New Laser engines. What do you want?

[Mark Reynolds]

Arrto,

I would happily mix my own brew. Although, I have never done that. I usually fly petrol. Do you just mix methanol and oil, do you need nitro as well?

I would be happier if I could run at 5% oil or even lower like the petrol engines as it engines just run so much clean.

[Jon H]

Mark, mixing glow fuel is no different to mixing petrol and oil. You don't need nitro for the engines to run but you will get slightly better performance and easier starting, especially when its cold.

As for oil, I have been testing a 100, 150 and 155 at 5% oil and after a full gallon through the 100 and 150, and half through the 155 it has been no bother at all. you can try this if you like but it is at your own risk as we currently will not warranty oil contents that low. My experiments will hopefully allow us to operate with low oil but we need to make sure its ok first.

[Mark Reynolds]

Thanks Jon, I am thinking of getting a laser 200v for my flair fokker dr1 1/4 scale.

In terms of petrol -- are you still in the R&D phase of looking at petrol engines?

Or is there a likely hood that petrol engines will be available in the near future.

[Jon H]

Sorry Mark I didn't see this message until now.

I am still in development mode on the petrol side. Once the carburettor is sorted we can move forward but right now its being a pain!.

In other news I have made progress with dimension drawings for some of the engines. So far only these two are finished, but I am getting there with the others.

I will upload them to the website asap

[Artto Ilmanen]

Jon,

How about the spinner nuts for Laser engines?

I came across these pictures

-Artto

[Jon H]

I am working on it!

I have a revised design finished but i need to get it made which looks like its going to be a while

[Artto Ilmanen]

Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 22/04/2016 10:19:51:

I am working on it!

I have a revised design finished but i need to get it made which looks like its going to be a while

Sounds good! May need to use Hobby King ones in the meanwhile, though

[Alan Hilton]

Phoned Laser engines last week re a replacement barrel screw for an Irvine type carb .I was promised a call back and am still waiting .Mr Tidy would have replied by now

Alan Hilton

[Artto Ilmanen]

Posted by Alan Hilton on 25/04/2016 19:43:08:

Phoned Laser engines last week re a replacement barrel screw for an Irvine type carb .I was promised a call back and am still waiting .Mr Tidy would have replied by now

Alan Hilton

Alan,

Sorry to hear of what you have experienced. I personally think the service at Laser engines is excellent and far beyond what you reach form other vendors. This is my own experience over the years. So maybe it's a question of human error and not lack of respect or wrong attitude,

-Artto

[Jon H]

Simply a case of not enough hours in the day and other jobs taking priority. Those carbs we discontinued 10 years ago and to find a serviceable spare in the collection of damaged carbs I have all over the workshop will take some time and I have not yet had the time to search.

I regret that I have not been able to sort it quicker, but there is only one of me and only so many hours in a day

[Alan Hilton]

Thanks to Jon for a reply re my carb problem .He is sending me a used one

[Alan Hilton]

Got the screw thanks it fits well with no slop so I repeat many thanks

Alan

[Manish Chandrayan]

Hi Jon

Can the laser 150 be timed to run in reverse? That is clockwise when looking from the prop side? It would be eminently suitable for the TM and the likes?

[Jon H]

Hi Manish

It can be done but there really is no point. While it might add that extra 1% scale factor to your tiger moth it is not worth the extra hassle of finding propellers and having to reverse your starter every time you want to fly it.

I wouldn't really recommend it

[Manish Chandrayan]

Thanks Jon

[Joespeeder]

Hey Jon,

Thanks for a great thread !! I just found it so forgive a late bit of input from across the pond. So much info here I hope I don't ramble.... lol

Thank you so much for adding the dimension drawings to the new site. Lasers are very rare at our local fields and those drawings are critical to selecting the correct engine for a project. Other mfg's have the info but it's sometimes buried in a chart for several engines. The individual drawings you are adding are great.

Would love to see you keep some inventory available. Lead time of up to 2 weeks is good. I know my 120 was a unique event and I'm not whining about that engine. I would love to be able to get an engine in about a weeks time from when I ordered it if needed. I know more guys over here would order them if there was a known shortish lead time. In our area we are blessed to have some very good LHS's where you can walk out with a Saito, DLE, Magnum, or OS the same day you need it. While the Laser outclasses those offerings, the lead time needed for an overseas order means it takes someone like me that really wants it to order one.

Lots of opinions here on fuels and even electrics.... Sounds very familiar. Personally I like glow fuel. I started with all electric and as other have said I got tired of the battery replacement cycle. Electric sounds less expensive but isn't in real world flying. I then went to 2 stroke gas for all the familiar reasons. Loved the long flight times but after a while I really really got to hate the smell. I even used high octane automotive racing fuels since I like that smell... Even then, the smell got to me and inside the workshop it was just annoying, So back to glow fuels for me. Plus it's much easier to get a lot of options in 4 stroke glow but 4 stroke gas choices are limited. Don't care for the weedwacker sound of the 2 strokes. As far as brands go every lhs in this area carries CoolPower and Byron fuels. Generally, we use CP until you get to 30% then it's Byron Heli Spec Fuel. So for Lasers my choice is 15% CP.... It's what's in the shops and easy for me.

As an aside, I have a 300v that was converted to gas and ran very well. However, I'll be changing it back to glow as the gas project just didn't produce the numbers needed even though it ran very well.... I have ideas, nothing new to you, however I'm not going to do what's needed now since I just don't like the smell no matter if I can make it produce more power.

As far as tank position goes. The "low" carb position does make it difficult in an instillation like my Hurri. It started electric, then DLE20, now the 120. So carving it up and rebuilding it would be a major project for an older plane. The 120 is stuffed into the nose with no extra room which means the carb end up low. I routed the lines high and used a muffler tap. With a little routine I don't start a siphon and once the 120 is running it seems very solid so far.... Really enjoying the engine.

So to your original question.

I'd love to see inline twins with short strokes like the 120 for space savings. Next would be 3 cylinder radials. I prefer glow due to the smell alone.

I come at this from a little different angle. I start a project with the prop I'd like to spin. Then I go looking for an engine that will spin that prop diameter in a pitch that will give me a good power/weight and proper pitch speed for the style of plane I'm doing.

An inline twin that would spin a 15 or 16x8x3 close or over 9,000rpm(more is always better,lol) would be awesome for 60 sized 10ish lb or more planes. Of course I'd like it to fit in those cowls or very close. The 93mm center-line to top of the valve cover height is a good height. I'd give up the 3 blade if I could get proper power and fit the inline in the cowl. I have a Topp Rippin Fiat G-55 with a Saito 100iT that I run on 30% it's just enough for that 8lb plane but not really enough for anything heavier unless it had a light wing loading.

Or an inline twin that would spin a 22x10x3 around 7,000rom or better would be terrific for 1/5 scale.

Sorry for a long post. I have a SiSt D9 that I had an OS 320 FF modified by Ray Engish since it was the only 4 stroke multi cylinder engine that would fit in the cowl at the time I was ordering parts. Now there is the Satio FG-60r3 that fits the above spec for a radial option but it still stinks like gas.... As much as I like the sound of the FG60r3 it sounds weird to power a D9 with a radial making radial noises.

Since I'm wishing here.... A kit to create cylinder engines similar to the 100cc V4 shown on Mick Reeves site would be cool. Would be fun to build and run a 53cc or 64cc 4 cylinder. Not sure how Mick's 100cc V4 ran but if we could buy the parts to convert 2 V engines into a 4 it would be fun. Maybe I'm weird but I'd love that kind of kit/project. Of course, not many local guys over here have built a Caterham 7 and I checked that off my list a few years ago complete with Ford SVT engine complete with a Cosworth head and a servo controlled dual stage plenum.... So I'd do a V4 conversion kit in a heartbeat.

Thanks for a great thread. Lots of info and insight here above and beyond your original question. For anyone like myself in an area where Lasers are rare this thread fills in a lot of gaps.

Joe

[Jon H]

Hi Joe

Thanks for the post, theres alot in there!

So, lead times. I agree and i have been working on it for the last 5 years. Alas i am no closer to finding a solution and as i am the only person who builds the engines there is a bit of a bottleneck there as the parts come in large blocks as opposed to the constant trickle that i really need to prevent delays. I will keep trying though!

Personally, im not a big fan of petrol engines either. Yes they run cleaner (although our glow engines run on lower oil now so are much cleaner), yes the fun times are good, but reliability and other factors really put me off them. I know some will swear they are more reliable but they have a larger number of failure points in the system and this in the long term is bad for reliability. That said, its what the market wants so....

Your request for an inline suitable for a 60 size warbird is also interesting and highlights very nicely the difference in methodology between the US and UK and why its quite hard for us to design an engine for all markets. The 16x8x3 prop @ 9k needs an engine of about 3.6hp which is the approximate output of our 240v at those revs. Now the idea of fitting a 240v to a 60inch 8-9lb model is something that we would consider a bit mad. Especially when you add 30% nitro to the mix! I use a 240v in my 20lb 80'' airacobra and I am currently working on a 63 inch Hurricane that will use our 80 on either a 14x7 or 15x8 2 blade prop if i can coax my 80 into turning the 15x8. If it will give me 7500rpm then its all good. I may try a 14x7 3 blade but i dont think the 80 will turn it at the required rpm and the 2 blade will pull better anyway.

I can see that your G55 might be slightly lacking with the 100ti. I personally would use our 100 single as its much more powerful and turns a 15x8 @ 8k on 5% nitro and is more than enough for my Great planes Escapade 61 @ 9lbs.

Your comments about rpm are also interesting as we tend to look for lower rpm with a bigger prop for better efficiency and lower noise. Noise is a big issue for most of us in Europe and many clubs have lost their sites due to noise in recent years.

I would love to do a large radial, and already have plenty of designs and ideas of what to do. I would like to make the radials as long stroke as i can for low revs and a great sound. I did an experiment recently to check a new bore stroke ratio and it went very well and in theory could give us a 3 cylinder radial of 60cc that could turn a 20x10 3 blade at about 6800 or a 22x8 2 blade at 7200. I just have to make it!

However, to get the performance you are asking for on 22x10x3 would need an engine over 7.5hp so would need to be about 100cc or more. At that size though i would not like to see top end rpm much over 6000 or the noise would be horrendous. The engine would also have to be petrol to stand any chance in the current market.

As for the V4, it would be awesome but there are certain mechanical issues to overcome that were not addressed by micks design. I do however have another design in mind that might offer what you are looking for in the D9. I cant give any details at the moment but if it works then i think it will be the first model engine ever sold with this configuration and i would hope for performance in the 8-9hp area at 7000rpm.

[Joespeeder]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for a all your work and a detailed reply. I have to admit that even over here my process is not common. Most modelers ask what engine will fly the plane well and then later think about adding a three blade which never works very well. I start with the prop and try to find an engine to power it. Lower rpm and higher pitch works also to accomplish the same thing.

My OS 320 turns a Super Silence 22x10 at 6,400rpm and a 21x11x3 at 6,300 to 6,400 but thats on 20%, CDI, and some other Ray English mods. The FG-60r3 is seeing 6,400 after first break in and 6.700rpm after well run in on the same 2 blade prop. Most ESM/YT 80inch warbirds are around 22lbs so I'm looking for power well above the level common to whats become the norm for my 27lb minimum 83inch airframe.

The radial sounds GREAT if you could do an inline in the same power range.

I listed those optimistic rpm figures since you asked what would we like to see and without a little explanation it does sound over the top. However, the Corsairs inverted gull wing came from stuffing too much horsepower in the nose and needing ground clearance for mulit-blade props. You see where I'm going.... Spec the prop to the airframe then find a way to power it and stuff it in there. Low rpm and higher pitch works fine.

I hear you on the Fiat set up. I wanted to fit as much of the engine inside as I could manage and the 100Ti was as close to hidden as I could get to work. It sounds awesome on 30%.... A single cylinder would hang way out of the small cowl, LINKY

It's very seldom we get asked what we would like by a mfg, Once you get to the larger models it seems to get a lot easier to fit big power in there for scale style props. But on the 60-80inch ws planes it still takes real work to find something that doesn't sound like I'm doing field maintenance and fit it in the cowl. YS and RCV are out there but I'm not a needle twister and a YS's constant attention would frustrate me.

If you create inline or radial engines we can fit in 60in ad 80in cowls we'll stuff them in there! lol

Thanks.

Joe

[Martin McIntosh]

Joe, I use several YS`s not only for the power and reliability but because once (simply) set I do not have to twiddle anything. Shame that the 20% nitro makes a mess of many scale finishes though.

[Joespeeder]

Thanks Martin,

I will give them a look again. I'm not opposed to the engine but my abilities to keep it happy are suspect. YS engines are rare around the the local clubs. I have seen them throw the spinner and prop across the field (40+ yards) with great force when it went lean during set up. Scared me to death. I will look again. But that's for a different thread.

After, sticking my hand in a ASP 160 twin where I was rewarded with 7 stitches I am very gun shy sometimes.

The ease of use of Laser, reputation, and power are very cool. Over here they are seen as exotic. I would love to see more of them and promote them as much as I can. Sorry to be so wordy.

My vote for Jon is inline and radial options that would fit in known airframes. annnd I like gobs of power..

Joe

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I wonder if you might consider a small modification to the long silencer option?

I've noticed a couple of cases during noise testing where when the outlet faces slightly forward towards the prop arc that there seems to be considerable interference noise generated. We put this to the test on a new 155 that had failed (84dB at 7m) on a 16 x 8. Going to a 16 x 10 dropped it to 83dB but substituting the standard silencer for the long outlet version fitted resulted in getting under the 82dB limit - by, I assume, getting the outlet further from the prop arc and in slower moving air.

In the past, simply angling the originally forward facing exhaust backwards caused a dramatic drop in noise on (iirc) a 120 but the owner of the 155 was unable to reposition the exhaust in this case and reluctant to try my suggestion of an angled deflector as "they always come off". If it were mine I would be tempted to machine a groove at the end of the outlet tube to allow a cable tie to bite but could you consider supplying them with a retaining groove or two?

[MattyB]

So any news on the 30cc petrol single? Can we expect to see it in production this summer? I really think the quicker you can get this out the better; in the videos you have posted it seems to throttle at least as good if not better than all it's competition, and as you say it comfortably outperforms the NGH 38. Get it out there soon and I doubt you will be able to keep up with demand!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Phil 9]

to answer the title question

PETROL