Otto Kudrna

My Feedback: (1)

This is a poll to find out what size of RCV "CD" engines would be the most desired by the modeling public. The CD engine range is the new RCV engine which at the time only has the .58 and will soon have the .96. The .96 will be 81mm (3 3/16") tall from center line to top of head. This dimension is exactly the same as the OS .60FP 2cy engine. Please respond to this post only once and encourage others to do the same. "But PLEASE respond" You may have more than one size you want to see, please list them in the order of preference most preferred on top.

OTTO KUDRNA RCV TECH SUPPORT

lokeetl

Hi Otto,

I was going to say something a little bigger than, say, an OS 91FS, but I see RCV is going to have that covered.

How about something in the 1.3 range? 1.4 maybe? That would get into alot of 1/4 scale stuff that way. Maybe even pull a F8F?

Talk to you later,
Chip

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

I would suggest a 1.25 cu. in. engine called the 125, it's a nice sounding number and nobody except Maloney makes one that size, you'd be surprised how many people would buy it just because it's .05 bigger than a 120.

edwarda10pilot

My Feedback: (3)

Otto:

I think that I would like to see something in the 1.5 range in both the "CD" and the "SP" line.

Ed

Juice

How about a gas RCV engine? Something that will go into a .60 to 1.20 sized warbird.

Juice

Damnathius

How about a twin based on the CD design? Small, large, doesn't matter.

MikeChilson

My Feedback: (2)

I would suggest 1.3 or a 1.6 in that profile.

bgi

My Feedback: (7)

a .72 for the .40 size planes and a 1.8 for the 1.20 planes would be nice.

JoeyCoates

How about a .75 in the SP line as it would be right in between the .60 and the .90?

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

SP range - 2.5 - 3.0 GAS (something for an 85" warbird turning a scale size 4 blade with hot performance)

CD range - 1. See above
2. 1.80

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

There seems to be a lot of "120" size ARF and kit planes available. I think that one in the 120 physical size would be Ideal.

As Hobbsy mentions, a 1.25 would have a nice ring to it. There's not any around anymore this size and it would have a nice unique number that people would remember.

Jim

Iflyrc4fun

My Feedback: (132)

I like the possibility of a big block. Something like a 2.5 ci. Since other guys on this thread like the sound of a 125 you could call this a 250. When it come to big engines the choices get limited, beyond the Saito 180 or YS 140 people are forced to 2 cycles like Moki 180 or 210 or they go gas. I think a smooth running light weight big block 4 cycle single cylinder would fill a nitch that is now empty

Edwin

My Feedback: (2)

I would love a 1.20 size also.
Edwin

zagi450t

how about a 30 or 40 size for twin engine planes.

ric52

I agree with the friend from ohio: a big 4 stroke single cylinder of more than 30cc capacity (i.e. 1.80 for you!) is missing on the market and should be very interesting.
I think the right way should be a big friend of the RCV 58 that is more easy to fit in a cowl and should have the same cooling of a traditional engine.

ric 52

McGuiver

For me a .60 to .80 gas burner would be great as I am in the process of building a twin .60 2stroke powered floatplane and shutter at the thought of feeding them.

shupack

I'd like to see something that could spin a 30" three blade or 4 blade (depending on the variant modeled) prop for a ziroli corsair and/or p-47. and definately gas, i hate the sticky mess, especially since you suggest running these a bit rich (which means even more mess.....

Chuckr53-RCU

My Feedback: (40)

I like the idea of the .96. You might also want to make a .32 size to compete for the .20 2c sized planes (i.e. GP T-Craft or TT Slow Cub)

Bruce L Prater

1.5-2.5, could be gas.

Merlin65

1.5 to 1.8 for me!

Let's get some scale props happening on the 1/5 scale warbirds.

Build in a cooling fan too please Otto.
--
Merlin

Damnathius

I bet an SP series in those sizes would do just that. Might want to develope a 2.0 SP though to be sure. I'd be on one of those in a heartbeat, even if it was just going to sit on my engine shelf!

With the lack of decently priced scale prop spinning power and drives for large WWII warbirds, I bet RCV would do quite well in this department.

benzin

I agree here for the big one because the only for the Warbird's they fits in a small cowl are Laser 180s, 240v, 300v.
The Saito 180 fit not so perfect and 200ti is expensive and heavy for his 33ccm.
YS 140 dz is a vibration and nitro killer so my choice for a 80" Warbird after long research was the Laser 240v to get the sound of a 4-stroker and plenty of pulling power.
So a 40 - 50ccm big single would be nice alternative for 80" and up planes.

wingspan99

My Feedback: (2)

Otto I'd like to see the CD engines get lighter. How can Saito make a .72 that's lighter than the RCV .58? And Saito fit their .91 in the case of their .65 making it even lighter than the .65. I would like to see more attention paid to the weight of an engine. No matter what kind of airplane a person flies, having the highest power/weight is desirable. -Tom

Otto Kudrna

My Feedback: (1)

The reason why Saito is so light is because the Aluminum cylinder is Chromed, that is all, there is no hard metal sleeve like in the other makes of engine. It is what is known as AAC. the Rcv has a rotating Steal Cylinder for the valving. You sacrifice mass for size and efficiency. There will never be an engine which is as light as Saito. the RCV will always be in the hi end of the Mass spectrum. the decision must be made by you if you want a small engine which fits in a particular place, or a light engine which sticks out the side of the airplane.

Otto Kudrna RCV Tech Support

WorldModelNut

I have been watching these RCV's with great interest, but the .58 size is to small for my needs. I vote for the development of a 2.5 or so. No competition in that area for a 4 stroke glow. More and more ARFS each year requiring that size to have good performance. You can't beat the sound over a gas burner!