Laser Engines development.

[Mike Mc]

Any news on the FT-310?

 

.

 

[Naveen Arora]

Hi Jon

 

Any new production planning for Laser 300V?

 

Thanks,

Naveen

[perttime]

Elsewhere, somebody was wondering about difficulties contacting Laser Engines (not sure what was tried). Summer holidays?

[Jon H]

On 06/08/2022 at 16:47, Mike Mc said:

Any news on the FT-310?

 

.

 

 

Sorry Mike i missed this. 

 

We have used up all our ft200 and 160 cases so will be running another batch. The larger cases will be manufactured at the same time while the machine is set. I am going to try and get 360 inline parts moving as well but that might be pushing my luck. 

 

Are you on my pre order list for the 310? I already have 14 names down and due to my valve spring supply problem can only accept one more twin order before i am done for the year. 

[Jon H]

Naveen. Not at the moment, i have way too much else to do. 

 

I can be contacted at [email protected] or 01442 249505 if you would like to discuss the model you are building and a possible alternative engine.

 

perttime.  I have only been off for 4 days this year so i doubt that has been an issue. 

[mike skingle]

Hi Jon 

Pm sent

Cheers

Mike

[Jon H]

Got it Mike

 

Just for my own amusement, how many takers are there for radials? 

 

This does not mean i am going to start work on them but i need to know how many are interested and in what size. 

 

Your choices are 50, 75 and 90cc. All 3 cylinder, all low oil glow (for now). Place your votes but only if you are serious and would actually buy one. 

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

I "was" interested in the twin  last year  for a big Spitfire, but after hearing a few 5 and 3 cylinder radials which sound so different I dropped out, and as a triple wont fit in a Spitfire I am out of the running.

 

 still keep them coming,,,🥳

 

 

[maurice northcott]

1 hour ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:

......... are there for radials? 

This does not mean i am going to start work on them but i need to know how many are interested and in what size. 

Your choices are 50, 75 and 90cc. All 3 cylinder, all low oil glow (for now). Place your votes but only if you are serious and would actually buy one. 

Hi Jon,

I would go for a 50 and 75, if you twist my arm I might go for the 90cc too.......

[Ron Gray]

You know I’m in, 75 or 90 for me.

[mike skingle]

Hi Jon

a 90cc radial for me please. 

[Jon H]

Thanks chaps. 

 

A little more info. 

 

540 (90cc) engine O/D 256mm

450 (75cc) engine O/D 236mm (2mm larger than an OS300 5 cylinder)

300 (50cc) engine O/D target 220mm. 

 

Prices? £1000, £950, £865?? maybe? 

 

Calculated power figures

 

540 26x8 or 24x10 around 6500rpm +- 100

450 22x10 or 23x8 around 6800rpm +-100 (this matches DLE55 and Z62)

300 22x8 at 6800 +-100, 20x8 near 8000. 

 

Suitable models. 

 

540 upto probably 30-35lbs (WWII fighter) and 100 inch, maybe more depending on how it all works out. 

450 Similar models to the 540 but slightly less weight. Say 25-30lbs? Its weight more than wingspan which will matter. The smaller O/D might help in tight cowls as well. 

300 Aimed at the 50cc class warbirds. 75-90 inch, 20-22lbs ish. I need to keep the O/D down to get in the cowls. 

 

Clearly these numbers change if you use a WWI fighter or stearman as a reference, but that is sort of what i had in mind. 

 

None of these figures are set in stone, there is as i write this no plans to produce them and many of the designs have not even been started. But this is what i want to do.

[Jonathan Blunn]

Hi Jon, would definitely be interested in 50 & 75

[Jerry Newton]

I would be interested in a 90cc

[Dirk Witvrouwen 1]

I'd be very tempted for a radial fitting a 1/4 Svenson/Platt Bucker Jungmeister; but those seem out of scope 😔

[kevin b]

Laser Engines have long had an enviable reputation for producing high quality reliable engines, particularly suited to large scale models.

It is understandable therefore that as these models get bigger, then the engines required need to be produced accordingly.

I have no problem with that at all.

My concern is for those who like "large" scale models as they used to be and their flying fields cannot cater for modern scale masterpieces.

Many years ago there were engine manufacturers producing multi-cylinder engines of smaller sizes (not many I will admit).

I would have thought that with current technology available it would not be a difficult task to produce them now.

The question is, I suppose, that would there be sufficient demand and how would you ascertain that before you start production?

 

Maybe we should just use electric motors in "small" (under 9ft wingspan) scale models .

After all, when it is flying the only difference is the noise. We could programme the sound into our transmitters and wear headphones. 😁

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by kevin b

[Jon H]

I agree with most of your points kevin but the issue is cost. I can make a 60 flat twin, but its would cost the same as a 160 as it costs the same to make it. People wont pay over 500 quid for a 60. 

 

Also our engines are a bit like lego with many common parts. Its a strength in many ways, but a significant weakness in others as any new engines need to use existing parts to get them over the line with the management. New parts are generally frowned upon and this is why the flat twins have got the green light as only 2 new parts were needed. The radial needs...10? 12? something like that. 

 

anyway if the engine uses its own parts and those parts are bespoke for that engine, the engine using it becomes more expensive as you loose the economy of scale when producing say 30 of a cam vs 300. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Jon - Laser Engines

[Mike Mc]

Radial Questions:

1. What type of intake and exhaust will they have. It would easier to install and tune if it had an intake manifold and a single carb. Exhaust rings are very popular, that's what I like.

 

2. What size for the first prototype? Will you have a prototype by the end of the year?

 

[Dirk Witvrouwen 1]

9 hours ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:

I agree with most of your points kevin but the issue is cost. I can make a 60 flat twin, but its would cost the same as a 160 as it costs the same to make it. People wont pay over 500 quid for a 60. .......

 

Jon/Kevin,

 

The only thing stopping me from buying an UMS 7-35 is my lack of thrust in both quality, spareparts availabillity and most certainly, support.  Not it's price tag.

 

But yes, there may not be sufficient customers, I do understand that risk 😔

I just want to repeat that there ARE at least some out there who'd like a small single, twin and radial.

 

 

[Jon H]

10 hours ago, Mike Mc said:

Radial Questions:

1. What type of intake and exhaust will they have. It would easier to install and tune if it had an intake manifold and a single carb. Exhaust rings are very popular, that's what I like.

 

2. What size for the first prototype? Will you have a prototype by the end of the year?

 

 

1, Radials will be single carb as its difficult to hook up 3 throttles when the carbs are all around the head. I have some plans for trying to sort out the fuel distribution so its even but i would need to test it all first and react as needed. For exhausts i honestly had not thought about it. OS and Saito do not sell collector rings for their engines and i do not feel compelled to offer one in the short term. 

 

2. As already stated, there are no plans to put the engines into production. This is just a chat about what people want so i have an idea where to focus my attention should the opportunity arise. 

 

 

[Jon H]

1 hour ago, Dirk Witvrouwen 1 said:

 

Jon/Kevin,

 

The only thing stopping me from buying an UMS 7-35 is my lack of thrust in both quality, spareparts availabillity and most certainly, support.  Not it's price tag.

 

But yes, there may not be sufficient customers, I do understand that risk 😔

I just want to repeat that there ARE at least some out there who'd like a small single, twin and radial.

 

 

 

 

oh the UMS 7-35...what a steaming pile..

 

To clarify, the engine is fine for what it is, the problem is what it is. 

 

at 35cc with 7 cylinders there is so much internal friction that you are never going to get any power out of it. You are paying nearly £1000 for a 200 size engine with the power output of an engine half its size that costs 1/3 the price of the radial. With the small cylinders you also do not get that radial sound as the rpm is quite high and the whole thing just falls apart as a concept. I cant fault the looks of the thing or deny that its just awesome to have a radial engine that small, but as a powerplant for a model it makes no sense. 

 

The small saito radials are even worse as they use the over square bore/stroke ratios from the smaller engines they are derived from so you end up with an engine of high ish capacity (20cc for example) which would normally run at 8000-8500rpm on a 15x8, and yet you have to scream it at 9500 or something on a 14x6 just to keep the thing in its torque band. Ideally you want to run radial engines slower so running them faster is not a win for anyone. 

 

This is why small multi cylinder engines are a waste of time. They do not output enough power due to their frictional losses and run at excessive rpm due to their design. Yes you could make them long stroke, but then they are the same physical size as an engine of overall larger displacement so would not see any sales. 

 

This is why i have gone for 3 cylinder in the capacities i have as i am trying to make the best powerplant i can and not the best desk ornament. 

 

 

[Dirk Witvrouwen 1]

Thanks Jon, it is that level of service/depth of reasoning why I've always kept away from the truly mass production products, and waited to see what Laserengines would bring. 👍  High RPM on a radial is indeed not desired.

 

So, a 160 flat twin might be a more suitable option, as that would fit the Bucker cowling. And eventually be usable for a scaled up Sig Smith Miniplane and the likes.  I am not in a rush, I'll wait until they leave 'test phase' and are shippable/servicable over the channel.

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Dirk Witvrouwen 1

[kevin b]

Thanks for the reply / information Jon.

It was as I thought. Producing small radial engines is not feasible from a practical point of view.

As a model engineering project yes, but to perform in a practical and commercial way no.

In a similar way very large single cylinder engines give their own problems.

So we have what we have. Engines produced to optimise their performance, not their looks or sound.

A compromise on the aesthetics has always been in the remit of scale modellers and will continue to be so due mainly to the laws of physics.

 

I am assuming that all this talk of larger multi-cylinder engines is looking at the future direction of the company.

My original concern was, and is that builders of "normal" scale models (that can be flown from the average club field) will struggle to obtain power plants

suitable for their models. The smallest engine now in your range is now the 70. If the market for the multis increases are you likely to stop production of singles

due to demand ? We know you are already restricted in your ability to manufacture volume, so do you produce 3 single cylinder engines, or 1 multi ?

The answer will probably be decided by the accountants.

[Solly]

21 hours ago, kevin b said:

Laser Engines have long had an enviable reputation for producing high quality reliable engines, particularly suited to large scale models.

It is understandable therefore that as these models get bigger, then the engines required need to be produced accordingly.

I have no problem with that at all.

My concern is for those who like "large" scale models as they used to be and their flying fields cannot cater for modern scale masterpieces.

Many years ago there were engine manufacturers producing multi-cylinder engines of smaller sizes (not many I will admit).

I would have thought that with current technology available it would not be a difficult task to produce them now.

The question is, I suppose, that would there be sufficient demand and how would you ascertain that before you start production?

 

Maybe we should just use electric motors in "small" (under 9ft wingspan) scale models .

After all, when it is flying the only difference is the noise. We could programme the sound into our transmitters and wear headphones. 😁

 

I'm so glad you added a smiley face to this post.

 

 

[Jon H]

When it comes to sound we will never be able to mimic full size. A Merlin engine is flat out at 3000rpm engine speed and about 1700 on the prop i think it is. A sea fury i think is flat out at 2700. Even the high revving napier sabre in the tempest and typhoon gave its all at 4000rpm. This is barely half throttle for most model designs, and our engines arent geared so props run fast.  

 

Another problem to consider is the models engines are fitted too., Most are designed to suit single cylinder engines and some are suited to a specific engine. This is due to the range of ARTF manufacturers are normally in bed with an engine manufacturer at the distributor level. RIpmax sell OS, they also sell black horse models so its no surprise they are configured to suit OS. Hangar 9 and saito are the same with the horizon hobby link. For this reason i am always going on about tank position as even our singles do not conform to the layout of other engines. Once you start getting into V, inline or radial engines there are so many installation limitations to consider. With the inline its obvious, but a radial can cause problems as you might be fitting an engine that weighs 6lbs and not the 2 or 3 that was envisaged. IS the firewall thick enough, are the side frames giving enough support? One heavy landing could see the engine just snap off the front and that is not a good look. 

 

The drive to larger and more 'interesting' engines is my doing. I fly models of a given type and there simply arent satisfactory powerplants available for them so i have been designed my own. 

 

It all started with a 1/4 scale andersen La7 before i even worked at laser. Recommended engines are the Z62, Z80 twin and saito 450r3. So i bought the saito, ran it, was unimpressed, and moved on. Are there other engines that would do? Well saito offer the bigger petrol radials, but their reputation is not 100% and i got rid of a saito i was unimpressed with. There are large cc petrol 4 strokes, but if i want a radial we are back to UMS and i have doubts about paying that much for a product of unknown durability. So, I need a radial man enough to pull a 97 inch WWII fighter of around 30lbs. My only question, 75 or 90cc? Lets design both and see what happens. 

 

I also have a variety of V12 powered warbirds to build. Spitfires, P40, P51 etc. They need 50-60cc, a single is ok but 50-60cc single 4 strokes are not super common and most are pretty tall so might hang out of the cowl. many are extremely expensive as well and If i am spending that money i want at lest a twin. A v V will work, but not if you want it all in the cowl so inline it is...there arent any, unless you want to spend £1200 on an NGH which is a 1000rpm slower on the same prop than a laser 360v thats 2cc smaller. Looks like i need a 60cc inline then. 

 

The smaller inlines were the same story with the 70-80 inch warbirds and 1/4 tiger moths etc being the focus there. 

 

I work on the basis that i cannot be alone in my quest for suitable engines so engines i need must be engines other people need as well. 

 

All of this is focused on the idea that  for warbirds anyway, 90 inch (DB Hurricane 88, 1/5 Spitfire 88, 1/5 P51 89'') warbirds are the top limit for club flying. There are some clubs where you can go bigger, but most clubs would be hard limited at 90 inch due to noise, landing area, trees, whatever. So if i assume that the 70-90 inch warbird bracket is the main market, i can work out engines to suit. If you want mega giant scale, fine, go spend 4 grand on a moki or valach. Options already exist at that very large size, but i think there is room in this large but not giant scale size. 

 

20-50cc is a common and popular range of model sizes, and so i designed a range of flat twins to fit that size of model. These were not for me personally, but plenty of people asked and there was a viable line of products there. 

 

As for the smaller engines. its tough. In an ideal world i would keep the whole range but its not easy. The 70 is already likely to go, even the 80 might. Personally i would keep both, even if the 70 just broke even as people shop primarily on price when they do not know what it is they are going to get. If you never owned a laser before are you going to drop the big bucks right away? maybe not. There is also a healthy market for the smaller engines so i dont want to thin the herd too much. It is however, not up to me.