MAGNUM 36 question:

I picked up a 36 but it is the version just before the AII. It is a 36XL. Has anyone tried this one?? I am going to put the same size venturi in it and give it a go, after break in, it is NIB. Not going to do anything to it, just do like we did with the other one.
We'll see how it does.
Bill <><

Bill,
The 36XL is the one we are all talking about. It`s the real deal/

Gordy

No, it sounds like the engine Bill has is the older round cylinder XL .36. The slow combat guys like these a lot, locally. I think they are heavier than the square fin versions. I don't know of anybody who has used the round Magnum .36 for stunt around here, but when GMA worked on my DS .40, he mentioned a Magnum .36 that he reworked and tested at the same time...that would have been a round one.

The square fin version started out labled as "XL", but now are labled "XLS", just like the new square finned .40, .46 and .52. It makes sense to me. Steve

Gordy,
Sorry for the confusion! It is the older one. We do have the XLS36AII that Aaron is running and we love it!
This one was just about given to me, so I couldn't turn it down. Just got to see how it does.
Bill <><

LAST EDITED ON Feb-21-04 AT 10:14 PM (CDT)
 
I have a Magnum 36 PRO SE engine. It has a squarish cylinder head, and the instructions say "Thunder Tiger" on them. I presume this is an older incarnation of the engine, maybe a re-labelled TT 36 PRO. It has one of Len's venturis and OS NVA fitted. A tongue muffler is in the works for future purchase. Is there anything else I should consider modification wise before putting in an airplane? Gordon: You live close to me, is there anything special necessary for our altitude? (about 4,200 ft, in case somebody is curious.)

Hey guys,

Is this the engine we're talking about?

http://www.hobbypeople.net/gallery/210640.asp

Hi Randy,
That one is the "known to be good" one. The one that Phil G., turned us on to.
I have one of those.

I also have the version just before that one which has a round head. The round head is the one that I wanted to know if anyone else had tried.

Bill <><

The other Magnum 36 thread is here:

http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dcforum/DCForumID1/8004.html

Cy

Bill,
I may be flamed for this, but I think any modern engine can be made to run "great" by running it like it was meant to be run---at high rpm's. As I put on my abestos undies, I would venture to say there is nothing super special about the the square head Magnum 36. (There is nothing wrong either). I bet the stock Thunder Tiger 36 (which Randy Smith turns into an Aero Tiger 36 with his special parts and skills) will perform really great too, just like your older Magnum engine too. People have good luck with the OS32 and Webra 32's too.

I think a lot of the time we all work ourselves into a group hysteria AGAIN, I repeat, the Magnum 36 is a great engine! (Hey I caught the PG hysteria too and bought one last spring!). But it just isn't the only option out there.

Don't worry--be happy.

>Bill,
>I may be flamed for this, but I think any modern engine can
>be made to run "great" by running it like it was meant to be
>run---at high rpm's. As I put on my abestos undies, I would
>venture to say there is nothing super special about the the
>square head Magnum 36. (There is nothing wrong either). I
>bet the stock Thunder Tiger 36 (which Randy Smith turns into
>an Aero Tiger 36 with his special parts and skills) will
>perform really great too, just like your older Magnum engine
>too. People have good luck with the OS32 and Webra 32's too.
>
I say that all the time, with only minimal flaming. It's just a matter of running them the way they work best, not the way some other engine ran best 40 years ago. You've got a lot more effective power, just have to learn how to use it.

Brett.

Hi Brett,
I think all the stories of the "dreaded run aways" scared some people, me included. Probably because, as you are saying, many fliers tried to run them like a Fox 35 or ST 46. So the deal is to just let them run and use lower pitch, right? Me, and Aaron, have been running pipes for quite a while now, so it should be obvious to me, but I'm still so used to the 4-2 break on a muffler! LOL!! Some things die hard, that's why I am going to put this engine in a plane and see how it works. I am guessing a 10 1/2-11 X 4 prop.
BTW: I just found out that the round head Magnum has a different size opening than the square head one, so I got to get a venturi from somewhere.
Thanks,
Bill <><

Brett,
I don't claim originality for the way to run these engines.

>Brett,
>I don't claim originality for the way to run these engines.

Neither do I - I merely make the point that you can say it with reasonable safety.

In fact, I would be tempted to give Bill Fitzgerald and Ted Fancher the credit for doing it first (if not the idea, which seemed to come after). The use of the Veco 19BB in WAM "A" Stunt in Twisters, Banshees, Dolphins, and even Gieseke Noblers, much as we are discussing here - cranked to the max, speed controlled with pitch (10-4's), and very steady performance - dates to the early-mid 70's. These airplane often flew better than the "real stunt planes" powered by 35's and 40s. But beyond the oddities of WAM engine class stunt, it didn't really catch on.

Brett,

You already know that I started the small engine big plane flying in 1961/2 with a Pearson/Raffel Pegasus and an old "A" version Veco .19. Sure wish they had the BB Veco .19 back then! Of course we were flying the old in-between pattern in WAM back then which wasn't as demanding as the Aldrich/Daley version. With the addition of the BB Veco .19 I think that my 34 ounce Pegasus would have stood up to the test. Of couse there are more modern planes with better performance that the old Pegasus but Bob Raffel sure did a lot of winning with one back in 58-62. Ask anyone who flew back then about the Pegasus! How about giving original credit where it's due?

As is characteristic of Brett he is very generous in giving others credit, naming PTG, Ted, David and so on.

I would like to tie this thread to the one on "Pukey Profiles" and note that the same philosophy applies: Run the engines (20 and 25FPs) stock, let 'em rev quite freely and you're easily more than halfway there.

All stuff I learned from Brett and his successes with a 20FP-powered SIG SkyRay and then applied to ARF Flite Streaks.

I know that some of you simply don't believe the claims made in that thread. Which is fine. We're patient.

Dan,

Please re-read the above. Brett already knows because I sent him a copy of the plans and a note about what modifications I made to it to use the old Veco .19 "A" series engine with it. I suppose he received those plans I sent? Ted also has a copy of them. They must have made some comments to each other about them?

>Dan,
>
>Please re-read the above. Brett already knows because I
>sent him a copy of the plans and a note about what
>modifications I made to it to use the old Veco .19 "A"
>series engine with it. I suppose he received those plans I
>sent? Ted also has a copy of them. They must have made
>some comments to each other about them?
>

If you sent me something, I didn't get it. Besides, I'll take your word for it on having done it first.

Brett,

I'm sorry that you didn't get the plans I sent. I sent some to Ted too. Please check with him and see if he received his? If not, I guess that there are some happy C/L modeling postmen somewhere! If you'd like a copy I could send another one?

Well now Dan,

I see that Brett hasn't commented but I guess I tooted my own horn loud enough for the entire west coast to hear anyway...One other comment about letting engines rev. That's why I preferred the K&B .35 over the Fox .35 at least until the OS .35S's came along.
Now I highly prefer the pipe style runs. I'm still just a little skeptical about 4 strokers - but I just might get me one in the next year or so! Probably a Saito .56. They seem to be docile enough for someone to learn about 4 strokers on, and I do have a couple of R/Cers in the club to help out with them.