Stuka Stunt Control Line Forum
Archive, 2000–2021 · recovered from the Internet Archive
Forums › Stuka Stunt Main Forum

Pacemaker 59 flies

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 11 of 11 known posts recovered

raglafart · Mar 23, 2004 04:45 AM

edited#0 source
My main interest is Vintage stunt and here in Australia we receive a sliding scale of bonus points for the age of design and the age of motor, the older the more points. You get extra points for ignition, biplanes and or flapless designs.
I'm a better builder than flyer and enjoy searching for oddball suitable designs and the challenge of getting the less popular motors to run better than they did in their own time.
I have always thought that the "Pacemaker 59" was a motor that should be well suited to trying to make it work as a decent engine for OTS. Its features include a one piece magnesium alloy case, twin ball races, socket head cap screws all round, rear rotary disc intake and a listed weight of only 12 ounces for the ignition version, well according to the add on the back page of the Oct. 1946 Air Trails. It all looks good! then again you can't always believe the adds can you! Just checked the weight of my much hacked away job and find it weights in a just over 13 ounces and it hasn't even got a timer! The ignition version actually comes in at 14.75 ounces.
I'd bought a parts motor on ebay a couple of years ago more to check out than seriously use, the case and head had been filed, lugs broken out, shaft badly bodged at the drive washer and required a bit of TLC.
A good friend organised the repair of the broken lugs some time ago. I have now completed the engine to the first phase.
I figured that the lapped motor would benefit from an improved piston cylinder fit and the addition of some taper to the bore. The original motor has a parallel bore and a piston that has an undercut some .400" wide in the centre to reduce friction I presume. This allows the transfer port to breath through this annular gap into the exhaust on the down stroke and must compromise the basic crankcase compression. Having lapped some 0.003 taper into the bore I made a new piston from mehanite without this central relief. I discarded the bronze "H" section rod and searched my stock of rods for a suitable replacement found that an OS 80 rod has the same centers between the wrist pin and big end, all I had to do was rebush the rod at the big end. While the wrist pin in the OS 80 is huge at 7.30 mm o.d. it is at least hollow so I used the OS wrist pin too, just shortened the length and made some Teflon end pads.
The shaft had been badly butchered at the “D” drive area, an attempt had been made to convert it to a square drive with a file to suit an O&R style prop driver with poor results.
I ground the shaft down to just under the shaft thread diameter and made a split bush to accept an OS 60 prop drive which is even the same diameter as the front housing and looks like it was designed for it.
For the first runs I set it up in the front end of a Super Duper Zilch I had been given. I had to cut the venturi back some 9 mm to be able to get it far enough back against the firewall. The venturi i.d. was 0.290” so I was hopeful that it would work okay
The first runs in the back yard were kept short but were very promising on a 13X6 Zinger that had been cut back to 12.25 diameter I found in my prop inventory. I took it to the field were I ran it up with a couple of friends. To say it vibrated is an understatement. None of us thought the airframe would survive. The prop was perfectly balanced and I suspected that the rear rotor was the culprit. I’d seen this type of vibration before with some rear disc pylon motors from my former R/C days. I statically balanced the rotor and then had to wait for the following weekend to see if there was any improvement. The vibration was gone.
I’d made fresh lines 0.0015” at 64 feet and was now ready to fly, I’d taken my stopwatch and Tacho to see where we were at, but once I’d got the motor started, it sounded so sweet I forgot all about the tacho and stopwatch and just flew it. I could see a lovely white exhaust trail, but it was a fast rich 2 stroke run
To say it had line tension is an understatement, I had a smile a mile wide when I landed it.
I think the motor is way too strong for the model, but it’s sure great fun. I’ve just taken a couple of shots to add to the post. Hope they come out.
Has anyone else had seen any of these motors used or had any experience running the Pacemaker 59’s. Anyone use one at your recent VSC?
Cheers for now
John

De Hill · Mar 23, 2004 08:01 AM

#1 source
I have never seen one of these engines used for stunt at the VSC or anywhere else. They are rare collectable engines, and are too expensive for most people to buy and fly them. They were not a commonly used stunt engine even in the days of the Barn Door(large sized) stunters.

Cary · Mar 23, 2004 08:27 AM

#2 source
How did you repair the broken lugs?

raglafart · Mar 23, 2004 05:25 PM

#3 source
Hi De
I posted a question about Pacemakers a while back and got hardly any responses at all which puzzled me. I thought there would be at least one or two modellers in the US that had owned and run them at some time. I was never quite sure why they weren't a more popular motor, whether it was the cost or simply that they didn't perform that well with the standard internals or that the rear intake and timer made them that little bit more awkward to fit in some models? I guess the fact the Gotham hobbies cleared them out after only a year or two suggests that the performance never matched the advertising hype of the day.
I'm sure that there are flyers who use Orwicks, Andersons and Cyclones for their sparky models which are equally as expensive and sometimes more so than the Pacemakers. I'd still really like to hear from anyone else that has had some experience running one of these motors or some anecdotal info on their performance good or bad.

Cary
The broken lugs were repaired by full size aircraft welding specialists, I guess by TIG, my friend who works in the aviation industry got it done for me. You can see the amount of fill used by the lighter areas in the lugs especially on the lower of the 2 pics, the rear mounting hole was completely broken out. I think Frank Bowman carries out some case repairs in the US, he's well known for his piston rings.

Cary · Mar 23, 2004 06:11 PM

#4 source
Thanks for the info. Really nice job.

V12 · Apr 02, 2004 03:31 PM

#5 source
John - this is the one I told you about on the other forum. I was thinking about building the Icarus for it. Seems like an interesting design. I have the plans for the Icarus Jr. and I plan to start on that soon.
Do you have any suggestions for a really different vintage plane?
Bob Z

F4FGuy · Apr 02, 2004 05:12 PM

#6 source
Ron B.
F4Fguy

Okay,you've inspired me.I've had this thing for a long time.It hasn't run in probably 40 years and,somewhere along the way,it lost it's timer and drive washer,but it has fantastic compression and seems in good shape otherwise.I have the same question,what model,preferrably one that hasn't been done to death?
Incidentally,mine and Bob Z's are later models.Your's is an early one much more rare.Note the diagonal logo on your's.Our's is vertical,note also the lack of ribbing on the early one.Thanks for the tip on balancing the rotor.

Ron B.

raglafart · Apr 03, 2004 06:50 AM

#7 source
Hi Bob,
That's a really nice looking one and very nice photos too. I thought the Stuntwagon at 650 plus square inches might be a reasonable match. I have one that is set up for an Atwood Super Champ and I'm seriously thinking of redoing the front end to switch to the Pacemaker. Another one I've always liked is the Fury Screwball but it only has around 490 square inches of wing area. I have the Dragon plans too but saw the details and photo of the Wildman 60 and wouldn't mind having a go at that.
I'm still having fun with the Super Dupa Zilch at present. It was only ever meant to be a flying test bed but it is a reasonable combination. The only problem I have is that the tank is a little on the small side, it isn't quite large enough to complete the full OTS pattern with the Pacemaker.


I did some tacho tests the other day and got 9200 rpm on the 13x6 zinger that has been cut back to 12.25 diameter. I'm using 12% nitro with 25% oil half and half. I haven't fabricated a muffler yet so it's running with an open exhaust. The motor's only had about 1/2 a gallon of fuel through it so far so it's still got a bit of settling in to do. I've got another one complete with the ignition set up. I'm interested to see how the spark compares to the glow.

Ron, it's well worth balancing the rotor. It made a very big difference on my engine. I'll take some shots of it when I next have it apart if your interersted.

We had a bit of an engine running session at the field today. There was an ED competition special, an ED Hunter, an AH Dyno replica, Stalker 60, Double Star lite 60, S/T G60, Gilbert 11. I ran up my McCoy 36 special which ran quite well. All in all another good flying and bs day.
Cheers John

V12 · Apr 05, 2004 10:49 AM

#8 source
John - you may want to rethink the Screwball. I'm sure it's considerably more than 490 square inches. As I recall, there were a few different versions.
Take a look at the picture of mine - for comparison, that's a 14" prop and it has 2 1/2" wheels.
The Pacemaker should be perfect. I like it a lot more than the Stuntwagon - It's really impressive in the air.
Bob Z

raglafart · Apr 05, 2004 11:52 PM

#9 source
Hi Bob,
That's a lovely example, what engine did you use? it certainly seems to have a larger span than the one that I'm looking at. What's the span of yours Bob?
I'm working from the Dec 48 Model Airplane News which features the Fury Screwballs Mk vii and viii but the article with the plans says right from the start that this is a follow up from the original published version in a 44 issue and a later update in 46 but in both cases doesn't give the months.
I'm going to try and post half of the plan and one of the pics in the article. The 48 versions both share 52" spans with a 10.5" chord. With the elliptical tips this is going to be close to the 490 square inches I worked out.
I notice also that yours doesn't seem to have a turtle deck behind the canopy. The 48 versions have a very P40 looking cockpit profile. I also noticed that the rib spacing on yours seemed much closer than the 3" spacing shown on the 48 versions.
Can you remember which version yours is? I'd really like to know what issues of MAN the other articles were in and the major differences between the various models.
It really is a very pretty design. Apart from its good looks I was also attracted to this model as the building instructions offer many alternatives in construction and on the subject of the lifting NACA 23012 airfoil shown on the plans says "Those builders irrevocably wedded to the sect which believes a symmetrical airfoil is a must, may use one on the Screwball ,all round performance is almost as good!
Did the model you built have a semi or fully symmetrical section.
Cheers John

V12 · Apr 06, 2004 06:38 AM

#10 source
Hi, John - yes, first off, I left off the turtle deck in favor of the open cockpit - just a different touch and the opportunity to show off the pilot!
I will measure my Screwball tonight and send you the particulars tomorrow. Now that I think about it, I'm really not sure which version it is but I do know that the plans call for a planked wing. I used an I-beam instead.
Since it is quite large, I designed a rather complex but interesting take-apart system for it. Maybe I will include a photo tomorrow.
If the plans I have are differnet from yours and you want them, I will send them to you.
Mine, by the way, is powered by an Anderson Spitfire - not sure whether it's a .60 or .65. Spark ignition, running a stock points/condenser system, on gasoline/castor oil. Very reliable.
Bob Z