thebluemax
-
Posts
28 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by thebluemax
-
-
Hello Jon,
Hope all is well.
I just got my hands on a GTM 1/4 scale D8 kit. The recommended engine is the 200V, which is shown on the plans. Assumng the 200V is still a good choice for this kit, I was wondering if the FT-200 would be a better option? Looks like the FT-200 would fit inside the cowl and the cylinder heads would be closer to the center line of the prop shaft. In either case a Laser is in the future for this kit.
thanks in advance for your time,
Bill
-
1 hour ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:
The first FT-310 prototype was fired up just now and the performance was slightly above my expectation. I wanted 8000 on an APC 20x8 but the little beasty gave me 8200 peak and 8000/8100 steady.
No video im afraid as i nearly lost a finger to hypothermia in the propeller slipstream and had to not only cut short my run plan for the 310 but abandon my plans to catch up on engine running until we get a bit more warmth.
Anyway, things are starting to move.
Happy New Year. Good to hear things are moving along. Don't lose them fingers! Very hard to build and test engines without them.
-
1
-
-
Congrats on 40 years and hopefully many more successful ones.
As for a special anniversary engine, I guess that is fine. Although I don't think I would buy one.
My only question is what would a person do with it? If you are going to sit and look at it, it seems like a waste of money.
If you are going to fly it, you mind as well not bother spending the extra money as it may be enclosed in a cowl, and no one will know the difference but you. Plus, a bad day at the field and that special engine may up being junk.
When the day comes to hang up the hobby and you are still here you may not get back what you bought it for. If you are no longer here, you wouldn't care what it goes for as you won't be around.
Anyway, congrats again.
-
3 hours ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:
Bluemax, wrong thread mate 😉 I am waiting on crankcases still. As soon as i have news i will post it on the development thread. While im waiting i think i might take some time off soon as i have only had a week off all year and i cant get much done at the moment due to the continued valve spring saga. I have some saved for the bigger FT's, but that is all i have so nothing much else is happening.
Oops, sorry, my bad. In the future I will make sure I am in the right thread. Thanks for the update.
-
Hello Jon,
Any updates on when the FT-310's will be ready?
thanks,
Bill
-
5 hours ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:
crikey...
TBM, yep you could make the model as a D9 version and use an inline but no matter what you do the hardwood mounting rails need to go. Composite mounts are far superior to beech or maple and any model calling for hardwood mounts needs a redesign to get shot of them when using a single cylinder engine. If you used our flat or v they are radially mounted and so the hardwood rails would need to go anyway, and the inline has its own mount as well. In the specific case of your 190 i would chop off everything ahead of the former F4, double thickness the firewall (3/8 thickness is good) at that point and work from there. If the engine is short, and i think it would be, you can laminate up ply disks to edge the engine forward for the perfect spinner gap. Once its all sorted glue the disks together/to the firewall and run long bolts through the engine mount, disks and firewall into captive nuts to pull the whole lot together. I am also not a fan of having a battery in the cowling. I know it gets the weight forward but having a mission critical power supply nestled next to a hot vibrating lump of metal seems like a bad idea to me.
Radials.
Yes, i would like to offer them in 50, 75 and 90cc sizes (300, 450 and 540cui if i remember rightly). The 90cc design is ready for production and has been for 8 or 9 years but there is no interest for some reason. Part of the hold up i think is due to a 90cc radial 'needing' to be petrol to achieve wide adoption and we arent really finished with that development yet. But i would like to build some as glow's and see how they sell and how the fuel consumption is on the LOG fuel. Certainly the 300 size is unlikely to present any problems in that regard. They would have to be single carb and testing would be needed to see if i needed to ensure even fuel charge distribution. I have some ideas, but need to test a plain version first so see if the added complexity is justified.
As much as i appreciate the enthusiasm, they are sadly a pipe dream at the moment although i keep pestering.
Thanks Jon. Will do as it sounds like the FT310 is the way to go. Just modifying the FW and not have to worry about the fuel tank positioning sounds like a plan.
As for fuel distribution in radials, the Saito's have single carbs, were known for flooding out the bottom cylinders. In my case on my 170R3, #2 and #3. Saito came up with this W design (picture 1) to try and even it out and stop the flooding. However, this modification caused the #1 cylinder to run leaner and hotter than #2 and #3. The temperature difference between #1 was anywhere from 10 to 20 degrees cooler than #2 or #3. Midrange transition was often sluggish and hard to tune.
A gentleman from the UK, a retired engine designer for Marlin Lindy Cars, Ray English designed a mod (picture #2) that fed all the cylinders evenly as well as keeping the cylinder temperatures within a few degrees of each other and eliminated the transition issues. I had this mod done by Ray to my 170R3 and she runs like a champ, idles very well and transitions with no sluggishness at all. I am running my radial on nitro, too. Saito has been using Ray's modification in their radials.
Edit: Looks like Morris Mini Motors carries this mod for the Saito Radials
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:
I presume this wasn’t aimed at me Nick? ?
I don't think so. Most likely at me and my post above.
I was thinking an inline would be easier to mount in the FW-190 since it has hard rails for the engine mount. That way I would not have to do any firewall or fuel tank modifications. I have a Saito 170R3 radial but it isn't enough to power for the Platt FW-190. I will check Nick's thread out on the Seafury as it maybe something I can do with not a lot of work
-
4 hours ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:
Quick update and a show of hands needed.
The 300 flat twin has been abandoned in favour of a 310 as we are near the end of our NOS 150 liners and there is no point making more so we might as well go for gold and make it an FT-310 from the get go. The 300v will then run out the last of the liners we have and then it too will be killed off and turned into a 310v.
The next thing i need is a show of hands. Do i continue with the flats and make a 360 size, or should i focus on a 360 inline instead? Personally i would like to do both (and my 3 radials), but i am told that rapid firing so many new products out at once is bad due to the time involved meaning we wont be able to do anything else. I am sure i mentioned that at some point. its almost like we need separate production and R&D staff and not just one bloke doing everything...who knew? ?
Let me know your thoughts but please only vote if its an engine size/type you are actually in the market for in the foreseeable future. If the answer is both, say both and i will see what i can do to drive things forward.
I am going to be building a Dave Platt FW-190A in the near future. The plans call for a Super Tigre ST2500.
Talking with Jon the FT310 would be a good engine for that plane. But if an inline 310 would fit I would be interested in that. The plans show from the engine mounting beam to the top of the cowl is 4.71 inches / 119.63mm. The cowl is split with the top half being fiberglass and bottom half is built up. But I do have a Don Lein/Bob Holman full cowl that will fit it. The total height of the cowl is 10.44 inches / 265.18mm. The firewall to the front of the cowl is 9.48 inches / 240.79mm.
If the inline 310 would fit, I would be interested in that, otherwise it is the FT310. So, both would be my vote. Inch measurement in attached image are in blue. MM numbers in my post are calculator conversion estimated.
-
35 minutes ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:
Quick question for all those maybe interested in a flat twin.
What exhaust do you want?
Currently i am leaning towards a modified dumpy type exhaust which has the ability to accept flexi pipe with plug in mufflers as an upgrade if its deemed too noisy. The upgrade parts would be sold as a pack which would be about £80 (2 mufflers, 2 foot of pipe, support clips and screws). This is hardly an ideal solution though due to the added cost.
Let me know what you think
I would prefer a modified dumpy type with the option to purchase an upgrade if needed.
I don't know what the noise limits are there but ours over here recommend 96 decibels measured at 3 meters (20 feet). Although, each club is allowed to set their own limits as long as it doesn't violate local town laws. One club I belong to follows the 96 decibels measured at 3 meters as there is a housing development nearby. While the other club is at a local airport, and we do not have a set rule on noise since full scale fly there too.
-
Looks and sounds great!!!! Happy Holidays to all.
-
4 hours ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:
Its all about the listening ?
Only listened to it when it was running and sounding so sweet.....
-
44 minutes ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:
I hope this gives a bit of an insight into how you can trouble shoot just by listening to the engine, understanding what all the little noises mean, and the clues they give regarding the problem and how to solve it. In my case, i did all the above diagnosis and knew the cause of the problem almost before the video ended and instructed the customer on how to fix it. But given the handy video i thought it might make a useful learning tool and thought i would give this group game a try as i have seen over the years that folk really struggle with engines that will not start at all. All the clues are there as to why and i hope this gives a few pointers people find helpful.
Let me know if it was of any use.
Definitely useful. Saved for future reference. Never thought about listening to why it doesn't start. It was always looking at what it was going on with it.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:
I appreciate that some will never learn, dont want to be told, etc. That's fine, they can live in ignorance all they like and run 30% castor in their fuel. But for the majority who do want to learn and improve their standards the continued repetition of modelling folk lore does little but continue the myths and prevent actual progress long term. So that is why i get wound up ?
Some people learn by listening
Some learn by watching others
Then there is always those that need to pee on an electric fence to find out for themselves
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:
So. If i dont get fired first thing tomorrow morning and can convince the boss, would anyone actually be interested in buying one? Crankcases are due for manufacture in a few weeks and i might be able to get some specials done while the tooling is in there.
Engine width of 200mm for the 200, 186mm for a 160. For reference an ASP/OS 160 twin is 196mm wide.
There is no obligation at all for anyone who expressed interest in a flat twin before to buy anything and this is not a sales pitch. I built this to satisfy my own curiosity and see if such an engine was viable. If you think it is for you then let me know and i will see what i can do. If not, i am more than satisfied with what i have been able to cobble together.
Awesome!!! I would be interested in a 200.
-
1
-
-
Doesn't sound like advertising to me. Part 1 sounds like a survey. Part 2 sounds like enlisting volunteers for help.
-
6 hours ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:
Low tank is ok, high tank is a problem. Most engines will draw fuel up hill better than they will be force fed it by gravity.
Also a low tank becomes a high tank when the model is inverted, no problem, engine runs a little rich with gravity assist. High tank becomes a low tank when inverted so the engine runs lean and stops.
Thanks Jon as always. I should have said tank==> carb issues not low tank==> carb issues. Especially when the fuel running from the carb when filling it or whatever is left after the flight just sitting on the ground when the tank==> carb setup it isn't right. More so a problem in a cowled setup versus no cowling on the plane.
Do not need "Murphy's Law "to kick in although "Froeder's Law" (that's me) says Murphy was an optimist.....
Thanks again. Enjoy the day guys and stay safe.
Bill
-
5 hours ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:
Never tried one but im not a fan. Its just another thing to go wrong and if the tank placement is correct, which should be easy enough, its not going to serve much of a purpose anyway.
The problem is over the years we have seen all kinds of things added to fuel systems and they never work reliably. One person might have no trouble, another will have nothing but. For this reason we just recommend getting the tank in the right place as this is always guaranteed to give the best result.
Its also free ?
Roger that. I have always gone with Jon's advice and never had an issue. Just thought I would ask if this was a good possible solution to a low tank==> carb issue.
-
You can use it for glow too. I used it on an OS-91FX and it worked fine. It says it on the package for glow and gas.
-
That great!!! Thanks Jon.
Bill
I was thinking about trying one of these or maybe need 2 on the firewall to feed the carbs. Supposedly it constantly holds 1/4 of an ounce of fuel.
QuikFire - Fuel Balancer and Filter - JL Power Products (jlproducts.net)
FlyingRC.net - QuickFire Fuel Balancer and Filter
-
Hi Jon,
I have a Laser 160V that needs a home in a plane. I can't find any specs on the 160V so I was wondering if it would be a good match for the H9 Ultra Stick 30cc? I am not looking to do 3D with it but some aerobatics would be nice. I do have a 300V twin but I am putting that in a Platt FW-190.
thanks,
Bill
Hangar 9 Ultra Stick 30cc ARF, 81" | Horizon Hobby
-
Thanks Jon and Steve for getting back to me. I have OS-F and YS #4 plugs on hand and usually use those. The YS #4 plugs are supposed made by OS and the same as the OS-F plugs. I found these Super Cats in my spares box and don't know anything about them. Since they are made in the UK I thought you guys would know for sure.
Thanks again and stay safe.
Bill
-
Hello from across the pond. I am putting a Laser 180 in a ESM BU-181. Have any of you guys have used the Model Technics SuperCat 4 stroke glow plugs in your Lasers? If so how are they? thanks for your time.
Bill
-
I have a Laser 80 with a 12~5 3-blade prop on my Altech Pilatus Porter. It is a great running engine. I get questions every time I fly it as to what engine is in there. I get comments on the nice sound it has and how quiet it is too.
Bill
Laser Engines - Technical questions
in IC Engines
Posted · Edited by thebluemax
added sending an email
Thanks Jon for the quick response. Ok for the FT. I would like to get on the waiting list for the FT. I am already on the list for the 310 which is for my Platt FW-190.
I will send an email with my info. Also need to update my info on the 310 waiting list.