OS LA65

Curious to know if anyone has adapted the OS LA65 RC engine to a stunt engine. It seems like all you would have to do is make a venturi and maybe add a needle valve up front and you have a stunt engine with huge cajones for a great price.
TIA

If it's like the big FP (.60?), it's too heavy to be a good stunt motor..

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"An ugly baby is a very nasty object, and the prettiest is frightful when undressed." -Queen Victoria

>Curious to know if anyone has adapted the OS LA65 RC engine
>to a stunt engine. It seems like all you would have to do
>is make a venturi and maybe add a needle valve up front and
>you have a stunt engine with huge cajones for a great price.
>TIA

Weigh it. It is a boat anchor. You can get a competition engine of the same size that weighs 11 ounces or so, has more power, has definitely more quality and longivity, and, yes, does cost more. Or you can put 8 or 9 more ounces in your nose and 4 or so ounces in the tail to balance and fly the LA.

Thanks fellers
Next time I'm in the market for a boat anchor, I'll take a look at the LA65.
Bud

My recollection is that it weighs in the 19 ounce range. OUCH!

I was told that the FP.60 was a serious vibrator, besides all that weight. The LA .65 would probably be very similar. More logical would be a Saito....or one of Leonard's .53's, if he still has some. Steve

>My recollection is that it weighs in the 19 ounce range.
>OUCH!

Sounds like a good BI-SLOB Engine!

Scott(going slobing today)Riese

>Sounds like a good BI-SLOB Engine!
>
>Scott(going slobing today)Riese

How about a Tri-Slob or a Quadra-Slob?

You have been challenged to build it and fly it.

I did check out the Thunder Tiger GP 61, an O.S. clone but relevant to the rest of the world since we all stop at 10cc/0.61c.i. Same comments apply. I do wonder what would be possible if you took a Dremel with suitable cutters to the c/case, although I suspect the shaft will weigh a ton! Could it be a good substitute for a .72 f/stroke? Ian R.

If the 65 runs anything like the 40 and 46 it should turn about a 14/5 prop easily with little rework. Despite all the comments about LA's being cheap trash they seem to run pretty well and last adequately well.

As far as weight, if you are planning to build anything that has even a semi-scale outline the weight would be just fine. Most engines are way too light to balance a scale-looking plane so the weight would be useful. If the plane is big enough to carry the weight a couple extra ounces of engine shouldn't bother anybody. There are a lot of planes carrying 14 ounces of paint. Trade a few for a good running engine. From all the other discussion in the last few months a couple of ounces of engine shouldn't be a problem.

Thanx for input-just checked the OS webpage specs on the .65 and it weighs in at 18oz even. Unbelievable-it didn't look that much different than the 40-46 in the mag.
Looks like it would have to be a real special app to be used for anything in control line-like maybe a scale plane like was mentioned earlier. Or something you really didn't want to get off the ground:)

>If the 65 runs anything like the 40 and 46 it should turn
>about a 14/5 prop easily with little rework. Despite all
>the comments about LA's being cheap trash they seem to run
>pretty well and last adequately well.
>
>As far as weight, if you are planning to build anything that
>has even a semi-scale outline the weight would be just fine.
> Most engines are way too light to balance a scale-looking
>plane so the weight would be useful. If the plane is big
>enough to carry the weight a couple extra ounces of engine
>shouldn't bother anybody. There are a lot of planes
>carrying 14 ounces of paint. Trade a few for a good running
>engine. From all the other discussion in the last few
>months a couple of ounces of engine shouldn't be a problem.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

How True!

Another point,has anyone checked to see if that weight is with or without muffler?The later O.S. mufflers weigh a ton!

>>If the 65 runs anything like the 40 and 46 it should turn
>>about a 14/5 prop easily with little rework. Despite all
>>the comments about LA's being cheap trash they seem to run
>>pretty well and last adequately well.
>>
>>As far as weight, if you are planning to build anything that
>>has even a semi-scale outline the weight would be just fine.
>> Most engines are way too light to balance a scale-looking
>>plane so the weight would be useful. If the plane is big
>>enough to carry the weight a couple extra ounces of engine
>>shouldn't bother anybody. There are a lot of planes
>>carrying 14 ounces of paint. Trade a few for a good running
>>engine. From all the other discussion in the last few
>>months a couple of ounces of engine shouldn't be a problem.
>
>Ron B.
>F4Fguy
>
> How True!
>
> Another point,has anyone checked to see if that weight is
>with or without muffler?The later O.S. mufflers weigh a ton!
>
> Ron B.

Ron
Checked the wt of a LA40 I have against the chart on the OS web page.
It weighs 9.5oz WITHOUT the muffler. This is the weight given on the OS page.
Therefore I must assume the LA 65 weighs 18oz without the muffler.
(The 18.0 below refers to the weight of the engine)
.65 LA
(OSMG0065) 0.662
(10.85 cc) 0.944
(24 mm) 0.925
(23.5 mm) 2,000-16,000 1.7 @ 16,000 18.0
(510 g) 12x7-8, 13x6-8 16500

Were talking over 20oz with stock muffler.

Haven't really seen your F4F in person -but it is the coolest plane I've seen since Tom Dean's Crop Duster at the Dallas Nats around 1956 or 57. He had these scale mechanical brakes he machined that worked, and looked, like the real thing-unbelievable.
Bud S

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>If the 65 runs anything like the 40 and 46 it should turn
>>>about a 14/5 prop easily with little rework. Despite all
>>>the comments about LA's being cheap trash they seem to run
>>>pretty well and last adequately well.
>>>
>>>As far as weight, if you are planning to build anything that
>>>has even a semi-scale outline the weight would be just fine.
>>> Most engines are way too light to balance a scale-looking
>>>plane so the weight would be useful. If the plane is big
>>>enough to carry the weight a couple extra ounces of engine
>>>shouldn't bother anybody. There are a lot of planes
>>>carrying 14 ounces of paint. Trade a few for a good running
>>>engine. From all the other discussion in the last few
>>>months a couple of ounces of engine shouldn't be a problem.
>>
>>Ron B.
>>F4Fguy
>>
>> How True!
>>
>> Another point,has anyone checked to see if that weight is
>>with or without muffler?The later O.S. mufflers weigh a ton!
>>
>> Ron B.
>
>Ron
>Checked the wt of a LA40 I have against the chart on the OS
>web page.
>It weighs 9.5oz WITHOUT the muffler. This is the weight
>given on the OS page.
>Therefore I must assume the LA 65 weighs 18oz without the
>muffler.
>(The 18.0 below refers to the weight of the engine)
>.65 LA
>(OSMG0065) 0.662
>(10.85 cc) 0.944
>(24 mm) 0.925
>(23.5 mm) 2,000-16,000 1.7 @ 16,000 18.0
>(510 g) 12x7-8, 13x6-8 16500
>
>Were talking over 20oz with stock muffler.
>
>Haven't really seen your F4F in person -but it is the
>coolest plane I've seen since Tom Dean's Crop Duster at the
>Dallas Nats around 1956 or 57. He had these scale
>mechanical brakes he machined that worked, and looked, like
>the real thing-unbelievable.
>Bud S
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Thanks Bud,you've put me in rare company.I saw the Dean cropduster when it won 1st in scale at the '53 NATS in Willow grove.You're right,fantastic!He showed us his documentation book ,and I couldn't believe it.The structure was steel tube,just like the prototype.He had photos of the full size and model at every stage of construction.You couldn't tell which was which except for the work bench.There were scale grease fittings on the controls! Also,the dusting mechanism worked,driven by a wind mill ala full scale.All this powered by a Cameron "19"with a two speed carb!
But back to the point.I have to agree with Ferocious,shorten the nose(better yet build a scaler)and don't look back.Sure its heavier,but there are other places to remove weight.If you're a contender,sure,go for the PA,but if you're an average flier who does the occaisional contest........ .You'll probably still end up with an airplane better than your last one,and that's what it's all about.

>>>>If the 65 runs anything like the 40 and 46 it should turn
>>>>about a 14/5 prop easily with little rework. Despite all
>>>>the comments about LA's being cheap trash they seem to run
>>>>pretty well and last adequately well.
>>>>
>>>>As far as weight, if you are planning to build anything that
>>>>has even a semi-scale outline the weight would be just fine.
>>>> Most engines are way too light to balance a scale-looking
>>>>plane so the weight would be useful. If the plane is big
>>>>enough to carry the weight a couple extra ounces of engine
>>>>shouldn't bother anybody. There are a lot of planes
>>>>carrying 14 ounces of paint. Trade a few for a good running
>>>>engine. From all the other discussion in the last few
>>>>months a couple of ounces of engine shouldn't be a problem.
>>>
>>>Ron B.
>>>F4Fguy
>>>
>>> How True!
>>>
>>> Another point,has anyone checked to see if that weight is
>>>with or without muffler?The later O.S. mufflers weigh a ton!
>>>
>>> Ron B.
>>
>>Ron
>>Checked the wt of a LA40 I have against the chart on the OS
>>web page.
>>It weighs 9.5oz WITHOUT the muffler. This is the weight
>>given on the OS page.
>>Therefore I must assume the LA 65 weighs 18oz without the
>>muffler.
>>(The 18.0 below refers to the weight of the engine)
>>.65 LA
>>(OSMG0065) 0.662
>>(10.85 cc) 0.944
>>(24 mm) 0.925
>>(23.5 mm) 2,000-16,000 1.7 @ 16,000 18.0
>>(510 g) 12x7-8, 13x6-8 16500
>>
>>Were talking over 20oz with stock muffler.
>>
>>Haven't really seen your F4F in person -but it is the
>>coolest plane I've seen since Tom Dean's Crop Duster at the
>>Dallas Nats around 1956 or 57. He had these scale
>>mechanical brakes he machined that worked, and looked, like
>>the real thing-unbelievable.
>>Bud S
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>Ron B.
>F4Fguy
>
> Thanks Bud,you've put me in rare company.I saw the Dean
>cropduster when it won 1st in scale at the '53 NATS in
>Willow grove.You're right,fantastic!He showed us his
>documentation book ,and I couldn't believe it.The structure
>was steel tube,just like the prototype.He had photos of the
>full size and model at every stage of construction.You
>couldn't tell which was which except for the work
>bench.There were scale grease fittings on the controls!
>Also,the dusting mechanism worked,driven by a wind mill ala
>full scale.All this powered by a Cameron "19"with a two
>speed carb!
> But back to the point.I have to agree with
>Ferocious,shorten the nose(better yet build a scaler)and
>don't look back.Sure its heavier,but there are other places
>to remove weight.If you're a contender,sure,go for the
>PA,but if you're an average flier who does the occaisional
>contest........ .You'll probably still end up with an
>airplane better than your last one,and that's what it's all
>about.
Ron
You recall more than I do about the cropduster. I remember him holding it and showing details to several people who were curious. Now that you bring it up, though, I remember more of the things you described. Wonder what happened to Mr. Dean-and the plane?
I like my LA 40 and 46 but I am not likely to purchase the .65 unless I had a specific way to use it.
Bud