West Eurotech engines

LAST EDITED ON Jul-22-04 AT 05:29 AM (CDT)
 
I wonder if these are any good for Combat or Carrier:

http://www.modellbau-usa.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=WE036T1&Category_Code=ENGINE

The RC Universe "Speed forum" guys are all agog over them. The price seems high until you notice the "motor only" price at the bottom of the page, which is $150. Prettier than a Nelson, but the crank looks a little smallish. Funny fins on the rear end.

[photo not recovered: enginewest36T1.jpg]

(They've also got a helicopter turbine unit, wouldn't you know...)

LAST EDITED ON Jul-23-04 AT 06:11 AM (CDT)
 
'They are precision engineered in Austria to our exacting requirements. '

How do you read that? Engineered in Austria...where are they made?

These engines are used here in the UK by the RC 3D flyers, and are VERY highly rated.
Trickymicky:+

I believe they're a Webra with some pretty anodising....

..and a fanny pack...

At $150, it costs the same a Mark VI Combat Special. I wonder how it'd stack up in Combat trim.

>..and a fanny pack...
>
>At $150, it costs the same a Mark VI Combat Special. I
>wonder how it'd stack up in Combat trim.

Can you still get new MK 6's ?

It's been a while since I checked, but the last time I did they were still available, albeit at $150 (what Mark 7s went for before they went out of production) rather than the original $100.

The RC guys, like a lot of model plane freaks, will go agog over anything new. Then, other times, they won't adopt a good idea for years and years. It takes a long time in the model engine world to develop something. It took 50 years for Schneurle porting to go from motorcyles to regular model engines. Doesn't look like any new engineering in these. Some pretty marketing tricks though with all the extra fins and pretty anodizing.

If you want a fast combat engine, buy one or two from Henry. Nobody else is going to take the time or trouble to develop something even half as good 'cause he likes combat.

>It took 50 years
>for Schneurle porting to go from motorcyles to regular model
>engines.

Snippin', I'm snippin...

Phil,

How certain are you of this claim? While I do not actually know the time line myself, yours seems much too long. By a factor of two or three.

Incidentally, we have now tried your setup of the 25LA, along with two or three closely related tune-ups. Not bad, but compared to the motor and tune-up I can't talk about? Not close. No cigar.

We continue to fiddle, more pop in the fuel this weekend to see if we can roust these things into action. After which we will need to figure out how to better regulate the power. Fun, fun, fun...

As I disremember the timeline, Dr. Schneurle patented his porting in the thirties. The first motorcycle using it was built around '38. Bill Wiznewski(sp?) started building his Wart speed engines in the late sixties. They stopped building crossflow RC engines in the late seventies or early 80's. Too bad I can't find Dave 's engine book when I need it. I don't recall seeing any Schneurle model engines in production in the early fifties.

Keep working on the LA25. We desperately need some more wisdom on making it run better. I get tired of just going out, fueling it up, hitting the prop and flying. Something can't be right and should oughta be fiddled with.

The Austrian HP was the first with a production schneurle ported engine, it was a rear rotary drum Sixty with a 45 degree angled carb. I think it was about 1968. A very attractive motor. I think OPS were next to follow, still in the 60's with a zimerman disc Sixty.
Happy to be corrected though.
Cheers John

>The Austrian HP was the first with a production schneurle
>ported engine, it was a rear rotary drum Sixty with a 45
>degree angled carb. I think it was about 1968. A very
>attractive motor. I think OPS were next to follow, still in
>the 60's with a zimerman disc Sixty.
>Happy to be corrected though.
>Cheers John

HP was a Paul Bugl design, read this interesting bio.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/4707/f2c_early/PaulBugl.htm

I get tired of just going
>out, fueling it up, hitting the prop and flying. Something
>can't be right and should oughta be fiddled with.

This can lead to whimpy wrists.

Us Fox diehards enjoy the exercise, kind of like kickstarting a Triumph with Lucas wiring.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-23-04 AT 11:41 PM (CDT)
 
>If you want a fast combat engine, buy one or two from Henry.
> Nobody else is going to take the time or trouble to develop
>something even half as good 'cause he likes combat.

Yeah, I know, but one still can't help wondering.

This thing does come with a functioning carb, which would make it useful for Carrier, and the RC people are talking about the .50 as though it were as good as the Jett .50, so as I said, it makes one wonder.

>This thing does come with a functioning carb, which would
>make it useful for Carrier, and the RC people are talking
>about the .50 as though it were as good as the Jett .50, so
>as I said, it makes one wonder.

But with a Jett 50 you can get a left hand crank. Jett's carb works great when it is used as intended, with muffler and pipe pressure. It doesn't work well trying to run it on pure suction and high nitro.

From Phil,

Keep working on the LA25. We desperately need some more wisdom on making it run better. I get tired of just going out, fueling it up, hitting the prop and flying. Something can't be right and should oughta be fiddled with.

Phil C

Phil,

Interestingly enough, you are exactly right. Unfortunately, not in the satirical way you wrote your response. I'm patient, you'll eventually see what I'm talking about.

Or you could call Pat Willcox. He dropped in on our Arlington contest, after introducing him to Stunt Friends as "Michael's father," he flew my demo ARF Flite Streak w/unmentionable engine for power.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-26-04 AT 04:52 PM (CDT)
 
One nice thing about stunt is that it really suits those who like to fiddle with things- adjust the prop pitch, adjust the head clearance, slightly larger prop, slightly longer lines, , 1% more nitro, .001 less head clearance, tweak the rudder, tweak the tipweight, do one or all between flights at a contest. Then go fly and the judges give you a score. Sometimes its higher, sometimes its lower, you can always figure out why which of some things helped, and which of somethings didn't. And go tweak some more. Then after a couple dozen perfect runs the motor run goes south for no obvious reason. It's mostly subjective in that how the plane flew, how the judges scored the flight, how you think you flew compared to last time or how well you think you fly, are all mostly subjective scores that may or may not tell you something exact. Then keep all sorts of records and try to correlate it all.

Then I was chatting with one of the judges afterwards. He opined that if the plane yawed or wiggled at all in a tight corner it just simply ruined the maneuver, no matter how tight it turned. Huh! What's the use. I think I'll vote for Kerry. He at least supports both sides of every issue.

Dan, a Sig SkyRay simply can't put in a really good pattern, even with an engine you can talk about. And that is after seeing a Junior Magician going 4.5 sec. laps and doing 70 deg. loops get a 455. Stunt!!

>
>Dan, a Sig SkyRay simply can't put in a really good pattern,
>even with an engine you can talk about. And that is after
>seeing a Junior Magician going 4.5 sec. laps and doing 70
>deg. loops get a 455. Stunt!!

Phil,

Another of the nice things about Stunt is that one can from afar pretty accurately judge progress through the ranks. At this moment in time you are on the same page I was on five years and five months ago when reading Brett's assertions as to viability of a Skyray 35/PF02 S.O. combination.

I'm thinking that with careful nurturing and your cooperation we can easily eliminate three or four years from this process. You will, however, have to lose the attitude...