SkyBaby

I'll do a Review of the SkyBaby...

1. The Norvel .061 is very tight initially, and requires a longer breakin than we are used to with small motors, especially Cox.

2. Use the spring starter.

3. Running off of muffler pressure, this little motor has a great sweet spot, running in a wet-going-to-dry 2 stroke. You'll know it when you find it.

4. Model is a bit noseheavy; deliberately so, as I am told by the designer. Longer lines than 35' will make the SkyBaby increasingly palatable to the beginner, and you can do this in calm weather.

5. It is a shame that they did not go with a symmetrical airfoil. That said, it will stunt reasonably well, especially with weight in the tail.

6. I used trick stainless steel lines that worked extremely well, from a drag standpoint. Not very user friendly, though. They require delicate handing, and they have "memory". But they allowed the model to perform at its limits.

7. Inevitable crashes attest to its durability. It is not an anvil, however.

8. The Norvel .061 goes through fuel like Imelda Marcos goes through shoes.

9. The stab is of the flying type, pivoting in the "middle". I see this as neither here nor there, although some may see some advantages. It may be a little less durable as it is.

It will be interesting to compare the SkyBaby to Cox's latest RTF offering, the Hyper Viper, acknowledging all the way that the Cox has about two years developmental advantage.

I'd like to see a comparison between the Hexadrone and the Hyper Viper.

Currell:

What size fuel tank do you recommend? Does the fuel economy improve with break-in?

That Norvel .061 does use a considerable amount of fuel, but they also put out a considerable amount of power. I think they are proportionaly some what more powerful than the .049's.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-28-04 AT 10:16 PM (CDT)
 
Currrel,
I don't think the Hyper Viper and Skybaby are targeted at the same audience (although in actual practice I agree that they will tend to bought by beginners).

I flew the Sky Baby ~3 years ago at EAA Oskosh where we put several thousand kids though a first experience with CL. Before we went, Jim Krueger gave most of us one of the Sky Babies, with the intent that we would break in the Norvel 061's befor showing up at Oskosh. I think this was a great idea since as most know, the Norvels are really pretty tight as they come from the factory. It takes ~3 to 5 tanks to get the Norvel to the point that it becomes user friendly. This is the biggest problem that the Norvel has--for beginners anyway. The Cox Sure Start is much easier to run the first time than the Norvel.

At Oshkosh we ran the Sky Babies on 012 lines (42 feet?? --I don't recall exactly). They are pretty robust, but no plane is completely indestructable. As an instructor, we were constantly trying to keep the kids from going over the top (and also trying to keep some of the "instructors" from going over the top too!). They fly fine for large loops. Unless they have changed from that time, they all had an extremely sharp leading edge--where the two halves of the wing mold came together. This would prevent any square maneuvers.

After break-in, there is no comparison between the Norvel Big Mig and the Cox Sure Start. The 061 can turn a Black Tornado 5-4 in excess of 22krpms, where the Cox Sure Start is turning a Cox 5-3 wide prop in the 15-16k range. We ran the Norvels at Oshkosh on 15% Sig Champion fuel, and during that year, I don't think we lost more than a few plugs on all the Sky Babies (withsomething like 2000+ flights).

Right now, I am still breaking in my Hyper Viper engine, and it remains to be seen how powerfull the Sure Start turns out. Haven't begun to play with props yet. I hope it works out ok!

I think you can't really go wrong with the Sky Baby as a trainer. With 42 (maybe longer) foot 012 lines, it is a reasonable first trainer. I just wish they could price it like the Hyper Viper!

Good info, Alan. The Hyper Viper does have a much better price point, which is especially important for first timers, I would guess.

The fact that the Cox motor, straight out of the box, is easier to start also is a plus.

Trash: I didn't see fuel economy improving much with time. On the other hand, I still don't have that many runs on the engine, maybe 20 or so.

I was looking at a friend's .061 the other day and it and immediately noticed how much bigger it looked compared to the ones I have. Mine are the earlier versions and I haven't even gotten around to running them yet. What differences are there between the two versions?

LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-04 AT 01:37 PM (CDT)
 
Elwyn,
I think you are comparing the newer "Revlite" engine to the older ABN version (I am not sure about the ordering of the intials here-- the piston is a "high silcon content Aluminum (or is suppose to be), and the cylinder is nickel plated brass I think. The old version was definitely (smaller primarily cylinder fins), and I am guessing lighter. The new version uses a ceramic coating (some say it is just a thick anodization of the aluminum cylinder.

Powerwise, I am not sure which, if either is actually better. The early ABN's did have a peeling problem- narrow strips of the nickel plating around the ports tended to come off. I still run those with the problem and they seem to behave ok. Might be a good idea to clean up the port area with a sharp knife or file to remove any nickel "flashing" which might be causing the peel. I would make sure that all cuts to remove the flashing are pulling the plating to the outside of the port, just to make sure that you don't cause a peel to start!

I know the ones we used at OshKosh were the Revlites.