Black Widow RR?

AJ - you up for it???

The timings a little radical, but hey, what'd I know back then?

It ran fair, but I suppose knowing what I know now I could vastly improve it with a new disc.

Ha! Would you believe it, I did this because I couldn't afford a TD.

Since I brought up this RR-1 thing a few threads back I get to say you are either the sharpest or the craziest modeller I've seen yet---or both! Come to think of it that description doesn't exactly narrow the field , does it?

My compliments! Making that conversion and getting it to run was no small accomplishment. Have you considered tackling an easier project like, say, World Peace ?

Best wishes!

Thank you so much! I wish it qualified me to bring world piece, I've learned a bit over the years. Here's a few I've built since. The one in the center is a restoration, the other two hand built.

Crazy and talented! That entitles you to be a club president!

How did they compare to the thermal hopper etc?

The worst thing about the TD is the fragile plastic stuff up front. I'd bet somebody made a TD into a rear drum, by screwing in a new front housing and crank. That would be cool! Oh, Randy? Steve

I don't mean to differ, but there not even close. The RR-1 was more of a sport engine, the big advantage was it wouldn't start backwards. From what I've read it was more like a Thermal Hopper, if that.
When Cox came out with the Atwood designed Tee Dee it wiped the record books clean and continued to do so for a long time.

Mark Boesen

However, it started and RE-started like a good Babe Bee. This is a huge advantage in racing and sometimes combat. Always frontwards to boot.

Lots of people had (and still have ) trouble wrestling with bladder tanks and fuel systems for the TeeDee. With the RR-1 this was NO -PROB - LEM !!!!!!

Most of the power and none ot the hassle WIN-WIN ,,,, too bad they don't make 'em.

China - Men are you listening ??????? Where's the pirated copy when we really need it ?

I'll argue the point on power on RR-1 vs TD. I shot off my mouth on that subject to some FF friends a couple of years ago and ended up settling a bet by bringing my RR-1 up to a FF contest where we ground ran it against 3 different T.D.'s using the same fuel and 6/3 top flite nylon prop for comparison. On a modern Tach the RR was from 300 to 1,000 rpm stronger, the variation being in the T.Ds. Cool day,about 40 degrees, and 10 or 15% fuel if I recall correctly. The results might vary under other conditions. Actually, suprized the heck out of me!

Instead of a drum perhaps a reed, and we could call it a ... Thermal Hopper.

Read a post recently where a Thermal Hopper and a TD were compared and apparently they were pretty evenly matched. Don't know what fuel and prop were used for the comparison. Might it be that the large reed (heavier) used on the TH and perhaps plug design on the TD account for most performance differences?
Were there porting differences between the early TD's and the Thermal Hopper? I thought it was more a redesign to a more conventional mounting method. Of course the Space Hopper was an interim design, but with the rear induction it set the weight pretty much forward.
Your thoughts and comments?

George

Oops, sorry, this is sort of hijacking the RR1 topic.

They used the same twin intake port cylinder with slightly larger (taller) exhaust ports. Most RR-1's had a 1 stamped on sleeve, the Space Hopper used this as well.

Cool rear rotor Space Hoppers....mmmmmmm that would be so cool. I have seen a picture of one of the rear drum Olympic .15's. What was it like 25 or so made that were given out at Free Flight Contests back in the day. It looked like it used a TD front plastic housing with a plug in it sticking out the back. It was on e$ay and went for very little. I guess not many knew it was a real engine.

I suspect the smaller diameter of the crankshaft compared to the Tee Dee and the shorter flow path through the drum compared to the crankshaft would make it a VERY interesting engine.

Dang, where ARE those Chinese counterfieters when you really need them!?! RR-1 engines go for a lot more than Rivers diesels, and I'll bet the market for replicas would be bigger! Shucks, I'd certainly buy a few even though I already have 2 originals.

I may have to run a comparison between an RR-1 and a Venom one of these days. Should be interesting!

Later,
Tim Wiltse

How 'bout a Space Hopper Vs. Venom, both reeds, both state of art engines? I'll bet the Hopper! (better intake airflow?)

Wow! I have a Thermal Hopper in good shape, and it's no match for even a mediocre TeeDee. Or at least I though t was in good shape!.

Brett

You are probably correct. Perhaps the person who compared them had a bum TeeDee. There is also the possibility that he meant Space Hopper or I misread it as Thermal Hopper.
I currently have two TH's. One from *bay, the other from a swap. Both have the large thread plug. I have not compared them to a TD or even had them in a plane yet. Last TH I flew was in a Bluetail Fly CL plane. I don't think I'd put a TD in that plane.

When the TH was in production, with the smaller-thread plug, I think they had two glow heads available. I THINK one was the normal plug and the other was called a "Contest" plug. Not sure which shipped with the TH. I would ASSUME it was the high compression one. Anyone remember for sure? I think my second TH (bought new, back then) had the larger thread plug (same as current size). Anyone remember the evolution process of those glow heads?
BTW, pre-release drawings in the Cox model mag ads for the SPACE BUG showed a conventional plug.

My all Time Cox list:

1. Tee Dee....No Contest.
2. Space Hopper....RPM specs very close.
3. RR-1... There were good ones and soso ones.
4. Thermal Hopper...was the first 'Hot' engine.
5. P-40/Black Widow any dual-port Baby Bee.

Tony