasted $$

Examples from my hangar:

28% CAP - 3W-24i
31% Extra - 3W 75i
34% CAP - DA 100
40% Katana - DA 150
Ultra Stick Lite - Zenoah G-26
100" wing Cub - Zenoah G-26

I am impartial to DA and 3W as they are in my backyard and both have superb service.
Zenoahs are excellent for low power high pull planes like overhead wing floaters

DP

corsair44

My Feedback: (4)

ok guys a few more questions...what is a "3W"? does anyone have a conversion formula (rough) like a glow OS 1.60 equals a G-23 which equals a da100...i guess i am trying to get a reference point here...i am speaking with a gentleman who has a AT-6 texan by midwest with a G-23 on it...i dont know if that is good or bad...

it seems like the G-23 is kinda a standard...what is it equal to in glow?

seems that gas is more forgiving than glow and has more reliable engines overall....correct?

i am working on buying a RTF warbird of some type off the forums this winter. i know i want gas for the economy and reliability but i really feel lost...ie i dont know how to match a gas engine to a plane like i do with glow. really appreciate the help everyone

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

G-23 equals 23cc's. 1.6 glow, hmmm, if 10cc is a .60 in glow, 20cc is a 1.20, 30cc is 1.80, the a 1.60 equals close to 25cc.

Glow engines develop more horse power but less torque than a gas engine of the same displacement, and are also lighter. The glow engines also develop this extra horsepower at a much higher rpm. The old formula of 1 cubic inch for each 10 pounds of airplane for a gasser has pretty much gone out the window with the advent of 3D. Today it's more like 1.5 CI per 10 pounds, and larger if the plane will carry it.

A 100cc twin is usually considered quite adaquate for a 22 to 30 pound aerobat, and for a much, much larger scale type of aircraft. A 50cc gasser is good for aerobatic planes roughly in the 14 to 20 pound range.

I know that didn't give all you needed, but dinner's ready. I hope it helped some.

corsair44

My Feedback: (4)

ahhh that helps a lot! thanks for the rule of size! anyone else with input?

any reason NOT to go gas instead of glow?

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

The field is rapidly reaching a point where the 50cc gasser is starting to seem pretty much the standard for planes in to 80 to 86" wingspan classes. That's primarily for aerobatic types. Most of the 20 to 28 pound warbirds will fly with this engine size, or the Zenoah G-62. 3W is for 3W Modelmotoren, a competition gas manufacturer out of Germany. DA is for Desert Aircraft, in Arizona. Both companies manufacture exellent, though rather pricey engines in sizes roughly from 50cc up to 150cc.

Other companies to look into include, but are not limited to, Brison R/C Engines, BME, Fox, Taurus, First Place Engines (FPE), Fuji, Zenoah, RCS, ZDZ, and a few others. Price should not be considered to always equate with quality. Some cheap (relatively) engines work well and last, some don't. The same holds true with some of the more expensive engines.

Asking which one is best should best be saved for a day that you are ready to start a new world war. The arguements will be endless.

Per one of your earlier questions, Zenoah is a fine engine for it's intended use. The Texan should be adaquately powered with the G-26, and the engine, with a little care, will likely last longer than you will. Great service is always available from Horizon Hobby if needed. Hop ups and ignition mods can be had with RCIGN-1, and others.

rmh

Just an addendum
The real change in power from gas to glow is --the fuel used
You can develop more power at any rpm with alky and nitro (more torque ) at any speed.
Gasoline has more power per pound of fuel BUT gasoline USUALLY burns at about a 14-1 (14 air-1 gasoline.)
Alky -about 5-7 to 1 and adding lots of nitro - the mix can be much lower
So - you pass more fuel per each gulp using nitro and air and can make more power.
there are lots of changes that can be done in the engine using the alky/nitro (and oil) mix).
more compression bigger ports etc..to pas MORE fuel mix
Power is fuel consumed -Period
The downside is that you must burn at least twice as much fuel to beat the gasoline engines output.
That is a huge problem in cost and weight .
IF you take a good glow fuel engine and add spark ignition you have the best power setup for a extremely powerful and throttleable engine.
But -the fuel consumption is extremely high.
The best new gasoline engines are not really much different from really good weedie piston /cyl setups.
But - they are redesigned to (hopefully) improve low speed performance - smoothness and throttleability.
Some are designed for tuned systems but most work well without .
The trend we see is getting the gasoline engines to be smoother -especially at low rpms - . the pumper carbs are NOT designed to really be good at making smooth operation throughout the entire speed range -but still do a good job -as long as you know what you are doing.
The glow engines with some inventive carb design and added pipe pressure can be extremely good at this- - most guys simply don't want to screw with the setup required.
Bottom line - If you are into 3D - stuff all the power you can into the plane - most manufacturers' rating are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay low- they don't want some fool going fast and blowing up the model.
Our own power preferrences are sorta like this:
40 cc- 10-12 lbs
50 cc-10 -13 lbs
80 cc - 16-20 lbs
100 cc - 18-20 lbs
150 cc 25-30 lbs
absurd?
maybe --
have you flown one?
Once you get used to really strong electric stuff - you will see that these setups are not all that strange.

Antique

My Feedback: (4)

An example of Zenoah's "Low power".. STOCK GT80, F1GT Kelly racer. ..Radar clocked at 145 mph, weighs 29 lbs..

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

This takes things a bit off topic, but Dick, a 20 lb. plane with a 150cc engine? Unless it's built perfectly and completely from some pretty exotic composites, that engine would tear every flight surface off of it with the first full power blast in any attitude.

If you allow say 6 to 7lbs for the engine weight, another pound for radio gear (a very conservative number), that leaves a base airframe weight of 12 lbs, including the weight of the landing gear, or an actual 9-1/2lb. airframe.

captinjohn

The way I read it......20lbs = biggest engine would be 100cc

Albatross

My Feedback: (7)

I guess Dick might be accounting for the loss of power at high elevations?

My overweighted CAP 232 which weighs almost 18 lbs (despite all the modifications I have tried so far) can perform an acceptable 3D hovering, powered by ZDZ 50 RV @ 821 ft. Of course, I doubt that would be doing any better at higher elevations, again this could be out of topic, only FYI ...

4 stroken ron

My Feedback: (29)

Hey, that's pretty good... Just think what you will be able to do when you get some experience.
Ron

Antique

My Feedback: (4)

Same plane with a methanol fueled reworked GT80 goes about 185 mph, 11,500 rpm, 19x18 carbon prop...
Zenoahs LIKE rpms...[8D]

rmh

My power suggestions are simply for those who want solid , instant recovery power ,flying the extreme aerobatic stuff.
NONE of the recommended power setups on ARFS, that I have seen/tried etc., do this .
some hover well, recover reasonably well and many will come apart if flown at much over up close maneuvering speeds.
Short story-I have yet to tear anything apart with power .
I just add power as needed.
Technology advances have really changed the look of flying models.
In our electrics - the power to weight is so much superior to most gas setups- that we are completely changing our new gas powered power/weight ratios.
Otherwise - they simply won't do the things we can do with the electrics.
You guys who are bitten with the extreme electric (EE 3D) bug, know what I mean.
But - if you have to "firewall" everything you fly - ignore the power to weights I listed - you will destroy models and anything in its/their path.

Volfy

My Feedback: (23)

Dick, with all due respect, your recommendations are a little extreme given the context of this thread. Corsair44, the original poster, is just now getting to learn the difference between a G-23 and a DA-100. Going by your chart, he will have to get a 50cc for that first gasser powered 1/4 scale Cub, and an 80cc for the Patty Wagstaff.

I know 3D is all the rage these days, and everybody talks the talk about unlimited verticals this and pulling out with authority that. All this appeals the male psychy of not wanting to be "inadequate". But does everybody NEED insane power to weight? Power cost money, and big motors cost big bucks. Recommending big power when we don't even know what Corsair44 wants for a first gasser airplane is just not in his best interest.

3DDino

allow me to take advantage here...
my h9cap232 73"ws is ready to 3d
what are the engines of choice for glow and gas ??

rmh

I think I prefaced ALL of the comments on power by noting it was about 3D-
I would not consider anything like these figures for a novice setup.
I am an old guy - and my old friends wanting to fly - get setups which match power to ability .
My friends who fly Unlimited aerobatics get setups which are (matter of record) very competitive.
So that out of the way -- the H9 73 " Cap for 3D

first can you fly 3D already?

Do you expect this to be a hard chargin 3D setup?
Or do you want this to learn to do the std hover/ etc?
That particular model is a good one --IF you first solidly pin the glue joint of the stab to the fuselage.
Power?
select a gas engine which will crank most 22x8 props in the mid 6000 range -- minimum.
This will allow you to setup and do hover corrections
In glow - smaller prop but SAME thrust!
So do this :
buy a 30 buck fishing scale by Berkley - and using a soft cotton rope - lash to stab of a few large GLOW powered setups and check the real thrust.
- you will propbably see 10-14 lbs - . not enough
You need at least 1.5 power to thrust to set up and easily hover.
You may find tha only the largest most powerful glow setups will do well on this model.
And that spells lots of expensive fuel.
The gas engines which will work are all 40 sized - take your choice
you will hit close to 14 lbs on this plane with a gas engine so remember the needed thrust.

3DDino

thank u sir, dick
heres alittle about myself... i have 3 yrs of 3d flying
i always uphold overpowering not overspeeding fairly good at 3d esp throttle mx
can hover a whole tank tr needs polishing though
have os160fx & fuji 50 (magneto atm), former one power is marginal, later one no gut
to put in h9cap232 73" ws afraid of overweight inducing the infamous cap tipstall
please advise which one to put in or if i should get another
thanks a million

Eindecker_pilot

If you're flying something like a WWI bibe or a Cub, 1/4 scale, check out the 25cc Homelite conversion done by GCBM Rc models.

www.gcbmrc.com

I use one on my Pup and it is powerful, reliable, & although it wieghs more than a Zenoah G-23, the heavier Homelite engine acts as ballast & the plane balances perfectly with just engine weight, no lead. Also the engine is cheap at $210. Most engines out there are fine, you just need to figure out your application in terms of wieght, cost, & power.

my 2 cents.