Super Duper Zilch

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 24 of 24 known posts recovered

Crash2much · Aug 19, 2004 09:48 PM

I recently got a kit for this plane. The plans show a Super Cyclone or mounting holes for McCoy 49 or Atwood Triumph 49/51. I have a Triumph 51 but had planned on putting it in a Humongous. I don't have the Super Cyclone but do have a couple old Enya 60 or 63 Super Typhoon's. These are glow. Too much power? Don't want to put anything construed as modern in the nose. Any and all opinions appreciated and considered.

Bill

I have no claim to fame, I build more planes than I fly, collect more kits than I build. That about says it, right?

sabre250 · Aug 19, 2004 11:28 PM

#1 source

Bill,
The Enya 60/63 is a pretty heavy engine, but they do run quite well.
I flew one in the late '50s in a 58" Wildfire.
They do have very mild shaft timing and do not rev very hard. Try a 13x7 prop or a 14x6 prop for starters on 5% nitro/ 20% castor fuel.

good luck
Dave Owen

David Owen

raglafart · Aug 20, 2004 01:29 AM

#2 source

Hi Bill
I love mine now with the Pacemaker 59 up front.
Cheers John

Phil Hawkins · Aug 20, 2004 01:42 AM

#3 source

Bill,

Don't you have one of those "whisper quiet" Fox .59's?

Phil Hawkins

Crash2much · Aug 20, 2004 01:59 AM

#4 source

Phil, actually I have a few of them but had not given them any consideration. I suppose they would not be a bad choice but as you know I am always looking for something more obscure. It could end up hanging like my Viking for all I know. I have my Tom Morris building table now and want to try it out with this kit. He made me some special jigs for it so that I could build other wings. Pretty cool guy!

Bill

I have no claim to fame, I build more planes than I fly, collect more kits than I build. That about says it, right?

Leonard Neumann · Aug 20, 2004 10:16 AM

#5 source

>Bill,
>
>Don't you have one of those "whisper quiet" Fox .59's?

I do have a tongue muffler for that sucker if anyone is interested. In fact, if you are planning on running it close to me, I do hope you are interested.

Leonard Neumann

Crash2much · Aug 20, 2004 12:52 PM

#6 source

Len, I would be more interested to know if you have tongue mufflers for the Triumph 51 or the ENYA 60/63?

Bill

I have no claim to fame, I build more planes than I fly, collect more kits than I build. That about says it, right?

Leonard Neumann · Aug 20, 2004 03:41 PM

#7 source

>Len, I would be more interested to know if you have tongue
>mufflers for the Triumph 51 or the ENYA 60/63?

Don't have, but can probably get them made. Might need dimensions, though. The Fox 59 muffler was a one-off and is now gone.

Leonard Neumann

Steve Lotz · Aug 20, 2004 03:44 PM

#8 source

Shoot,,, I could've used it.

Steve

Crash2much · Aug 22, 2004 12:08 PM

#9 source

LAST EDITED ON Aug-22-04 AT 12:08 PM (CDT)

Not much responce to this one.
I assume that either no one knows, no one cares, or this engine has not had much use by anybody on this forum. Maybe the same for the airplane too? Oh well....

Bill

I have no claim to fame, I build more planes than I fly, collect more kits than I build. That about says it, right?

Mo · Aug 22, 2004 12:51 PM

#10 source

I put a G21 35 Super Tigre into mine when I built it in 1975. It makes an excellent combination.

F4FGuy · Aug 22, 2004 02:46 PM

#11 source

LAST EDITED ON Aug-22-04 AT 08:07 PM (CDT)

>I recently got a kit for this plane. The plans show a Super
>Cyclone or mounting holes for McCoy 49 or Atwood Triumph
>49/51. I have a Triumph 51 but had planned on putting it in
>a Humongous. I don't have the Super Cyclone but do have a
>couple old Enya 60 or 63 Super Typhoon's. These are glow.
>Too much power? Don't want to put anything construed as
>modern in the nose. Any and all opinions appreciated and
>considered.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Bill:

I have a Triumph 49 on(in?) my Humoungous.Its a good match and runs well.It should do fine in a Zilch.The down side is NOISE. If your site is noise sensitive,don't even bother with a tongue muffler.It will take the Db level down a bit,but the "bark" is still there,fairly typical of tongue type mufflers.If you use fewer holes trying to soften it,the power loss and tendency to over heat is not acceptable. The 49 is also a shaker. Be sure to balance everything,or you'll be reassembling the airplane after every flying session. If you have access to a drill press,or even better,a mill,you can make your own tongue muffler fairly easily . All you need is a piece of DU-BRO exhaust extension extrusion,and a few drills and taps.

Ron B.

Crash2much · Aug 22, 2004 06:36 PM

#12 source

Thankyou to all who responded. I hope everyone had a great summer! Looks like this one is just about over.

Bill

I have no claim to fame, I build more planes than I fly, collect more kits than I build. That about says it, right?

SRiese5283 · Aug 22, 2004 07:38 PM

#13 source

SURE BID on an ATWOOD...Raise the price.

SRiese5283

Scott Riese

F4FGuy · Aug 23, 2004 12:15 PM

#14 source

>SURE BID on an ATWOOD...Raise the price.:7 :7 :7
>
>SRiese5283

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Who bids? I just dug it out of my old engine stash. It looked and felt pretty good,so I used it.

Ron B.

Currell · Aug 23, 2004 08:54 PM

#15 source

That Enya 60 is a beast. Too much for the SDZ.

How about a Greenhead K & B 45? Semi-beastly (and a barker) also, but lighter than the Enya. And pretty good power.

Or is it too new?, being late 50s or something?

Currell

gcb · Aug 24, 2004 06:38 AM

#16 source

Isn't the K&B .45 the engine Lew McFarland used in his original Shark 45's in the 1961/62 timeframe?
If I remember correctly, the engine has an extra counterbalance to make it run smoother.

George

Currell · Aug 24, 2004 09:31 AM

#17 source

That's right, George. It has this rotor counterbalance thing in the back. Three summers ago, I put some time on one, using an overweight homebuilt profile.

Not that the counterbalance helped all that much. It is a very loud motor, what with the exhaust being on the "wrong" side, and not that smooth, either, even by late 50s standards. Lord Help Us All if K & B had not put that counterbalance on, mixed results or otherwise.

Correct, also, on the Shark 45 and Mr McFarland. This was one of the first, if not the first, "oversize" stunters, using a larger motor and model. The growth progression leads us right up to today's models. (I'm not counting the models that carried pre-glow ignition motors in the late 40s. Some were pretty large, too).

Currell

Crash2much · Aug 24, 2004 06:17 PM

#18 source

Currell, they are most likely not to new but I am fresh out of K&B Greenheads. I had a bunch of them at one time but didn't like the exhaust being on the "wrong"? side. However it is the same side as these old ENYA 60/63 engines. I know that to some people my wanting to put something old in the older planes doesn't make much sense. It is really just a personal thing. Since I feel it is very unlikely I will ever enter a contest I am not concerned with having the ultimate stunt run.

Bill

I have no claim to fame, I build more planes than I fly, collect more kits than I build. That about says it, right?

gcb · Aug 25, 2004 06:46 AM

#19 source

...I know that to some people my wanting to put something old in the older planes doesn't make much sense. It is really just a personal thing. Since I feel it is very unlikely I will ever enter a contest I am not concerned with having the ultimate stunt run.

Makes perfect sense to me. When I first got back into flying I was reading a posting, I think by GMA, that expressed the idea that one of the intentions of OTS was to get the flavor of what it was like to fly in the "old days". That's why everything is kept so close to original. Why shouldn't engines be included? Some were very cantankerous (sp?)...but that's what was available.
Of course some may think differently.

George

Crash2much · Aug 25, 2004 08:08 AM

#20 source

George, I did a post on just that idea not to long ago. The idea was not recieved very well. It was shot down as to the cost of the older engines and the fact the newer engines give a more consistant run. It is supposed to be kept as a fun event. Whats fun about spending $300+ for a PA or Ro Jett?

Bill

I have no claim to fame, I build more planes than I fly, collect more kits than I build. That about says it, right?

gcb · Aug 26, 2004 07:57 AM

#21 source

Bill,

Actually, I guess both are correct. If you have or can get an old engine, that's great. I'm not sure anyone would put a PA or RO Jett on an OTS, but that's OK too.
I think many would rather put an inexpensive, reliable engine such as OS in their ship. They just won't get the flavor of cranking and cranking while trying to breathe life into a worn-out O&R .23.
For many ships, engines like the Fox .35 provides medium ground.

I guess the event makes allowances for YOUR perception of fun. I hope it stays that way.

George

Crash2much · Aug 26, 2004 04:27 PM

#22 source

I hope it remains "fun" for everyone no matter how they choose to do it. You are probably right as far as choice of engines go. Looking back in old issues of SN I haven't seen to many OTS planes with PA's or Ro Jetts. I would love to have one of each of these engines for my collection some day. Just to look at, not to run.

Bill

I have no claim to fame, I build more planes than I fly, collect more kits than I build. That about says it, right?

Crash2much · Aug 30, 2004 01:01 PM

#23 source

Engine choice has been solved. Got a Atwood Triumph 49 to put in it. Should do the job.

Bill

I have no claim to fame, I build more planes than I fly, collect more kits than I build. That about says it, right?