Whats up with RJL

Hi everyone- I have been spying the Johnson 35 stunt, at RJL for about 4 years now, and have been wondering, are they ever going to bother to repro it, or are they just advertising it for no particular reason!? Trying to get a response from them is like pulling teeth. I tell you they seem to be asleep at the wheel!! I hope im wrong!! < Paul

Simply a case of bushels and bushels of "irons in the fire" at the same time, with limited resources to deal with more than an infinitessimal part of all the possibilities!

.

Kiwi

Thanks Kiwi, I hope some day they could get around to it. Paul

LAST EDITED ON Apr-13-04 AT 09:18 AM (CDT)
 
I hope they recognize that, at least for Classic PA work, the small case Johnson "s" is a much better engine. Given the popularity of the classic genre and the lack of something similar in the combat community I would think the "s" would be much more popular. I know I'd buy at least a couple of them.

The .35 was a fine engine, but reached its peak popularity as a combat engine with a few refinements supplied by guys like Riley Wooten. Run in a 4-2-4 it had too harsh a break. It had something like a 12 to 1 compression ratio which made it hit the break pretty hard ... also made it run very strong in a clean two stroke.

The "s" was, as I understand it, a happy confluence of the combination of the .35 piston and sleeve and head combined with the crankshaft (and, thus, the stroke) of the .29. This resulted in not only the slightly reduced displacement (.3348 according to the instruction sheet) but also a much reduced compression ratio of only 6 to 1. The result was an engine that four stroked very powerfully and, when it did break, did so with only a modest increase in revs and power. Ergo, a nearly perfect stunt engine.

I have a .33 S and it is indeed all you said. I have a small case .35 also and it has completely didfferent running character. I too wish they would make both, however, I think that the main reason they are talking about only doing the large case .35 is that is the only one they have existing tooling for. All the moulds, etc. for the small case models were destroyed many years ago- so they'd have to start totally from square one on these.

J

>>Simply a case of bushels and bushels of "irons in the fire" at the same time, with limited
>>resources to deal with more than an infinitessimal part of all the possibilities!
>
>Thanks Kiwi, I hope some day they could get around to it.
>
When Randyy first announced that he had the rights to the Johnson engine, I asked about small case engines, not the larger ones. George Aldrich had told me that Hi Johnson broke up the dies to save on taxes; a friend of mine in the heyday of CL owned a "Stunt Supreme" (that's a large case model engine) and it was not a 4-2-4 classic type engine. It was also a very THIRSTY critter.

I always liked the smaller ones, and if I recall correctly, George told me that they actually needed very little help to run well at peak rpm's, other than a better source for pistons (Hi bought his from the same source as Testors bought the McCoy RH pistons, and George did not like those).

.

Kiwi

People: The Johnson 35, in most forms, was/is a neat motor. But if you really want a 4-2-4 break in a 35, why not go with the Brodak? Even a Fox is a pretty good choice, if reworked by the experts.

RJL may be suffering from lack of sales? I have ordered parts for a Cunningham Blue Streak from RJL several times, but no response. Doesn't sound like a going concern to me.