Slobbering Rich to Full Bore

I'm getting checked out on my uploading pix. Compressing to less than 50 kbs. I'm using the softwre that came with the camera- Canon A-60. About 15 steps to accomplish. To start a 777 requires 2 steps- Start then Run and both motors start simultaneously! So here's a pic of a Lil Dude- 1957 B Team Racer that I built to fly in the "nostalgia BTR" event at the VSC that pretty well fizzled. The event fizzled, not the plane. Thunder Tiger 25 moves it right along. Here goes!!!

Dale,

Try using Microsoft Photoeditor to reduce the byte content of your picture files - it's real easy. First, I usually re-size the image to a standard 640X480, which both reduces the file size, and makes an image just about anyone can view comfortably within their browser window. Then, when I save it, I reduce the "quality" setting to something around 80% - sometimes it takes more, sometimes less, I try to get as close to 50k as possible without going over. This way, you get a nice, high-res image, with a nice, small file. Much easier than the Canon software (I also have a Canon A60).

Tim

The standard uniflow tank and especially the GRW chickenhopper protrude a long ways out from the fuselage. The engine has to draw fuel a long ways uphill against the rotational force. Prior to launch, this effect is not present, thus the engine must be set on the ground to compensate in the air.

I believe Brodaks sells a version of the old Veco profile tank (originally designed by George Aldrich). This tank does not stick out very far and brings the pickup close to the venturi. As an alternative I can send you drawings of a home-made chickenhopper tank that has the fuel pickup close to the venturi.

You can test the 'uphill' fuel draw theory by using a small tank (1 oz or so) that does not stick out very far. It will only give you a minute or so of flight, but it will prove out the idea before you invest time or money in a different tank.

Sounds like you are getting very little fuel draw. Check the position of the spray bar jet in the venturi. Or start the engine and set it slightly rich, then point the nose up and note how lean it gets. If it goes too lean or quits, you have a fuel draw problem.

The Enya is one with the round venturi. Currently using a 10-5 APC. Vibration doesn't seem excessive. Less than a Fox 35. Will try extra padding on the tank and try some other tanks plus check some of the other things mentioned to see what happens. Thanks Much

>The Enya is one with the round venturi.
>Currently using a 10-5 APC. Vibration
>doesn't seem excessive. Less than a Fox
>35. Will try extra padding on the tank
>and try some other tanks plus check some
>some of the other things >mentioned to
>see what happens. Thanks Much

OK, that was July 13th. And it was an unusual symptom. The only Enya 29 I ever played with had the square intake and shiny black venturi inserts of two or three sizes, plus two kinds of heads. It acted nothing like yours. Ran pretty much the same as any of the engines of its type do (no stunt break, just variations from a rich two stroke through a leaner one, and nowhere near as much unloading after launch - with 9-6's). It seemed a little chunky and heavy for its displacement and power output, and was traded away.

What was the outcome of any further experiments with tanks and props?

Glad you got your problem sorted out! I haven't got back to messing with mine yet. I do think I'll try out a clunk tank so I can just put enough fuel in it to test things out and not be committed to 8 or 9 minutes of an engine cooking lean run if things go awry. I had one flight where it was so rich on the ground the plane had trouble moving through closely cropped grass. It would move a few inches then stop for a bit, move a foot more then stop again, Finally got enough speed after about 30 seconds to drag the plane into the air. Went lean almost as soon as it got in the air, probably within 1/4 of a lap. At least on that flight it started out rich enough it didn't go horribly lean in the air.