Brodak 40 question...

Just got a new Brodak 40. The instructions say to break it in by using about 20 1-2 minute runs to take it repeatedly through the heat cycle. Makes sense as usual, except I usually see recommendations for a little longer engine run that that. Here's the problem. The engine repeatedly WILL NOT RUN longer that one minute. Seems to be running fine, then at about one minute, starts to snort for a very few seconds, and shut down cleanly. Plenty of fuel in the tank, and can be restarted in a few minutes without adding more. Tried different tank positions. Tank is the 8 oz flask type that comes with my test stand. Even tried laying it on its side so fuel usage wouldn't effectively change the fluid level as much. After 6 runs, same exact shutdown. Could this be the point of liner heat expansion? With continued running, will it change? Using Powermaster 22% 11-11 10% nitro just as the instructions say. What gives? Is this normal for this engine?

Are you getting bubbles in the line? I have that problem with my test stand and that plastic tank that comes with it. All I have to do is touch the tank and the bubbles stop. But I have a feeling that this is your problem: the tank is shaking, the fuel is foaming, the engine is going lean and shutting down.

But, yes, after break in it will run much more reliably. However, if the problem is foaming, that will continue. Just watch for bubbles in the line and put your hand on the tank if they appear and see if that won't settle things down.

That very well may prove to be the problem, but its really wierd that it always happens at about 1 minute into an otherwise smooth engine run. Then, sudden shutdown. I'll try a different tank and setup tomorrow. I may just put it on the plane. I didn't really want to, because it is spitting so much fuel right now. Not ANY fuel economy at this point. Taking about 1 oz per minute, it seems!

If you are filling the tank up each time that would explain it. You burn off a certain amount and then the resonance sets in and it starts to foam. Been there. Done that a thousand times. I hate those plastic tanks.

I think Leonard has solved your problem My B40 has given great service. I fly it with a slightly rich 2-cycle on the ground, and it amazes me with the power with its 4-2-4 break.

I think this is the best motor to come along in many years..
Floyd..

I put a nice thick peice of foam rubber under my fuel tank on the test stand stop any chance of fuel foaming.Give it a try rather than changing the tank.

You may have two (or more) problems:

>Here's the problem. The engine repeatedly WILL
>NOT RUN longer that one minute. Seems to be running fine,
>then at about one minute, starts to snort for a very few
>seconds, and shut down cleanly. Plenty of fuel in the tank,
>and can be restarted in a few minutes without adding more.
>Tried different tank positions. Tank is the 8 oz flask type
>that comes with my test stand. Even tried laying it on its
>side so fuel usage wouldn't effectively change the fluid
>level as much. After 6 runs, same exact shutdown. Could
>this be the point of liner heat expansion? With continued
>running, will it change? Using Powermaster 22% 11-11 10%
>nitro just as the instructions say. What gives? Is this
>normal for this engine?

1) It could be piston/cylinder fit as you suggest.
2) It could be fuel foaming, but you can see this - Have you tried a shot of ArmorAll ?
3) You mention "fuel-spitting" - Is this a 4-cycle run? How rich are you running this puppy? Don't the instructions say a rich 2-cycle for break-in? Of course, if it's spitting fuel out the front you need a replacement from Brodak . . .

4) Have you tried a different (hotter) glow plug?

Running it crackling in and out of 4 cycle and back to 2 cycle, as the instructions suggest. No visible fuel foaming.

>Just got a new Brodak 40. The instructions say to break it
>in by using about 20 1-2 minute runs to take it repeatedly
>through the heat cycle.

Try this Craig.

Get you a 11-4 or something similar. Cut it down to a 8-4.

Start the engine using a starter. Spin the thing up until it is in a rich 2 cycle. Let it run. My guess is that the liner is getting hot with the (assumed) larger prop. This little prop will not load the engine very much at all and will allow for a very cool initial break in. Run a few tanks with the little prop, then go to a 10-5 and run at the same soft 2 cycle.

Brad, this is an ABC engine. If the engine is getting hot, the liner will pull away from the piston. You actually need to get these engines warmed up quickly or you can wear them out on the test stand. The very fact that it is running for a minute before quitting says it is not too tight.

I have one of the same test stands he has and can practically guarantee that the problem is fuel foaming. If he merely puts his hand on the plastic tank, the foaming will stop. And, by the way, I defoam my fuel but it doesn't help in this case. It is the way the tank is mounted.

He will need to make sure he follows the needle valve while the engine is running on the stand as well. As the fuel runs down in the tank you need to open the needle a little to keep it running at the same rpm. I like the idea of being able to see the amount of fuel in the tank, but it sure is a pain otherwise.

I tried working the needle. When it decided to quit, that doesn't help. I had no trouble breaking in my RO-Jetts on this stand, but I imagine there is a lot of difference in the amount of draw from those engines.

>Brad, this is an ABC engine. If the engine is getting hot,
>the liner will pull away from the piston. You actually need
>to get these engines warmed up quickly or you can wear them
>out on the test stand. The very fact that it is running for
>a minute before quitting says it is not too tight.

Leonard;

Not trying to be argumentative, but isn't the Brodak 40 AAC, not ABC? If so, doesn't that change the break in procedure a little?

V/r

>>Brad, this is an ABC engine. If the engine is getting hot,
>>the liner will pull away from the piston. You actually need
>>to get these engines warmed up quickly or you can wear them
>>out on the test stand. The very fact that it is running for
>>a minute before quitting says it is not too tight.
>
>Leonard;
>
>Not trying to be argumentative, but isn't the Brodak 40 AAC,
>not ABC? If so, doesn't that change the break in procedure
>a little?
>
>V/r
>
>Bob

I guess we use these terms interchangeable too much. But whether is is ABN, ABC, or AAC, the mechanical theory is the same and the run-n procedure is essentially the same. The Brodak instruction sheet warns, even, against turning them over when cold as we often like to do. ("Hear the squeak? Neat, huh?"). It also warns against running them overly rich as is the common practice on the iron piston engines which tighten up when they get hot. The instruction recommendation is to run them for short periods of time, but at operating rpms (and temperatures). If you don't get it run up to temperature right away, or attempt to run it slobbery rich, it will prematurely wear it out (or at least degrade performance.) Thus you can't ruin them by getting them too hot (so long as you are running sufficient lube). But if you run them hot you won't accomplish much in the break in process as the cylinder will expand away from the piston. (Thus the Brodak recomendation of a number of shorter runs rather than one long run on the test stand.) Heating and cooling is a necessary process of the break in.

I thought about that. I was using the smallest prop I had, which was a 9-6. I'll go that route.

Thanks everyone. Since no one thinks there is something inherently wrong with the engine, I'll forge on. Lots of things to try, and the wind is blowing so what else is there to do????? Did one of you manage to anger the wind gods this year?????

Leonard,

Fule foaming causing a clean shutoff. I dont think so. It could be but it would lean up a bit and then shut down. Or it might spit and sputter and then shut down. Or it might run for two minutes one time and only 20 seconds another time. I have been running plastic since 96 and have had many foamers on the stand. I was breaking in some OS 10s once and it was foaming horribly and they didnt just shut down like he said his is doing. Foaming causes very inconsistant problems not consistant shut downs at one minute. I saw your comment about if he were filling it then it would do it the same every time. That makes logical sense of course but when a motor starts getting air in the line it acts very INCONSISTANT.

HOWEVER I am not ruling out what you said just saying it doesn seem to make alot of sense as to what he is saying.

When I first read his comments It sounded like a heat issue.

But as you said I would look at the tank first! There could be a loose clunk line and the fuel is getting below the point and it just shuts down. However it would lean up and shut down just like an air in the line issue.

Craig run it just a little faster in a rich 2s and see what happens. You can try to load it up a little more and see what happens. I under loaded my RO when I broke it in and it never ran very good. I loaded up my PA just like I was going to run it and it has always been a good one. I have done that with all my motors. Even my race car engines. After the first two or three runs break it in as it would be run. I am still nice to them just have the normal load on them. The tolerances and clearances in todays engine can take on the load much much earlier in life than the older ones and they will last longer also.

Still check the clunk line. The bext way to check it for tank troubles is to simply NOT change a thing and mount another motor on there and see how it runs. That will tell you where your problem is. If I couldnt locate the problem visually that is what I would do.

Keep us updated.

I have a CB Tatone test stand. I love the test stand itself, but hate the tank arrangement that comes with it. I don't know if it is the tank itself or the way the bracket fits or what, but I have had similar problems with most every engine I have run on it. It can be an FP or a Magnum or a PA with a pipe, it does the same thing. I will fill the tank and start up the engine. It runs fine for a brief period of time until the fuel level gets to a certain point and then the tank shakes, the fuel foams, and lots of bubbles go through the line. The result is a very lean engine which can cause the shut off he is talking about. On my stand all I have to do is just put my hand on the tank and the thing will settle down (which is why I have never gone further to change anything). But it is very consistent in doing this from run to run. And the fuel is already defoamed!

If this is his problem and he changes engines, it will probably do the same thing. But if there are bubbles in the line when this happens, that is the problem.

Had a very nice phone call from Joe Bowman this morning, and we were able to talk through it at length. Several possibilities. First, he told me that on the B40's he has seen the two holes on the spraybar are NOT exactly opposite each other, not 180 degrees but maybe 200 degrees, and it makes a difference as to up and down on the spraybar. I checked mine, and it is not that way. He said both he and others had changed to the ST needle & spraybar with good results. He didn't say if he had bad results with the original, or if he is just partial to the ST. I changed several things. New tank mounted in foam at the correct height, new fuel line and filter, double checked the spraybar, and re-tightened the head bolts which, after running, needed a little nudge. NO EFFECT. On a whim, I left the battery on, and guess what! It continued to run. I wonder if there might be a leak forming in the plug seal when it gets hot? Changed the plug, and so far, so good. Gues I was stuck in my preconceptions. After all, how could it run FINE for a minute and shut down cleanly if the plug were bad??? Live and learn! If the problem comes back, I'll let you know.

>Had a very nice phone call from Joe Bowman this morning, and
>we were able to talk through it at length. Several
>possibilities. First, he told me that on the B40's he has
>seen the two holes on the spraybar are NOT exactly opposite
>each other, not 180 degrees but maybe 200 degrees, and it
>makes a difference as to up and down on the spraybar. I
>checked mine, and it is not that way. He said both he and
>others had changed to the ST needle & spraybar with good
>results. He didn't say if he had bad results with the
>original, or if he is just partial to the ST. I changed
>several things. New tank mounted in foam at the correct
>height, new fuel line and filter, double checked the
>spraybar, and re-tightened the head bolts which, after
>running, needed a little nudge. NO EFFECT. On a whim, I
>left the battery on, and guess what! It continued to run.
>I wonder if there might be a leak forming in the plug seal
>when it gets hot? Changed the plug, and so far, so good.
>Gues I was stuck in my preconceptions. After all, how could
>it run FINE for a minute and shut down cleanly if the plug
>were bad??? Live and learn! If the problem comes back,
>I'll let you know.

The dreaded ABC "like a switch" mystery shutoff. If it's anything like the problem I have seen before, it's something to do with the plug and the fuel apparently not liking each other. Not that either is necessarily bad, just that they don't seem to get along very well. I had one engine that did this incessantly. I finally got around it pretty decisively by running Byron "classic" fuel. This stuff works just fine as far as I can tell, and it allowed the engine to keep running.

Despite the fact that it seems to be working now, be very, very careful in the air. What typically happens is that it will run along with no problems, then quit in a hard inside loop (assuming the engine is mounted conventionally with the cylinder inverted). That's a recoverable situation if it happens in the inside rounds, and maybe not if it happens in the last loop of the 4-leaf.

Interesting. I changed from a K&B hot to a Fireball Hot. I remember last season I began to get crappy runs on my RO-Jett .61 (at the Houston contest, of course)using the same fuel and a K&B plug. That time I changed to a 4 cycle plug which is still in that engine. If the Fireball acts up, I'll go to a 4 cycle plug in the B40. So far I have run it twice more for about 4 minutes each, and I shut it down both times. Definitely not broken in, it's a booger to start and floods if you look at it wrong. I may consider the ST spraybar. So far, I am NOT impressed with the stock one.

>Interesting. I changed from a K&B hot to a Fireball Hot. I
>remember last season I began to get crappy runs on my
>RO-Jett .61 (at the Houston contest, of course)using the
>same fuel and a K&B plug. That time I changed to a 4 cycle
>plug which is still in that engine. If the Fireball acts
>up, I'll go to a 4 cycle plug in the B40. So far I have run
>it twice more for about 4 minutes each, and I shut it down
>both times. Definitely not broken in, it's a booger to
>start and floods if you look at it wrong. I may consider
>the ST spraybar. So far, I am NOT impressed with the stock
>one.

Beware of the loss of choke area. I don't know about the Brodak motor, but the larger spraybar in the Double Star *really* kills what little power might be there in the first place. I have seen a few that were stunningly gutless - like, not nearly as good as a stock Fox. Had to be peaked-out lean to fly a Nobler with a 10-6 prop.

I doubt the Brodak motor will have that much problem since it starts out a lot stronger, but something to keep in mind.

Beware of the loss of choke area. I don't know about the Brodak motor, but the larger spraybar in the Double Star *really* kills what little power might be there in the first place. I have seen a few that were stunningly gutless - like, not nearly as good as a stock Fox. Had to be peaked-out lean to fly a Nobler with a 10-6 prop

The Brodak and ST spraybars are essentially the same diameter, in fact they are almost twins except for the two hole spraybar in the Brodak. For some reason, I have also had better luck with the ST needle valve assemblies.

I've seen Joe Bowman's and John Ashford's B40's run. Excellent. I will probably fly mine before making that decision, however.

Craig:

I'm just breaking one in myself. Mine was on a crude stand setup with an old 1-1/3 oz perfect tank banded to the stand (good for about one minute 45 sec). I was amazed at the engines ability to ignore slight bubbling in the line. I was using sig 5%, 20% (10-10) spiked with castor to 24%, a master airscrew 9/6, no muffler, and getting 13,000 or so (if I remember right) at the break. Ran it through 25 cycles while timing at a FF contest and after the first 10 it was smooth as silk. At least a 10 minute cool down, 2 chokes and a bump with the starter and off. Didn't touch the needle after run 10.

Your symptoms just don't sound quite right for bubbles. It's too consistant. A glazed plug would make more sense or a plugged tank vent (as in a bad chunk of fuel line). anything restricting air into the tank would cause your symptoms. I've had plugs that glowed fine but still had running problems. Check for glaze or that the last turn or so of the coil is not lighting. Those things are really temp sensitive and can be consistant.

Mine hasn't been in the air yet but if it's half as sweet there as on the stand, I'll love it.

Good luck

Well, I thought I had it solved, but...

I finally got it to run, but tonight the problem came back. I flew it once yesterday, but it leaned out somewhat in the air. Didn't worry about that, just assumed I missed the needle. I didn't have time to try it again. Tonight...Start the engine...get it set...take off the battery...quits immediately. Changed plugs...ran out the prime...again...again...again...

One thing I discovered Monday was that the venturi didn't seem to fit down properly to the case, and the little flat seal was loose! Replaced it with an O-ring, changed to a ST venturi, and that's when it appeared to work earlier in the week. Now the problem is back. I've tried 3 tanks, 3 plugs, a different spraybar, a different venturi seal...I think I got a DUD!!!!! The entire venturi/spraybar/seal assembly on mine is pure CRAP! I looked at another one at the store where I bought mine. The spraybar was set with one of the holes STRAIGHT UP! John, where's the quality control????? I've been buying engines since I was about 8, and I NEVER saw anything this shoddy! What gives?

When the engine quits after the battery is removed is usually a sign of bad fuel or a bad plug. Keep us posted when you find the cure, Thanks

As I said, I've tried three different brands of plugs, including a good 4 cycle plug, and three different batches of fuel. All Powermaster, however. My RO-Jett loves this stuff, so I really don't think it is the fuel. Wierdest thing I've ever seen. One thing is for sure. They don't test-run 'em at the "factory"!

When I flew it earlier in the week, it didn't care when I took the battery off. Think I'll bring it to Dallas this weekend and let some of the gurus look at it. Maybe I can get it blessed...

Craig,

For what its worth, my Double Star 40, which is a close cousin to the Brodak, kept running goofy on Powermaster. It ran much better on Sig Champion 10% than powermaster 10%. Don't ask me why. Like you, I tried different brand new cans of Powermaster but had the same problems. Life is good on the Sig, and I'll just use the Powermaster in other engines that don't seem to have issues with it.

>As I said, I've tried three different brands of plugs,
>including a good 4 cycle plug, and three different batches
>of fuel. All Powermaster, however. My RO-Jett loves this
>stuff, so I really don't think it is the fuel. Wierdest
>thing I've ever seen. One thing is for sure. They don't
>test-run 'em at the "factory"!
>

As to test running them at the factory, the only manufacturer who I know of who does this is Fox. Yet they are the ones who have been accused of poor quality control. I got a new Fox 35 from them once with a gash in the piston. A big gash! It had been test run, though, and made it through "quality control". This is not to bash Fox, just to say it can happen. (and they made it good). John will stand by his engines as well. But I have got to think there is something goofey here with your setup. Just one of those "little things" that adds to the horror stories and we laugh about afterwards but is quite frustrating to you right now.

Since you've tried just about everything else, try checking head bolts. If they are not tight, it will cause just the behavior you've described, I've had that several times. I don't have torque specs for you, but I use the short end of an Allen wrench, and tighten until it doesn't turn anymore, and when you feel that any more torque will strip the thread.

Did that...

>Well, I thought I had it solved, but...
>
>I finally got it to run, but tonight the problem came back.
>I flew it once yesterday, but it leaned out somewhat in the
>air. Didn't worry about that, just assumed I missed the
>needle. I didn't have time to try it again.
>Tonight...Start the engine...get it set...take off the
>battery...quits immediately. Changed plugs...ran out the
>prime...again...again...again...(snip)
>

OK, one thing at a time, you take the battery off and the engine quite. Does it keep running if you keep the battery on? If you are taking the battery off just at the time it is getting ready to quit, it is not a fire issue. All engine problems (unless the engine is worn out or totally malfunctioning and won't run at all) are fuel or fire. If you don't get a pop, it is fuel or fire. If it won't keep running, it is fuel or fire.

Are all the bolts tight? If you have a backplate bolt loose or, yes, even a glow plug (squished washer) it can cause problems.

>One thing I discovered Monday was that the venturi didn't
>seem to fit down properly to the case, and the little flat
>seal was loose! Replaced it with an O-ring, changed to a ST
>venturi, and that's when it appeared to work earlier in the
>week. Now the problem is back. I've tried 3 tanks, 3
>plugs, a different spraybar, a different venturi seal...(snip)

Have you changed any of these things since the problem came back? Now, the Brodak needle valve assembly should work. I don't hear other people complaining about it. But, as you know, the holes must be side to side with a spray bar that has two holes. But even if you changed all this stuff, one thing to check is JUNK IN THE NEEDLE. I don't know if this is your problem, but I have seen it repeatedly in engines. One flyer once was having a problem with one of my engines at the Nats. Matt and I watched one flight, witnessed the problem, and turned towards each other saying almost in unison, "Junk in the needle!" When he came down we took the needle out, cleaned out the spray bar, problem solved. Matt uses two filters on the fuel can and one between the tank and the engine and we still experience the problem on occasion. You can't filter everything out with a filter, plus the fact that air has to come into the tank from somewhere. If you get little particles of dirt coming in, it will be in the tank, in the fuel, yup, junk!

Pull the needle, back flush the spray bar, make sure everything is sealing. If nothing else, put a little silicone seal around the venturi and around the needle valve seat. Then check the rest of your fuel system.

Like I said, same problem, even with two completely different spraybar/needle setups. Made sure head and backplate screws were tight. Have not disassembled the engine. Liner in wrong, maybe? Can't tell it looking at the exhaust port, though. As to fuel, it's not just running wierd, it's NOT RUNNING! And Len, I'm sure that I will be laughing the most (at myself) when I get this figured out.

I had a similar problem at FTW with my Impcat/PA65. All the brains were there- excellent, experienced flyers. I didn't get it figured out until I got home- wasted 6 hours trying to get it to run. The problem for me was the inside of the can, that is, the plating, had separated from the can. De-plated? The contaminate was so fine it could barely be seen in the filter. It looks like the silver pigment in aluminum paint. I reported this to Powermaster. The batch number on the can is 3443. I have three of these cans and all were problematic. Joe Bowman had the same problem at Houston. His can was batch 3443. Dee Rice called with the same information- same batch number. John Cox has a 3443 can that is delaminated but nothing trapped in the filter yet. When I strained the fuel through cotton cloth it was easy to see. Joe described it as "gray lint". Check your filters REAL well and filter the fuel. Clean out spraybar, all that usual stuff. After cleaning all the elements in FTW that day, the motor would run a minute, then not respond to the needle, go lean and quit. I was also using a very small diameter fuel filter in the plane which clogged very quickly. Hope all this helps you find a cure. My B40 is superb. Best regards, dale g

Joe told me about this the other day. Not my batch numbers (on any of the THREE different batch #s of fuel I have tried). I will try a different brand next, as Brett suggested.

Craig,
So if I follow everything, it is (again) quitting when you remove the battery (?).

So if you leave the battery on, it keeps running.

I am wondering if your plugs are being coated by something in the fuel (like silicon from Armoural), and that only by leaving the battery on, will the glow element remain hot.

So my $15 guess is to try some fresh fuel AND a new plug (cost of fuel and plug!). Don't use a previous plug since maybe it is toast.

I've tried three plugs so far, and three different batches (by batch number) of Powermaster fuel, all of which run fine in my RO-Jett. Trying a different brand of fuel next.

It isnt the fuel if the RO eats it just fine. The plug elements in the RO would die also if it were a fuel issue. Remember Joe and Dale and Dee all running different motors and different plugs and the fuel would kill them all. But you can run this fuel in another motor and it runs fine. It might run goofy or not as consistant on PM comprared to something else BUT THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM! THE PROBLEM IS THIS MOTOR WILL NOT RUN! I get what you are saying. Having the RO right there to test against helps because you can rule things out as you go, like fuel eating plugs. There is a huge difference between inconsistant runs and not even getting it to break in.

Return the motor and ask for a replacement. It just inst this hard to make them run enough to at least get a break-in. This a simple side exhaust AAC, or whatever, engine. There is nothing special here. This is not some high performace rig that needs a "Special" setup. It should at least run for break-in. Now getting the run you want in the air is on you. But this motor would have already been back it if it were mine. John would rather you be happy with a motor than go on here and tell eveyone how it will not run no matter what you do. Since I know you personally I know you have a snough experience with these things to know how to run one in.

Len,

It isnt just a fuel fire issue if there is something really wrong with the motor. A clogged filter and bad plugs, are you reading his posts? He has changed it all over and over. Different NVAs. What are the chances that both NVAs are so clogged that they both give him the EXACT same problem? Give the guy some credit. He is very succesfull at running a BSE 65 and can tune it just fine and run it in many different setups with no troubles. There is something going on here that is not just a simple fix. And if it is a simple fix then those he bought it from should be able to straighten it out for him. Just as you did with your customer. He said he isnt getting a good seal around parts of the venturi/NVA. There is no way in heck it will run worth a CRAP with poor seals anywhere on the motor. That right there should tell everyone that there is an airleak that is to blame. It shouldnt be cured with customer applied silicone either. It should be cured with a new motor with properly fitting parts.

An enigne specifically designed for stunt should not have to get an ST needle and other mods. It should just work with it's own parts right from the box. This isnt an FP. This engine should work fine on it's own. If it doesnt than what does that tell you?

If you have ill fitting parts dont even waste your time with fuels and plugs. Send it back with a list in order with everything you have done. Or go to the shop where you bought it. It is new enough that they should honor it and do something about it.

I hear you, but I'm stubborn. I want to know why. I really think I'm gonna look stupid when this is all over. Here are my suspects:

1. Bad leaks around the venturi, NVA, etc. I'm using a little clear (removable) silicone. I'll try that first.

2. Bad fit on the piston/liner to the extent that draw is affected. I consider this unlikely. If this is the case, it may just need more run time. I can sorta get it to run upright on the test stand. No way it will run inverted on the plane.

3. Something basically wrong with the porting. Also unlikely.

4. Brett's idea about the fuel. Unlikely, but I've got two other brands I can try.

5. A pinhole in the casting somewhere. If so, I can't see it.

I will give #1 and #4 a try. If no workee, I returnee.

I appreciate ALL comments and ideas. If someone else were posting this, I would conclude they didn't know what they were doing, or were just plain nuts!

Hey Doug, see you tomorrow!

Works almost every time
Send engine to brodak with a simple note explaining problem.
Ask for a repair or replacment and if repaired, an explanation of the problem found.
This is the cheapest and quickest way.
I feel certain brodak will take care of your problem.
If you don,t wish to do this,you can call Wally at the Mayberry
garage .Tell him over the phone, weather it went chinka , chinka
or pottre pop pop and maby he can diagnose it over the phone.
Seriously , Brodak has somthing we don,t have ;Brodak 40 experience
to draw from(like Powermaster has regarding their fuel cans)
and lots of new engines.
Why suffer? Go fly your jet, let Brodak do the work

Yeah, I know, I know...I just can't stand to be outsmarted...especially by an inert hunk of aluminum...

>It isnt the fuel if the RO eats it just fine. The plug
>elements in the RO would die also if it were a fuel issue.
>Remember Joe and Dale and Dee all running different motors
>and different plugs and the fuel would kill them all. But
>you can run this fuel in another motor and it runs fine.

Not logically true, nor supported by experience. I had all sorts of fuel run through my first PA40. All ran perfectly well. Same fuel with PA40 #2, and it basically wouldn't run more than about 2 minutes on the test stand, or through more than two inside loops. Finally, tried Byron fuel, ran perfectly and ended up winning several local contests. I though, Oh, ok, I've got 2-300 flights on the engine now, never skips a beat, I'll go back to SIG. Didn't make it to the handle before it quit.

The fuel doesn't have to be "bad" to not work in a particular engine. It just has to be incompatible. I went down *all* of the roads mentioned above - "coated glow plug", pinhole leak", hairline crack,etc, etc, etc. The fuel was the solution.

This "ABC inside corner flame out" phenomena is not all that unusual. I see it from time to time on all sorts of ABC/ABN/AAC engines, and switching fuel (I try Byron first, since it's widely available and is satisfactory in modern engines from a wear standpoint) until we find one it likes. Or get another engine.

> This "ABC inside corner flame out" phenomena is not all
>that unusual. I see it from time to time on all sorts of
>ABC/ABN/AAC engines, and switching fuel (I try Byron first,
>since it's widely available and is satisfactory in modern
>engines from a wear standpoint) until we find one it likes.
>Or get another engine.
>
> Brett

I have heard Brad talk about this flame out thing as a normal thing from time to time. I have only been at this since 90 but that has NEVER been a common or semi common thing that I have had to deal with.

I have been lucky I guess the only real finicky ones that I have had were tiger 46. Under 26% fuel and the runs were inconsistant. But the brand made no difference. But all of my AAC,ABC, or whatever motors have run well except one and I dont have it anymore. Fuel brands didnt help it out either.

My experience is just the opposite of yours. Problems like the ones on this thread that I have encountered have never been fixed by changing brands of fuel. Dont think changing brands wasnt tried...many times I changed brands trying to get a funny run or a good run or a run at all and it never seemed to work. It was always something like a plug or two or three plugs or a loose bolt somewhere or a seal at the ventrui or any number of things. But hey you guys have been at this alot longer than I have.

Craig I cant wait to hear what happens.

I am real curious to

Doug, read on for the last chapter...

I had similar experience with a fox once. The engine would quit after the glow driver was removed. It drove me bunkers! Earl "Woody" Midgley saw me suffer and offered me to try a "Ro-Jett Super Hot" plug. The engine started with a single flick and ran like a charm. Since then bought a bunch of those plugs and put them in all my engines. Almost everyone in my flying club commented on how nice my engines run.

I used the same plugin in two of my B40's and both engines run VERY consistently. I broke in my B40 on the test stand(Tatone one) as per instructions with that plug as well and did not have any issue whatsoever. Depending on what's available at the LHS, I use PowerMaster GMA or SIG Champion 20 and get pretty much the same kind of run.

Give that plug a try and let us know if it worked for you.

CHAPTER TWO...

OK, I took everyone's advice and returned the B-40. The folks at Lone Star Models couldn't have been more accomodating! Great folks!

HOWEVER...the rest of the story...

I drove an hour through rush hour, traffic jam, and rain...exchanged the engine, and came home. Another hour's drive. Thank goodness, no rain and the traffic was better. Got home, opened the box, started fooling with it, as we all do, when I noticed:

1. Spraybar installed with one hole straight up (not a big problem, since I'll have to reverse it for inverted installation anyway).

2. One backplate screw run all the way in as expected, one half way out and loose, and ONE MISSING!

This is when the expletives almost crept back into my vocabulary. Started checking to see if I had another screw (remember, two hour round trip during the week when it is amost impossible to get away from work). Obviously metric, and out of luck. As I got up to post much more scathing remarks than you are now reading, I found the screw about 10 feet across the floor. Evidently I must have flipped it out as I unwrapped the plastic from around the engine.

From here, I got my hex wrench, and tightened down the backplate with no problem. Checked the head, and it also needed a lot of tightening.

MORAL OF THE STORY: WHO IS PUTTING THESE THINGS TOGETHER??? IS THERE NO INSPECTION PROCESS AT ALL IN PLACE?????

This is two in a row for me...I haven't started it yet, but I bet you can guess where my confidence level is about now!!! For $100 bucks, I think we at least deserve to have the screws tightened, and hopefully, the spraybar in straight! After some of the stories I heard at the contest this week, I guarantee you this is the LAST CHANCE for the B-40 in this household. Any more problems, and I'm calling John. The Wooten's should NOT have to be troubled with a SECOND return from the SAME CUSTOMER! If I got two in a row, I think the probability is high that there are a lot more problem engines out there. It's one thing for those of us who have been fooling with these things for 45 years to deal with a problem. It's quite another to expect a newbie to figure it out!!! If I'm not mistaken, our president is very high on enticing more newbies into the sport. JOHN, ALL YOU WILL DO IS RUN THEM OFF AND MAKE THEM FEEL VERY BURNED SELLING THIS JUNK!!!!!

Dirt, this is where I need your skills as a wordsmith. Maybe I could at least inject a little humor into the story. Just can't find much to laugh about at the moment.

OK, I've said it. Now, maybe I'll feel better. After all, loose screws and all, maybe it will run...odds, anyone?

p.s. On the Brodak web site there is a page concerning two known problems, the needle not going in all the way, and the need to drill out the muffler. The last paragraph says:

"All Brodak products are constantly checked for quality and accuracy, and tested for durability, performance, and value. Our goal is to produce the best possible products and equipment, and offer them at the best possible prices."

OOOOKAAAYYY.......

I've resisted but can't stand it anymore! Allow me to share! I too have had more than half the B-40's come in assembled incorrectly. Two had the piston sleeve rotated, two with the crankshaft threaded wrong and one with the spray bar mis-oriented. The sleeve ans spray bar orientation were caught on a visual inspection and easily corrected prior to sale/use. Contacting John regarding the crankshaft yielded his immediate recognition of the problem and advise to chase the threads or return for his rework.

Two points to make:

1) Brodak stands behind their products, and
2) As model aviators, we should pay attention to detail and inspect our own equipment prior to use.

This is not to say that the manufacturing process seems to be lacking "inspector 27" and his stamp. But for the money...it's quite a stunt motor. In time, the assembly line gremlins will be back in their cages!

Craig,

I can appreciate your frustration but feel you need to chill a little bit. I have personal hands on experience with six of these engines owned by four different guys and all are now great running engines. None of them did that "out of the box" but neither did my Max, Fox, ST, Webra etc. Loose screws, trash in crankcase, burrs were very common years ago and some of those things haven't gone away even with today's technology.

Part of the problem you stated but may not have realized. 45 years experience vs. "newbie". The way an engine ultimately performs is a confluence of a lot of factors. Fuel, plug, fuel system, plane, prop etc are all factors in the mix. I would loved to have seen the first engine (so would Joe). From all you described it probably had some internal problem but we will never know.

Now you have another and it wasn't assembled correctly but that's pretty normal and those of us with that 45 years + experience wouldn't even have thought it an issue. We all take an engine out of the box, admire our latest "jewel", then remove the backplate, check for trash, clean the motor, check all bolts, align the NVA, change to our plug of choice before we ever put in on the bench for a "test" run. I do this with every engine I buy and so do all the people I run with. That's what 45 years will do for you.

Now, this is in no way a slam on you personally. I've watched your progress over the past three years and give you a ton of credit for your building and flying skills. (Plus you're a pretty nice guy)

John Brodak absolutely stands behind his products and will do whatever it takes to make it right. He has done so from the "get-go". But you must realize he runs a pretty big operation and can't oversee every little detail of the day to day business. Because of my experience with him I would be willing to trade you the engine out of my Shark for the one you now have in hand, provided you haven't run it, (that 45 year thing)

The B-40 is the absolute best $100 engine on the market in the right application. It's not a Ro-Jett or a PA but it wasn't intended to be. AND, there are people out there who have issues with the Ro-Jett and PAs. Truly, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

John, I hear what you are saying, and there is a lot of merit there. However, I, too, have been messing with these things on and off for 45 years, and in all that time I have NEVER taken an engine out of the box to find it in this condition. Now, this one may be fine when the screws are tight, but I am concerned about a strange tightness in the crankshaft. We'll see. I've seen a lot of beginners try to work with their stuff, and this would drive most of them nuts. For a beginner, I would definitely recommend the OS LA series over the Brodak. They work great out of the box, and they are significantly cheaper.

>nuts. For a beginner, I would definitely recommend the OS
>LA series over the Brodak. They work great out of the box,
>and they are significantly cheaper.
Craig,

OS is just as bad as everyone else. I bought 2 46 LA's about a year and a half ago and found that LA's were not a straight forward type of engine eiher. Besides retightening all the bolts, I had to spend additional money to get them to run properly. In the end, both engines needed another $30 to get them to fly stunt correctly.

One engine(R/C version) had an over tightened bolt on the backplate which squished the plastic. I had to order metal backplate before even attempting to run the engine. Additionally, I had to get a ventury(stock OS CL ventury), NVA(OS FP NVA), backplate(Thunder Tiger one), RO-Jett hot plug and a tongue muffler(Double Star 40 tongue muffler).

The other was a CL version with a rear NVA. The engine would not run consistently in 4-2-4 mode at all. In 4 cycle I could see fuel flow backwards, sucking in air from the ventury along with it. In 2 cycle it would run fine. It think this is why that engine has a reputation of a good 2-2-2 engine and a bad 4-2-4 one. I kept the ventury but had to buy another OS FP NVA, Thunder Tiger backplate, RO-Jett hot plug and a DS40 tongue muffler.

Both engines were taken apart and all parts where cleaned, oiled and put back together before their first run.

My point is, every engine needs some work to get them to run. The kinds of "problems" you are having with your B40 are non-issue for most CL folk since 99% of us take our engines apart anyways. I am sure a beginner would be even MORE curious about innards of an engine and take it apart anyways. I know I was.

>Both engines were taken apart and all parts where cleaned,
>oiled and put back together before their first run.
>
>My point is, every engine needs some work to get them to
>run. The kinds of "problems" you are having with your B40
>are non-issue for most CL folk since 99% of us take our
>engines apart anyways.

A shudder just went up the back of engine suppliers all over the world. Whatever happened to the idea of just running the engine as it comes? Take it apart if and only if you think you need to after extensive testing. I think the last time I took an engine apart, beyond very minor tweaks, was in the ST46 era- bordering on 20 years ago.

If you think you have to take an engine apart before running it, you need to just get a different engine instead. Next to no one should need to be taking engines apart or "working on them for a stunt run", beginners least of all. There is NO NEED when there are so many of them that will run perfectly right as they come.

This is a real pet peeve.

Darn! and I used to think I got all the bad engines. That boy had to spend 30 bucks just to get em to run? You MUST have the worst engine running luck of them all. Let me know the next time you make a purchase, I'll know the rest of the engines left will be cream of the crop!

Brett, I agree with you on this one. (are you surprised?) However, even articles in SN as well as Dave Gerkie's (sp?) in FM reccomends the taking apart the engine for cleaning. The SN article even goes so far as saying that hand cranking the new engine will turn your engine into junk.
I have sold hundreds of new engines over the past years including the Brodak .40 and have never had one come back. One fellow had a nut that didn't just spin on, but he didn't realize the difference in metalurgy as it reflects on nuts. Many don't realize that machine nuts are made with a softer or more malible metal wich enables them to better tighten. Once the nut was tightened on the shaft the problem dissapeared.I learned all this in the mid 70's when I was a rep for the bolt Company that makes bolts and nuts etc. available at Indy for the open wheel racers at no charge.
Either my customers, many multiple repeaters, dont have any problems, or the engines are fine.
Also, I have just read our Leonard's last thread and he has nailed the question much better than I ever could.

Joe Just

>Brett, I agree with you on this one. (are you surprised?)
>However, even articles in SN as well as Dave Gerkie's (sp?)
>in FM reccomends the taking apart the engine for cleaning.
>The SN article even goes so far as saying that hand cranking
>the new engine will turn your engine into junk.

Well, that may have been true at one time with some manufacturers, but certainly it isn't true now. Actually, the only engines I would ever take apart for cleaning would be "tuner specials" from some of the tuners who are known to not be all that, uh, reliable, when it comes to such things at deburring, cleaning, etc. Of course, if I thought that was necessary, I wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

Otherwise, there's no reason at all to take apart any engine you get from almost any source - beginners in particular. It's at best useless, but at worst you will take a carefully-fitted engine and turn it into an engine assembled by an amateur (i.e. you or me). Yes, it's not exactly brain surgery, and I know how to do it in most cases without screwing it up, but it's a risk for *no* potential reward.

BTW - I'm not just talking about semi-customs like PAs and RO-Jetts, although taking those apart is the height of folly. You just paid someone who knows what they are doing $300 to put it together for you, why in the world would you feel the need to idly repeat it yourselves. I mean run-of-the-mill OSes, STs, Magnums, etc. You are more likely to introduce dirt than remove it., since it's clean enough to begin with.

Remove engine from box, bolt to airplane.

Brett,

I don't think I got my point accross correctly. The reason I take engines apart is because I am curious.
The reason I was telling the story of 2 LA's wasn't because I wanted to complain but to show that other engines need some tlc before the're ran for the first time as well. B40 may not be as perfect as anything coming from Randy for example, but they are just as good if not better than the average engine manufacturer.

As for the two LA's, they are excellent engines just like my b40.

Steven

That curiosity is good, too! There's an advantage to knowing "what goes on" inside. Especially knowing that the B-40's are not "test-run" like some other engines are, means no harm done unless you man-handle a gasket or something. A curious friend of mine (and we're still friends) once dis-assembled one of my Randy Smith motors. My feelings regarding this operation were quite opposite!

Sometimes, like what goes into hot dogs, it is best not to know what is inside. Most people, once they had the engine apart, wouldn't know how to compare parts to know whether it was good or bad. But they can mess things up, both in the disassembly and in the reassembly. I, too, feel that you should not take an engine apart unless you have a good solid reason (and "curiosity" alone is not a good solid reason unless you are truly trying to learn something that can improve things. Few can.)

Yes I think my previous statement was a bit open ended. There should be a purpose and ability involved too. There's nothing more exciting than trying to reverse engineer a "boing" heard while carefully disassembling an intricate device.

But, within reason, and with due respect to potential consequences, disassembly can produce a positive learning opportunity. Very difficult to use the words "always" or "never" in this discussion!

Think I'll start a new thread on an old topic...."correct orientation of a single hole spray bar."

> A
>curious friend of mine (and we're still friends) once
>dis-assembled one of my Randy Smith motors. My feelings
>regarding this operation were quite opposite!

Still sore about that? You have quite a memory.

Pylon racers take their motors apart between heats. Just ask RO. Modern engines, especially ones that have locating pins like an OS can be taken apart and will still run exactly the same.

I saw both Randy and Richard taking motors apart at the Nats to change bearings. I think the engines all ran the same afterward.

I got over it! But wish my friends would call or e-mail once in a while!

BTW - that motor is still kicking...over 10 years now!

My point exactly!

These kinds of problems are much of the reason many of us use a "tuner" engine. In my case, the first new engine I bought when I started flying again was an L&J Fox 35. It cost a little more, but everything fit correctly and worked the first time. Larry Foster check runs all the engines after he assembles them so the chance that a problem will slip through is virtually nil. Volume production will keep the cost down, but can lead to the problems Craig had.
Steve
The older I get, the better I used to fly!

>(snip) OK, I've said it. Now, maybe I'll feel better. After all,
>loose screws and all, maybe it will run...odds, anyone?

OK, let me make a couple of comments. If all you had to do was reorient the needle valve body and tighten a couple of screws, once having done that, yes, I would expect the engine to run and run admirably.

Should you have found loose screws on the engine? No. Will it affect the performance now that you have tightened them?
Again, no.

Can that happen with other engines and other engine manufacturers? Absolutely yes. There was a time when it was standard practice on any mass produced engine to remove the head and back cover and take out all of the chips before ever turning it over. Fortunately that phase of the hobby is (almost) over. I still hear of an occasional chip being found, but it is rare.

These engines were purpose built for our hobby. They are built in small quantities (compared to the world-wide RC production of OS engines, for instance). They are a bargain for what you get. The first Run Brodak produced was for 100 engines and 50 spare parts. He ended up assembling the parts into engines because of the unexpected demand. I don't know how many went into the second and third and fourth runs, but I have gotten engines in each of these. I just got another dozen in myself. And, interestingly, of those engines I have spot checked, I have never found any of the problems you have mentioned. And of all of the engines I have sold I have never heard of any complaints.

I guess I could check each one I sell. I guess John could check each one before it leaves his place. Problem is he would have to raise the price and I would have to raise the price. But if we in our hobby can assemble our airplanes--even the arfs, we can certainly check for loose bolts on the back plates of our engines. You apparently have never bought an LA engine, have you? People aren't changing out back plates on those engines for nothing. At least John provides a metal back plate with his--with a gasket, I might add.

>p.s. On the Brodak web site there is a page concerning two
>known problems, the needle not going in all the way, and the
>need to drill out the muffler.

The needle problem was a problem with just a few of the spray bars. Unfortunately they slipped through because it is hard to check each spray bar. OK, I have some aftermarket ST needle valves that are made here in the good old US using CNC machinery. Would you believe I had a couple slip through with the same problem? When people notified me of the problem, I replaced them. Once a problem is known, it can be corrected. But if some might have slipped through, John is owning up to the possibility and telling you what to do to correct it.

And on the muffler, it is not a known "problem". John copied the OS muffler which I have been saying for quite some time is far too restrictive. The engine will run fine on it, but you will not realize the full potential of the engine without either replacing it or modifying it. I have some nice tongue mufflers for this engine that weigh 3/10 of an ounce that are not restrictive. But if you want to run the engine at full power with the stock muffler, he tells you how to relieve the excessive back pressure. Try the same proceedure on your OS muffler some time and see what a difference it makes. Yes, OS has the same "problem" with their muffler. But you don't see anyone posting a means of correcting it on their web site. We just put after market mufflers on those engines that are lighter and less restrictive.

>The last paragraph says:
>"All Brodak products are constantly checked for quality and
>accuracy, and tested for durability, performance, and value.
>Our goal is to produce the best possible products and
>equipment, and offer them at the best possible prices."
>

And here John is talking about the testing that goes into developing a product. Sometimes something will slip through. There have been occasions when a kit will slip through with a random piece missing--or broken--or warped. Whatever. A simple call to the factory will get that piece shipped out to you. No cost to you. No proof that it actually was their fault. (Like, "return the warped piece so I know it was true.") For all they know, you may have stepped on that flap that was broken, but they replaced it anyway.

But with the kits, an actual airplane is built from a kit before the kits are sold to the public. That is what they mean by "checked for quality and accuracy." However, don't expect them to build your kit for you. Same is being done with the ARFs. I have a large quantity of these on order and, like a lot of you, am anxiously awaiting their arrival. But they won't produce and sell them until they are ready. These are being built by people who know CL. They have adjustable leadout guides, and leadouts that actually hold up.

They had prototypes built and are testing the prototypes before the actual production. Same was done with the engines. They can't check each and every one. But they will stand behind them.

I might add that Lone Star was mighty gracious in allowing you to return the engine to them. Normally, if it was a suspected problem, you would send it back to Brodak. And John would have then verfied what the problem was, and then fixed it or replaced it. If I rework an engine, if someone has a problem they should send it to me. If I sell you a factory engine, however, if you have a problem you should take it to the factory representative. I may be able to help you, but I am not the warranty agent. In this case they will probably send it back to John and John will replace it for them. But, if you had sent it to John (the postage would have been a lot cheaper than a 200 mile drive) John could have found the problem--loose screw, whatever--corrected it, and returned the engine to you known to be running correctly and with proper instructions if something were not right.

For all the engines that have been produced thus far, I hear good reports coming back from them. Just remember, if you attempt to kill the messenger without reading the message, you may not get any further messages in the future.

Well Stated, Leonard. I well remember the days not to long ago, when very very few really supported control-line. While stationed in Guam, I went a whole year trying to find a Magnum tank. Oh what a blessing a Brodak catalog would have been!

These engines are purpose built for our hobby in small quantities. That stated, I, for one, would keep a close eye on quality control to assure that the easy things, like proper assembly, would be a given for products leaving my store. But it's not my store. And I think we should praise someone for bringing shortcomings to our attention, not chastise him/her. But that's just me. BOM

Look, I'm not trying to intentionally bash anyone. But, come on, screws literally falling out, spraybars installed in such a way that a newbie would NEVER figure out, engines that won't even run...that's a little much. I don't know very many people using these yet, but of the 5 I am familiar with (including me) 2 were extremely happy and 3 were not. One in Oklahoma had pretty much the same problems as my first one that wouldn't run. One VERY well known person from the midwest was disappointed in the longevity of his. He had to replace the piston and liner much sooner than normal. I heard of yet another person who finally got his to run by restricting the venturi significantly smaller than stock.

"Remove engine from box, bolt to airplane.

Brett"

Pretty much my experience with most any brand up until now. I am NOT trying to villify John Brodak. It is important, however, that people can have a reasonable expectation that they will receive the value they paid for.

I will break in this engine per instructions, and put it on a plane. If everything goes well, I will be back with a post to honestly say how great the engine is...even if the whole process was harder than necessary.

Len, I have a LA 46 and two LA 40's. And even though I personnally never had a problem with the plastic backplate, I replaced all three with TT backplates as a result of the feedback I got here. I feel sure it helped me avoid a future problem. That's all I'm trying to do, also. Folks need to be aware of potential problems before they spend their money.

If someone chooses to sell an engine as a "kit", fine. We can choose to buy it, put it together, etc. It's been done before. If someone is supposedly selling an engine "ready to go", then that's what the buyer should get. No, you can never reach 100% quality in the production process, but, in my case, 2 out of 2? 3 out of 5 people that I am personally familiar with? That's a little much, I think.

If John is the stand-up guy that I personally think he is, he needs and wants this feedback. Something has gummed up the works, and he needs to know. I think I owe it to him to call him next week. I suspect he'll appreciate the information.

You might not be trying to vilify anyone, but John probably knows
already, and IMOP you are 50+ posts too late in calling him.

If you will read all the posts, you will find that I started out asking for help. Started lots of discussion, ending with the general consensus to return the engine. The dealer suggested that I return it to them, not to Brodaks. I didn't lose it until I got the second one with all the screws falling out. I thought that to be pertinent information for potential buyers. Lets just drop it.

Craig, I am not trying to villify you, as Dale suggested, just putting a different slant on the problem. I am sorry that you experienced the problems that you did. If, however, you had returned the first engine to John direct, he would have made it right and you could be assured that the engine, when returned, would have had all screws tight, etc. These engines are wrapped in the box for shipping. There is more than simply opening the lid to check them out, but if that is what it takes I will do it on every engine I ship out to make sure there is no outward problem with any of them. From what I understand, the quality is excellent. I don't want to leave the impression that every engine has problems or that we should avoid all Brodak products.

These engines are good, and John will stand behind them.

A few years ago, a guy in Tulsa won a certified Duke Fox assembled stunt .35 One of the last assembled by Duke. With a smile, I offered to take it apart and check it out for him.

You've seen more of them than I have, so I bow to your experience. But with two unusual experiences in a row, I think you can understand why I was reacting the way I did.

Well, I have two runs on the new engine. MUCH different than the first one. Very steady run, doesn't use an ounce of fuel per minue, etc. Still has a strange tightness in the crankshaft, but I assume this will loosen up.

I think this thread got a little out of hand. On one hand, I have been probably a little overboard on my criticism, even though criticism was deserved. On the other hand, I have been more than surprised at some of the comments. I think it's time to let it go. The facts are on the table, we can all overlook the emotion, and let each person make their own judgments based on the facts. I can assure you that, other than the obvious emotion, I never stated anything that was not absolute fact. Lets just all come to our own conclusions.

I am sure that the tightness will work itself out. A good engine takes time to break in. Do it right and you will be happy.

I am still as curious as you, however, as to the problem with the first one. It is hard to tell over the internet. You, however, have me curious enough, however, that I will check each engine I have in stock to see if there are any problems with them before sending them out. At least we will know if the bolts are tight and things are oriented properly, and the person who gets them won't have to worry.

Craig was perfectly within his rights to express something less than complete satisfaction with his Brodak 40s. I would not have been nearly as considerate as to whatever quality control issues may or may not exist.

However, we do know the original premise behind this engine and that was to apply current technology to improving upon the Fox 35. Sound reasoning that.

A big booger was selection of manufacturer; these guys are not known for understanding quality or how to control it. Yes, they are surely smart enough to eventually figure it out, but if you and I had been raised in the Soviet Union, we too would have pretty much gotten used to a very high percentage of consumer goods simply being incomplete and/or breaking rather quickly.

I say this as someone who faced these same challenges, although with different manufacturers, and I find claims that every engine cannot be checked here in the U.S. to be most amusing.

The first three batches of VA .049s were real good as to quality. I had hammered the Ruskies on this point, there were some contractual issues as related to payment. Then they began to go well off the res.

I literally went through hundreds and hundreds of VA .049s myself, breaking them down to parts, checking *everything* and reassembling. Kept track of my labor, made appropriate deductions from their payment.

This got their attention, but only for another two or three shipments.

As luck would have it, next shipment of low-quality engines arrived just a week or so before designer was due to visit me. Our first order of business was for him to sit down in my shop, go through hundreds of engines and make them right. No money, no trips to see wonders of the U.S., no shopping, nothing until I had stuff which was saleable.

There are other ways of handling issues of Q.C., whether made in-house (B-Y&O props, as an example) or off-shore, engines and ARF/ARC models.

My beef in the past and today is not that John refuses to stand behind what he sells, as he does, possibly so strongly as to a fault. **No problem here of any kind.**

What does bother me is that we customers seem to be the Q.C. section. Len already told us about a gal who had no experience with props being assigned final shaping duties, sanding raised entry into the trailing edges instead of leading edges. Okay, I have seen this sort of thing happen, have even been responsible for manufacturing operations where virtually the same thing took place.

But these props were shipped. Meaning a whole series of people assumed they had been produced correctly, this was in error and not by a small margin.

I'd feel *a lot better* if there were indications the in-house Q.C. focused efforts on getting out the very best product instead of having a real strong return policy.

>I'd feel *a lot better* if there were indications the
>in-house Q.C. focused efforts on getting out the very best
>product instead of having a real strong return policy.
>
>Dan
>
>
>

Bravo!

>>I'd feel *a lot better* if there were indications the
>>in-house Q.C. focused efforts on getting out the very best
>>product instead of having a real strong return policy.
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>
>>
>
>Bravo!

Actually, for both of you, you can feel *a lot better*, because John's focus is exactly on getting out the very best product so that things do not have to be returned. Maybe I shouldn't have even mentioned the prop problem because I get misquoted. But, yes, there was a problem in production in the BY&O props, and as soon as John discovered it he shut production down. The have been working on retooling, and are, in fact, producing some of the props again (10-5 and 10-6) with another person doing the fabricating. So the prop problem is fixed. Now, on to the engines.

There was a problem early on with threading on the shafts of a few engines. That has been fixed. A couple of the sleeves were found not to be oriented correctly. That has been fixed. Now we have a report of a couple of needle valves not being properly oriented and a few loose screws. Now Lone Star is a reputable place and I respect them for suggesting that the engine that was having problems be returned to them. And, although the second engine had problems (loose screws) it should be remembered that it came from the same place, perhaps the same batch. My question is, how long have they had these engines? Which batch did they come from? And, since they were purchased in a shop, did anybody there disassemble them? Could it be that somebody else took the back plate off to "look inside" and didn't put it back on properly? I don't know, but I am saying these are possible scenarios. I have 15 engines that I got from the two latest batches and none of them had loose screws, or misoriented parts. I heard others mention that some they received from the very first run had problems, but I never noticed any in those that I received.

If there were problems in those first runs, John knows about them and has taken steps to see that they are not repeated. Even the muffler thing that was mentioned here has been corrected. The first mufflers were too restrictive. The latest mufflers have larger openings in the stinger and this thing about drilling the holes to relieve the pressure is no longer necessary on the new ones. A problem was found and corrected.

What I am saying is, the very thing you are asking for is taking place. Even so, if you get a lone engine with a problem, it will be corrected. Things happen and they take care of you.

A couple of years ago OS had a problem with their plating on their cylinders. I got a batch of engines in where, when I took the heads off, I could actually see brass shining through on the inside of the cylinder. I was not about to rework engines like that and returnmed every engine that did not stack up to the quality that I expected. Well, they did replace the engines. But I also got a note back with the new engines saying there was "nothing wrong" with the engines that I returned and that if I returned engines again they would charge me for them. That is not the answer that I expect from the "quality control" people. Ironically, OS changed their way of plating their cylinders and it is much improved again. But for a while it was touch and go, and the factory boys didn't want to do the touching.

Oh, and I also got a Fox 35 from Fox that had been test run at the factory (as all Fox engines are) and sent out with a huge gouge in the side of the piston. I returned it and had no problem with its being replaced. So even when these engines are handled individually on the test stand things happen. It is possible. But Fox stood behind their product and it never passed through my mind that this might be a problem with every engine they make.

It is OK to report a problem that you discovered in a product and the response of the factory or person who sold it to you. In this case I believe the response was very favorable to the modeler (they exchanged the engine--even though it had been run--with a new one). And every instance of any problems that I have heard of on these engines has been met with an immediate correction, not only for the person who purchased that engine, but also for the product itself to see that there is not a repeat of the problem.

I believe that quality control on these engines, has been quite good when one considers the numbers that have been produced. The factory response has also been quite excellent for anyone who has experienced problems, and I want to personally thank John for producing a specialty product like this for the modeling community that meets the standards of an engine that you can take out of the box and run.

Len,

I don't recall you being "misquoted" on the deal about a woman performing incorrect operations on B-Y&O props. I certainly did not.

Maybe not so much mis-quoted, Dan, but just the context. You mention a gal who didn't have any experience in making props, as if John should get an experienced person in to do the job. I don't know how many people that John could hire who would have experience making props, especially those with a Philips entry as the Y&O. Anyone, even you or I would have to be trained to run the equipment. I also do not know how many of the mis-manufactured props were actually shipped. I doubt that it was very many. I told the story merely for the benefit of those looking for props that were not presently available. Production was stopped until they could figure out a way to produce them correctly and efficiently, and when my stock ran out, it ran out.

since John did, indeed, cease production once the problem was discovered, I feel he is trying to produce a reptatable quality product at a reasonable cost, and we should not fault him. I am sure they could make them. But could they make them and do so at a reasonable cost for the modeler? Rather than produce an inferior product, or a product that would be far too expensive, he produced nothing until they could rectify the situation (and that meant change the way they were being made). Right now he has ramped up for the 10-5 and 10-6, but apparently nothing more.

Once again, I think John is doing a good job in doing quality control with his business and his products, and, although we can complain about anything, I don't think we should fault him because something slipped through. There is a great deal of difference between finding loose screws in an isolated engine, cause unknown, and finding this to be something reported from all over. I haven't found any such problems in the engines I have received.

>Maybe not so much mis-quoted, Dan, but just the context.
>You mention a gal who didn't have any experience in making
>props, as if John should get an experienced person in to do
>the job. I don't know how many people that John could hire
>who would have experience making props, especially those
>with a Philips entry as the Y&O. Anyone, even you or I
>would have to be trained to run the equipment. I also do
>not know how many of the mis-manufactured props were
>actually shipped. I doubt that it was very many. I told
>the story merely for the benefit of those looking for props
>that were not presently available. Production was stopped
>until they could figure out a way to produce them correctly
>and efficiently, and when my stock ran out, it ran out.

Snip, snip...

As Len has, in another thread, accused me of twisting his words, something I am very careful *not* to do to anyone, here is the original comment from Len:

"I have not experienced your frustration, Dan. There is a lot of hand work on these props with the old tooling, and that was the biggest downfall **when John had a girl doing the work who probably didn't even know what a prop was. She made a run of them with the Philips "entry" in the trailing edge. John did make good on these.** But I happen to have an original Clarance Bull copy of the 10-5 and 10-6 here and compared these to the last batch I got from John, and, if the wrapping were taken off and one didn't look at the emblem you would have a hard time telling me which was which."

Emphasis added by Da Dirt.

I believe my comment accurately reflects what Len posted, both in accuracy and in context.

There certainly was no implication from me that John should have hired an experienced prop maker, although I do with all reasonable care assume there were and are people working at Brodak who know the trailing edge from the leading edge of a prop.

More importantly, someone could easily have checked this woman's work product prior to shipping defective props.

I am quite sure they learned their lesson on this, am relieved that I did not have any props on back-order at the time.

In reviewing this thread one can easily get the impression I am knocking Brodak's overall Q.C. program. That is not the case, although I have experienced some frustration over 10-6 B-Y&O props, a friend and I are facing some challenges in getting his Brodak 40 running properly for a Classic model, although these are nothing even remotely like the problems cited in this thread.

Case in point: Flying in the NW results in some of the most amazing experiences, this resulting in me being the new owner of a Brodak "Original" Smoothie kit.

As mentioned elsewhere my Oriental went in at Stuntathon recently, destroying model and L&J Fox 35. Yes, including the High-Zoot crank from Randy, fitted to my engine by Larry. Insert your choice of smiley face.

Two days ago there was a Brodak kit box at my front door. Return address of one Don McClave. A note saying it is a "special" kit, meaning Don had included Tom Morris control system from 'crank right on out to tail of model. Everybody needs friends like this!

No, I'm not going to build the kit. Having already cranked out two Smoothies there is no desire to build a third, so I will pass it along--minus the trick hardware, of course--as either a prize at an upcoming contest or an outright gift to someone who seems deserving.

Another factor is that I no longer build kits, do not wish to go back to doing so.

**HOWEVER,** were I to be interested in a new Smoothie, the kit I've got in my shop right now is really quite good. While I have resisted unpacking all of the contents--I am too stupid to be able to get kits back together once all the stuff is laid out--there seems to be quite a lot of good wood, die-cutting is acceptable, nice plans, what appears to be a real complete instruction sheet. And so on...

Nice kit, I look forward to seeing it built and in the air.

>In reviewing this thread one can easily get the impression I
>am knocking Brodak's overall Q.C. program. That is not the
>case, although I have experienced some frustration over 10-6
>B-Y&O props, (snip)
>
>Dan
>

That was my only concern, Dan. I got that impression you were knocking John as did two other people who e-mailed me on the subject. I am glad to hear that was not your intention, and certainly do not want to leave that impression. I really do feel that John is on top of the quality control part of the program as is evidenced by his shutting down production on the Y & O props until they get the new machinery sorted out.

As to 10-6 Y & O props, they are back in production as are 10-5 props. None others as far as I know. I will need to restock on these.

As to the engines, I think any early problems have been dealt with, including the muffler being too restrictive (and the recommendation to drill additional holes in it.) The new mufflers have stingers that are larger and much less restrictive. And, on all of the copies I have received, everything looks good.

Oh, and Dan, if you think you might have difficulty unpacking and repacking a Smoothie kit so everything fits in the box (and I don't blame you for not taking it out of the box) you should try it with a Strega kit. For people who like to assemble jigsaw puzzles, try to unpack a Strega kit and then get everything to fit back in the box again so you can close the lid. (Well, on second thought, if you unpack the kit, it may be time to start building it.)

I only felt the distinction was important as one should be cautious in making negative comments as to the overall level of Q.C. when only a small part of the picture is known.

This applies directly to me. I have purchased less than $100.00 in goods from Brodak Mfg., they simply have very little of interest to me. Unfortunately, virtually all of that was prop money, all of it went to waste.

I will stand by my statement hinting at there being a stronger return policy than an in-house Q.C. policy. It's a business decision, I've seen the balance skewed in this way before. In fact, at one time I was hired to do a turn-around on a hobby company that certainly did--before I changed it--have just such a policy. It was regarded as "cheaper" than for-real Q.C. Of course it was quite expensive.

Craig:

I was one of the early responses (#21, I think). For what it's worth, I just put mine in the air for the first in a friend's borrowed ARF Nobler. Sig 10% X 20% oil spiked with 4 oz caster/ per gallon to get to 23% oil. This is the one with 25- 2 minute runs on the ground. Still running a slim 9-6 to keep it unloaded it runs about 12m at the 2-4 break on the ground and is silky smooth in the air with a perfect break at pullup easing off by the downside in squares. This hold's true even if a bit rich---it still breaks the same. It hauls the ARF effortlessly at about 5.2 second laps on 62' lines on that zinger 9-6. Should be super when I go too a 10-5.

Your engine could have been bad...it happens. Also, this engine seem's really easy to harm if things don't go right in the early break in. That's why the directions are so detailed. If I had to guess, I'd still say a plug or fuel was at least part of your problem but we'll never know. Doesn't mean you erred, just that some combination didn't work. One thing to remember when trying corrections: IF A CORRECTION DOESN'T HELP,DON'T LEAVE IT IN! GO BACK TO WHERE YOU WERE, THEN TRY SOMETHING ELSE!. If you leave the changes in (except for the obvious like aligning up the spraybar), you can easily mask the real problem.

In any case, if yours runs like mine, you'll be happy

Oh, by the way for whoever commented on the muffler being too restrictive: the exhaust outlet on mine appears to be larger than a friend's earlier engine.

Jeff W.

>Oh, by the way for whoever commented on the muffler being
>too restrictive: the exhaust outlet on mine appears to be
>larger than a friend's earlier engine.
>
>Jeff W.

This is what I was saying, Jeff. The early ones were too restrictive in the muffler which is why John posted the "fix" of drilling a few holes in the back of the muffler. The newer ones have a larger exhaust outlet. This shows that john is working on quality control and to fix problems that arise. Some of this stuff sneaks up on you and you don't catch it immediately. But once the problem is located, then the proper fix is made. In this case it was to increase the size of the exhaust outlet in the muffler.

On the original engine, I tried three different brands of plugs, 3 different tanks, a different nva, etc., to no avail, as was stated in the earlier posts. I can assure you, I tried everything I could think of, and responders to my original posts could think of, finally including the general consensus to return the engine. I did that, even though my curiousity was not satisfied. I'll never know. The new engine seems TOTALLY different in every way from the old one, and I think it will be fine. I just had to finish "building" it. I still agree with Dan about QC versus return policy, but, yes, I've cooled off considerably. I commend Len for considering checking his stock before it goes out. I would really like to know the results. I think we would all be happier to find that it was an isolated batch that my two came from.

I put my 5 year old Fox stunt 35 back in my Novi IV after a year of trying to get the Brodak 40 to work right and never succeeding. The old fox pulls the Novi with more aurhority and with a LOT less fiddling with the needle and/or plug. Tried all the things that the instructions said to do plus calling Brodaks and then trying some new things on my own. Engine is now in my junk barrel awaiting parts.

I AM NOT FAULTING EITHER BRODAK OR THE ENGINE, it is just that I can get better performance out of the Fox Stunt 35.

>Oh, by the way for whoever commented on the muffler being
>too restrictive: the exhaust outlet on mine appears to be
>larger than a friend's earlier engine.
>
>Jeff W.
>This is what I was saying, Jeff. The early ones were too restrictive in the muffler which is why John posted the "fix" of drilling a few holes in the back of the muffler. The newer ones have a larger exhaust outlet. This shows that john is working on quality control and to fix problems that arise. Some of this stuff sneaks up on you and you don't catch it immediately. But once the problem is located, then the proper fix is made. In this case it was to increase the size of the exhaust outlet in the muffler.

>Leonard Neumann

I guess we can beat this to death, and are well on our way to doing so, but I continue to insist that "words mean things," and Len has confused guality control with design issues, although I am willing to concede it may have been done inadvertently.

But one really must wonder how much effort went into both design and prototype work when something like the muffler causes such a degradation in performance. This is not a Q.C. issue.

Big Iron's comments do give me pause. As mentioned before, a friend and I are working on getting his B-40 engine whipped into shape, and our goal is hardly a lofty one. We merely want to equal or (better) slightly surpass the performance of a really good Fox 35, of which I have several. And which Marvin has in truly impressive numbers.

It could be that really effective Fox 35s are more unusual than we think, meaning the B-40 is generally being compared to Fox 35s which neither Marvin, myself or Don McClave would bother flying in the first place.

Marvin - What oil content did you run in the B-40? I've seen one other piston/sleeve that appears to have worn prematurely. Been running extra oil in mine for break-in....25% synthetic/castor blend. Think I might stick with the extra oil.

Ron Lutz are you out there? Sound familiar?

After break-in, I went with the recommended 10%nitro-22% oil. Engine runaway always occurred when going into the 2 from the 4. Added extra head shim same-- another shim still same. Dropped the nitro to 7% and oil up to 25 %. Tried MANY different props not much noticable change except in lap times and they were all too fast. Between flights I often had to readjust the needle. From DAY ONE when the engine transisioned from the four to the 2, instead of increasing in power, it would sag as if it were still too tight. It DEFINITELY was not too tight. Dropping the venturi size down to 0.288 made the best improvement but robbed the power somewhat. At least it would run steady with little "fiddling" of the needle.
The engine has been relegated to the "junk box" awaiting a new P & C. This engine NEVER had any "pinch" at the top. It always turned over easily and smoothly cold or hot.

Bigiron

I am NOT bad mouthing Brodak OR the engine!! I could have gotten a "lemon" but I have run it so much and fiddled with it so much that I would be ashamed to try to return it as a "bad" engine. When I get the new P & C, I will try the whole "song and dance" all over again.

B