Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 44 of 44 known posts recovered
50s Flyer
See Ya
Peabody
"The Brodak .40 in the Smoothie is one of the original batch – I have no idea how many flights are on it but it’s been on at least four airplanes. It was on the Cardinal ARF when it was splattered and suffered no damage. I have NEVER had it apart.
I read on another thread that people are modifying them to improve performance. I believe it was Phil Cartier that asked what was being done to them. I would make the same query. I’ve heard many run and the best were completely stock. I paid particularly close attention while judging at King Orange and Brodak’s.
Actually, modifying the engine does accomplish one thing – it voids the warrantee. The .40 was tested and developed by Tom Hampshire, who is the most knowledgeable engine man I’ve ever met. I would imagine it to be a difficult task to improve on his work."
Bob Z.
When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.
Japanese Proverb
Well, *most* of them run well. Some don't, and some run OK but significantly different from the average. I was surprised somewhat as how variable they are.
But I would guess that the most effective way to solve that problem is send it back and get another one, rather than resort to aftermarket fixes.
Brett
Hi Brett,
That is basically what I was trying to refer to. I still believe that there are great "tolereances" in manufacture as they come from the Ukraine. "Blueprinting" would, at least get them to design specs.
After talking to Tom H. on several occasions, they should be good to go as a 4-2 engine designed to be basically a replacement for the OS 35S with a little more grunt. Any returns get sent to Tom as of my last conversation with him.
The easy way out IS to return it for another. So far, I have not heard of a problem in doing this with Brodak.
Blueprinting, as you know, is very important in assuring the proper, top, performance from any engine.
I cannot see any gains from changing the timing, etc., of the Brodak 40.
Bill <><
When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.
Japanese Proverb
I also had the early needle valve problem, having a false seat. The web instructions fixed that.
Phil C
I think that some of the other responders to this thread are correct. The "blueprinting" or "custom fitting" is what most of the engine rework specialists are doing to get better performance from the B-40. I do know that at least ONE of them took several engines to find what would/would not work and which mods gave better 4-2-4 break while pulling more prop so you didn't have to "spin it up so high" etc. I am no engine specialist by any means and lay claim to being stuck in a rut for longer than any modeler.
Am I going to buy another B-40?? Probably, but not soon. I will wait and see how the parts situation works out. I have had a P&C assembly on order for about a year now for the B-40 and so far there is no prospect of when I may get it. Besides, I have 85 or so Fox stunt 35s to use up first.
Bigiron
Bigiron13
Are you thinking of dropping it into that beautiful Nobler of yours? I know we’ve talked about it before but since then I’ve been thinking about it. If you run your un-muffled Fox in it like it’s set up now, I bet it will fly well. Ya got that puppy all tightened up yet?
Chris
Odd, that's the same difference I noted from the very first few I saw, to the later one - that the later versions seemed to have more "power" at high revs. Although I consider that a feature, not a bug. A few I saw early one were definitely about as described, OS35-style "power" but nothing to write home about. Later, I heard people talking about running 10-4 3-blades and the like, and it seemed crazy because there's no way the engines I saw would have worked like that. But now, with the more recent versions, it definitely seems doable and I think that was a HUGE improvement. Although I guess it doesn't surprise me that people would try to "fix" it.
Brett
Since then I have seen the engines of both Bob Smiley and Will Reeb run, and they seemed fine, expecially after Will went from an APC 10-6 to APC 10-5. I did not fly Will's model, he's no longer much interested in swapping equipment around at that particular field, but his Olympic seemed like a pretty good match for the B40.
Having had a lot of experience in bringing stuff in from places which used to be behind the Iron Curtain, I know that you constantly have to watch these guys. It is clear to me why this might be the case, details never. But ya gotta do it.
From afar, this situation appears to me to be made worse by Brodak's quite generous and (apparently) no-fault approach toward products which don't meet the required standard. As in, send it back, I'll replace it.
This is fine, but in my view the emphasis, and much of the expense, should be moved a lot further upstream. As in the novel approach of applying some good ol' Q.C. to at least a random sampling of engines from each batch. And spankin' the manufacturer really hard a few times. I once deducted from a payment to a supplier in Russia a big slug of hours required to get his stuff ready to sell. Yes, of course at U.S. rates. He suddenly found it made quite good economic sense to add a Q.C. section to his operation.
The current approach seems designed to let the customer find the problems, after which he gets taken care of. I would find that to be quite annoying.
Dan
Floyd
Bigiron
Bigiron13
Marvin,
Nobody likes to be the last line of defense when it comes to Q.C. Especially people such as you and I.
How long you been waitin' for a piston/cylinder set now? Back when I was selling engines imported from ex-Soviet bloc countries, I kinda thought that if I had engines in stock, I of course had parts as well.
It is upsetting to disassemble an engine in order to access one part. It's also a clue to consolidate one's feces, or the feces of supplier.
Don't ya just *love* agreeing with me?!
My best,
Dan
Don Jones
I have a Mo'Best well started - the Fusalage is finished except for painting and I am going to start the wing this weekend but I think that it needs more engine than the Brodak. I have a nice Enya 45 stunt engine that should be a better match.
Regards
Mike
That last line of defence is the pits. I just might have to sit that Voo Doo doll up on the shelf for awhile. I may try to put the hair that I pulled out of it back on.
Bigiron
Bigiron13
I think the customer returning a faulty item must expect to receive a replacement which will not have the same fault. Such a result may not happen immediately, but as soon as a re-curring problem surfaces, steps must be taken to rectify it. We should expect nothing less.
Back when we were flying Frog 500s, at one point broken shafts were common and were replaced without a problem by the importer.
Unfortunately the replacements had the same fault, which was related to incorrect heat-treatment.
Gordon Burford, who sold his Sabre engines in direct competition with the Frogs, made a replacement batch of 500x shafts for the Frog agents, which were correctly treated and solved the problem.
David Owen
David Owen
That's asking an awful lot for a $100 engine. If a full QC process (stateside) were added, that would add to the cost significantly. I admit it's a tradeoff, but when all you have to do is pick up the phone and get a new one in a few days, it doesn't seem to be all that onerous. Figure that without screening, one in 20 is bad. Screening one out of 50 (some undetermined but reasonably peceptive way) you might get that down to one in 15. Where's Brad and his six-sigma stuff when you need him (it actually works well in this case).? And add $25+ per unit. Maybe it would be better done in the country of origin, if you trust them to do the QA, then you could just trust them to do the job right in the first place.
I admit it's a tradeoff, but when all you have to do is pick up the phone and get a new one in a few days, it doesn't seem to be all that onerous, and you do save some money off the top.
I'm hardly considered an apologist for Brodak, but I think this is a little over-the-top. We don't hold Fox to that standard, and they've had 55+ years to work out the kinks! And it costs MORE (list price, at least).
If you demand certainty and repeatability on a higher level, there are plenty of other choices for twice or three times the money.
Brett
I find this a surprising statement coming from your side of the water. One of your indigenous quality gurus, Philip Coasby, coined the phrase 'Quality is free'(his book of the same name was published in 1979). What he was getting at if you 'do it right the first time'it will be more economic in the long run. (Is that what Dan said too?)
Figure
>that without screening, one in 20 is bad. Screening one out
>of 50 (some undetermined but reasonably peceptive way) you
>might get that down to one in 15.
Too late at this stage, this is just inspection and the damage is already done. The manufacturer should be encouraged to think quality in the first place. We need more TQM - yes it works if you use a top down approach involving everyone.
Where's Brad and his
>six-sigma stuff when you need him (it actually works well in
>this case).? And add $25+ per unit. Maybe it would be better
>done in the country of origin, if you trust them to do the
>QA, then you could just trust them to do the job right in
>the first place.
Six Sigma may have its roots in statistical quality control but it is a great deal more than that, verging towards the TQM viewpoint. That said,their definition of customer satisfaction is no more than 3.3 defects per million!
> If you demand certainty and repeatability on a higher
>level, there are plenty of other choices for twice or three
>times the money.
I only know of onr model engine manufacturer who is certified to
ISO 9000 (good starting point), and that is Thunder Tiger!
Mike Bennett
Bigiron
Bigiron13
I can see the point. But it's at least an arguable tradeoff, and if you can return the thing "no questions asked* and get a new one, it's pretty hard to see it as a big problem.
The most important mitigating factor, for me, would be that when you produce something for a less-experienced market, it actually needs to be more consistent than if you did it for the expert. A Marvin Denny *knows* when it's right or wrong, and has a good idea how to go about fixing it. A rank beginner wouldn't, and would tend to assume it was something *he* was doing wrong.
> I wouldn't be supprised to see
>in the not too distant future an aftermarket supplier of P
>& C assemblies for the brodak 40.
Are there enough of them around to make it worthwhile? I've seen a few here and there, but certainly not a huge number. Not when you can get Magnum 32's and 36's for $64.
Brett
Bigiron
Bigiron13
Right - but it's a matter of how much that's worth VS. how much it would cost to improve it.
> The same applies
>to the high power super engines such as the PAs and ROs for
>the beginning modeler. They will tear your hand off and
>make hamburger out of it if you try to start it incorectly.
>Beginner engines they are NOT.
>
I've used all the varities of engines extensively, and PA/RO-Jetts are no different from any other engine in that regard. In fact, they tend to be a lot more user-friendly and safer than most "beginner" motors and vintage engines. They always start promptly, and predictably, for instance, and you essentially *never* have to flip them through to start. But you can, if you want.
The only difference is the prop, but there's no one forcing you to use carbon props. A PA61 on a muffler spinning a Rev-Up 14-6 is no more risky than anything else spinning a 14-6 prop, in fact, probably less so since it's easier to start and does pretty much the same thing every time.
If the cost was not a concern, I would NEVER recommend beginners get "beginner motors" or vintage engines. Certainly, I wouldn't necessarily avoid semi-custom engines for *safety* reasons.
Brett
Thanks,Brett
I just wanted to add to your logic--Isn't the whole notion of "Beginner" motor somewhat distorted???As user-friendly as many if not all the so-called custom motors are.. I think they should be marketed as such.....The fact of the matter is, they are easier to use, which lends to the safety issue at hand..They run more consistently, which means you can spend more time in the air practicing your pattern..We are able to get them for a reasonable price, I think anyway..That is more of an indvidual thing; I realize this..So lets list what the so-called beginner needs in a motor?
1-Easy starting ability
2-Stunt appropriate-(Designed for our demands.)
3-Consistent stable running capacity.
4-Easy access to the builder/designer of motor in case of problems.
5-Wide knolwedge base surrounding these motors, because so-called experts use them..
Sounds like a winning formula to me and perfect beginner stunt motor..
Thanks David
Oh, of course. I was merely following the basic premise, not necessarily beleiving it. Better engines, are, well, better, for everybody If cost was no object, there's no reason at all to not buy the best thing you can get no matter what your skill level. And it's not *always* the most expensive item. I mentioned it above, but the Magnum 36 is at least the equal of any engine in it's class by almost any standard, and it only costs $64.
But, in general, there are inexpensive items that are more-or-less designed and prodced to a price point, and the price points are targeted at different markets. Hence "beginner" and "expert" price points. It's not surprising that a 40-sized engine that costs $100 might tend to be not quite as consistent from unit to unit as a 40-sized engine that costs $300. You get a lot for your money in either case, and it's simply a trageoff.
I do strenuously disagree that inexpensive motors are in any way "Safer". My experience has been just the opposite, and I have flown just about the same number of flights with Foxes as I have with PAs - i.e., A LOT.
Brett
This is good, but COST is critical, too. Face it, a neophyte is gonna stuff alot of airplanes-If they bust up 250.00+ dollar motors, they will be out of stunt before too long. It took me building, flying and powdering TWENTY planes to get good enough to be in the top echelon of advanced here in the SE. I probably obliterated 10 engines along the way-not just damaged, but smashed to little bits. There must always be a place for the lower cost, but decent engines such as the Fox 35, FP-20/25, LA-46, Magnum 36, etc for guys starting out. Otherwise it would be just too demoralizing cleaning up the expensive wreckage, or you'd be afraid to really push yourself in learning the pattern.
With this forum, the information is easily available to make the cheaper engines work very very good- think about it, you almost never see a thread :" how do I get my PA-61 to run?" 'cause a PA owner either knows how to make his engine work, or knows who to ask. But there is loads of info on how to make a low cost engine run. I would have given my left *** to have access to information like the FP-20 threads seven years ago when I was getting back into stunt.
I didn't mean this to be a bit of a rant, I just feel strongly that the rookie stunt flyer has to have cheap but decent motors available-he's gonna crash, and crash hard, more than once. He can't break the bank doing it.
Steve
Bigiron
Bigiron13
Steve
I have a late one (large muffler outlet) and I love it.
Rule # 1: read and follow ALL the directions, particularly break in and prop choices.
Rule # 2: see rule #1 !
Mine has been flawless so far, aside from being way too strong for an ARF Nobler I was using to build time on it. Couldn't get it slower than about 4.5 seconds/lap even on a 10/4 and 5% (63" lines). Perfect break and manners. Average fuel consumption.
It's going on a 54" Klapinski Tempest (610 sq " and finishing out right now at a bit under 45 oz). That should match up perfectly to its power.
As to reworking: why? but then some people would kick if you hung'em with a NEW rope!
Jeff W
PS: One small problem. Starting inverted mine tends to let the choke/prime run out the venturi rather than into the engine. Choking with the starter (please, not with the plug hot!), squirting into the open shaft port, or starting inverted see to work best. In any case, hand choking inverted doesn't work for me
For having trouble in hand choking the inverted engine, try popping your finger off the choke while the piston is still moving upward on the comperssion stroke so that the fuel is sucked on into the shaft instead of lieing on top of your finger. I make two or three choke pull throughs liike that, popping my finger off the venturi with each turn and usually get one or two flip starts.
Keep us posted if it works for you.
Bigiron
Bigiron13
As you may have guessed I'm much more a pragmatist than an engineer--I.E. find something that works and go with it. Even been married only once and for 28 years. (Well, something that usually works)
I have tried the technique you mentioned to get the charge into the engine but without luck. That may be more due to physical problems with my hands that don't allow me to get a strong flip. Of necessity, I'm strictly an electric starter type.
In any case, the venturi will be too far back to be accessible on the new ship, due to the shape of the original airplane and classic rules so it's a moot point.
Thanks for the good thoughts!
Jeff W
>From afar, this situation appears to me to be made worse by
>Brodak's quite generous and (apparently) no-fault approach
>toward products which don't meet the required standard. As
>in, send it back, I'll replace it.
>
>This is fine, but in my view the emphasis, and much of the
>expense, should be moved a lot further upstream. As in the
>novel approach of applying some good ol' Q.C. to at least a
>random sampling of engines from each batch. And spankin' the
>manufacturer really hard a few times. I once deducted from a
>payment to a supplier in Russia a big slug of hours required
>to get his stuff ready to sell. Yes, of course at U.S.
>rates. He suddenly found it made quite good economic sense
>to add a Q.C. section to his operation.
>
>The current approach seems designed to let the customer find
>the problems, after which he gets taken care of. I would
>find that to be quite annoying.
>
And then Brett said:
"That's asking an awful lot for a $100 engine. If a full QC process (stateside) were added, that would add to the cost significantly. I admit it's a tradeoff, but when all you have to do is pick up the phone and get a new one in a few days, it doesn't seem to be all that onerous. Figure that without screening, one in 20 is bad. Screening one out of 50 (some undetermined but reasonably peceptive way) you might get that down to one in 15. Where's Brad and his six-sigma stuff when you need him (it actually works well in this case).? And add $25+ per unit. Maybe it would be better done in the country of origin, if you trust them to do the QA, then you could just trust them to do the job right in the first place.
I admit it's a tradeoff, but when all you have to do is pick up the phone and get a new one in a few days, it doesn't seem to be all that onerous, and you do save some money off the top.
I'm hardly considered an apologist for Brodak, but I think this is a little over-the-top. We don't hold Fox to that standard, and they've had 55+ years to work out the kinks! And it costs MORE (list price, at least).
If you demand certainty and repeatability on a higher level, there are plenty of other choices for twice or three times the money.
Brett
While I think if Brett and I were to hash this out over the lunch he still owes me, there is an apparent conflict here. And I'm gonna jump all over it.
First, I personally, and as a customer, do not like the Brodak approach to Q.C. and have been having a minor hissy-fit about it ever since I (twice, orders separated by many months and certain assurances) bought quite nice fillet tools packaged as being B-Y&O 10-6 props.
However, as a tactic in business I understand it. And it appears as if I and Marvin, for example, are in the minority here. No problem.
This tactic is even one I was forced into back when doing a turn-around on Model Racing Products (MRP). For reasons we won't go into now, they pretty much blasted stuff out the door, stood back to see what stuck. One of the funniest situations, while also being one which caused me quite a lot of angst, was when I asked Jim Booker (yes, *that* Jim Booker, he currently of F2A fame) for copies of all Bills of Material, beginning with a then-new product, the High Roller monster truck.
(We were only preparing to ship the first few hundred units to Sears, no big deal to our newest, and largest to date, customer. *Not!*)
Jim was our buyer, leaned back in his chair, smiled, and said, "There aren't any." I'd been there one or two weeks, kits were stacked to the ceiling in shipping, the Sears buyer was calling every day, and we *knew* the kits weren't correct, because we didn't have the tools to be certain they were exactly to specification.
In line with a fix-it-if-the-customer-catches-us approach to Q.C., we had a guy who did nothing but field customer calls. All day. Every day. Brutal, brutal work.
When MRP kits (Sears had been sold RC boats as well, for example) began hitting the hands of Sears customers, the number of calls went through the roof. I was taking some, and none too happy about it.
No problem. The Design Group would normally be expected to at least begin a Bill, even if buyer finished it. And they wrote the instructions, these causing many problems. So I had all the "What the...?" questions directed to the source of many problems: Design. What a popular guy I was for a few weeks!
And we began changing things. Again, a business decision, one with lots of options.
More. When I was bringing in the VA .049 engines, there were two distinct shipments with which I had to deal personally. Not big shipments, maybe only 200 units each. But I went through *every single* engine in both shipments, and if cost is a factor in Brett's thinking, these were $50.00 units, and when selling them to SIG Mfg. or GMA, which is how the bulk were sold, I didn't see anything near the fifty bucks.
Further, the boys made a serious mistake in shipping me a third batch with obvious Q.C. problems just prior to designer and head man paying a visit. Second day he was in town I showed him what I was finding, that it would not do, and that this time it would be *his* job to go through *all* of the engines, assembling the good parts into something I could with confidence sell.
He spent all day working. We had dinner. He worked all night. I'm serious; he was still at it when I got up to make breakfast. Motivation? We were not going to be doing any of the things for which he came to America while I had customers waiting for engines. Simple.
So there...
Dan
Careful! If you keep this up you might even get a good guy image.
I do agree with much of what you said here, but don't tell any body.....I'll deny I said it.
Jeff W
OK, I have to ask a dumb question here. What is the difference between taking engines apart, interchanging parts, and reassembling and simply cannibalizing the engines for parts? Aren't you dont' the same ting?
>when uve ran thousands of engines all sizes...after a while
>ya kinda get a feel for these things...diminsions vary so
>little they become insinificant....
And you know this how? I was at the Fox factory one day when they were doing a run of Fox 35s. They had barrels of sleeves and pistons marked as +1, +2, or -1, -2. They would take a sleeve from one barrel and a piston from another barrel with the same tolerance and then spin the sleeve in a machine while they lapped the piston to it.
Now with CNC machinery you may think the tolerances get much tighter, but you are still building parts within tolerances, and after chrome plating, etc., of our ABC stuff, you still need to pick and choose pistons and individually fit the piston to the sleeve. That's why you don't buy pistons and sleeves separately. If you hand fit these you can get the fit a lot closer than the mass produced units. The people who make these mass produced engines simply cannot spend the time working for the perfect fit every time. There will be tolerances, and, for some, these will be significant.
>blueprinting is bs...i bet half th guys that say they do
>that couldnt even read a blueprint and have no blueprints
>to work from even if they could get them...manufacturers
>won't give them up...not to some clown with a pile of old
>parts and a 10" logan in his garage..I imagined stuff these
>days would be much better...
As I said, for low price, mass production, the engines we get today are of surprisingly good quality. Still, there are tolerances, some of which are simply not checked at the factory. One for instance, is deck height. This will vary all over the place with the standard off the shelf engines we get today. I have mentioned this repeatedly that the OS FP engines would vary typically from 0 (rare) to +7 on average, with one a full 17 thousandths of an inch off speck. That is more than one full head shim in difference, which not only affects compression but timing and everything else. This is one of the things that I very definitely do correct.
Now, as for blueprinting--well, I can read a blueprint. That is immaterial. No one uses blueprints any more. It is an expression. A lot of the blueprinting is to put it to our specs. I know what I want in that engine. I measure up every engine I work on and keep a record of what it was when I got it and what it was when I sent it out. The engine people who do "blueprinting" will work on deck height, head clearance, timing, venturi size and so forth. If OS has seven different sizes of venturis that they supplied with their LA 46 engines, (and they had at least that many) the bluprinter will include the size that will work best according to the specs that he is working with for how he recommends you run the engine. You would also make sure the sleeve is aimed the right direction, the back plate doesn't leak, there are no burrs on the head gasket and so forth.
If the manufacturer did all this, the price would more than double, maybe triple when you add in the mark-ups that happen down the line. They can't do it. Most people wanting an inexpensive engine may not care. Those who do will be willing to pay the price for someone to do it right.
>oh im sure theres gonna be someone out there whos toes
>im gonna step on...
You haven't named names.
>and there are exceptions...but few...very very few...
>cant speak fer the rooosian quality...but if they don't
>build model engines no better than the workmanship i've
>seen from over there ..I'd say buyer beware...
Like any product made anywhere, there are good and there are bad. That goes for the US, too.
>buy american ...american manufacturers make the best
>and they care if u like thier products ...
Uh, there aren't too many American manufacturers left, especially in the mid size, low price market. And then some complain about them, too. I can name Fox and...uh... Let's see, I can name Fox and...
>i bet some are still individually run ...just like we did...
>have those guys fix ur engine they built them ..
>they know what they are doin.... jim
Fox, will indeed, fix your engine for the cost of parts alone with the maximum cost being half the price of a new one. That usually means they junk yours and give you a new one. But don't expect it to be blueprinted, even though they do have their specs. They do run every engine (very briefly) before they send it out, and I have heard that the exceptional ones are reserved for the replacements of those that are sent in for repair. Can anyone verify this?
Leonard Neumann
Exceptional Fox? Didn't think that existed from a factory Fox...
Well, there you go ... only one mfr left in the US, and we even belittle them ...
Tom B