ENGINE SELECTION/OPTIONS

A lot of money and hard to find, but how about the Saito VT240? Great sound, too!

Why doesn't he like gas? Why not run a gas engine on methanol instead? Not sure any of those engines would have enough power. But then I don't know how much power the scale bird had, I suspect quite a bit, just under 3D performance. You could also convert a 35 cc sized gas to glow.

After having been on the sidelines of watching a couple of very knowledgeable gentlemen try to run various gas engines on methanol and end up with constant bearing problems, I would hesitate to make such a recommendation. They run very strong for a while and then either break a crankshaft or lose the bearings. Not a good proposition to me.

Up in that size of model, gas is the only way to go for me.

A Quadra 40 is basically the good version of the US Engines 41cc engine, back when quality control was good. However, it was not a very powerful engine in either version.

An OS 1.60 is scads more powerful on the same props. The OS 1.60 would be my suggestion if the guy is hell bent for glow.

Some of the other engines sounded a bit large, such as the Moki 2.10 if the airframe was built only to handle the stress of the Quadra 40cc engine. Keep in mind that I am not familiar with the particular model. Apply salt liberally.

I'm fairly certain that my Evolution 26GT would swing the same props as the Quadra 40cc engine at higher rpm than that of the Quadra.

Ed Cregger

Maybe they didn't know that you need to use about 10% castor oil?

No, they knew that. Both guys are lab techs and they are very meticulous in looking up data, following procedure, etc. It flat didn't work in their engines. Maybe others, but not theirs.

Ed Cregger

Having both the Quadra 35 and 42 and also the US 41, I can truthfully say that the US 41 was a great disappointment to me. I built the GP giant scale P51 and along with a set of Robart Retracts and many servos, found the kit to be the worst kit I ever have built..in seventy years of model airplane building...and the US41 did not perform well...and the Robart units, supposedly made from aircraft aluminum, bent and damaged easily. I finally soldthe plane with the under performing US41 and every succeeding owner of the plane has not liked it. I told Don Anderson at Toledo a few years ago of my disappointment in the kit, the many mistakes on the plans, the bad balsa wood and the misinformation about the finished weight...he said he was sorry I felt that way, and I told him the way I felt was that I would never build any of his s--t kits again. Regarding the engines in this size, I found the Zenoah 38 to be a fine performer and very reliable. On the other hand, I have converted a few of the Ryobi 31 cc weed eater engines and they have almost as much power as the Zenoah 38 or the old Quadra 35. Sorry to ramble on so...old people do that, you know...it is our priviledge, too. Regards to all, Frank Schwartz AMA123

Ah, Frank! You make me feel like a piker. I'm just getting into this RC hobby after 64 years and am finding that I need lots of information real fast. I'm going to try to cram a lot of fun into the next 10-15 year if I last that long. Too bad you apparently live down south; I need a teacher/mentor like you.

Was that GP P51 a recent build? (I assume that is Great Planes.) Have you tried any more of their kits in more recent years? If so, has your opinion changed? How about the rest of the group; has anyone else had the same experience with Great Planes? I don't want to waste a couple of months on junk, so any opinions would be appreciated.

Harlan

Harlan: Well, you must understand that what I wrote is strictly a personal opinion. And as far as I am concerned, the kit was the worst I have ever built. Plane flew ok..US41 did not perform well at all and the design of the landing gear mounts was flimsy at best and the plane did not come anywhere near the advertised weight...a rotten plane kit...but..they have an arf kit of it now...should be ok... Personally I prefer to scratch build but some kits are ok...I just am very peeved with Great Planes kit people and just choose to avoid ther kits...probably some one else would give it rave notices... So, jump in...the water is fine!! And build and enjoy...but you can find better engines than the US41, based on personal experience... Yes, I am h ere in Hendersonville, TN which is just on the north side of Nashville and I fly at a field in Nashville. The Hendersonville club has a small field next to a big lake and having had to wade out to fetch a plane made me decide I don't need to fly there any more!! Best regards, Frank

Frank:

I don't take any opinions as 100% correct, but I do factor them in when I make a decision. So thanks for yours.

I wish our club had some water on its premises; it would give us a bit more latitude in the models we build and fly. We are forced to fly pontoons off of wet grass and/or snow. Right now we have neither.

Harlan

There was a fellow at my NJ club field, over ten years ago, that finally got his Q35 dialed in to perfection. He had it mounted in a large Ercoupe. If I hadn't flown the model myself, I wouldn't have believed how much power the Q35 possessed.

No, it still wasn't a 3D type of engine. I'm not saying that. But it did pull that Ercoupe around about like a good forty pulls a good trainer. It was spirited. Danged if I can remember his last name, but his first name was Frank. Thanks for the flight, Frank.

Another friend of mine currently owns the P-51 kit (unconstructed) that you had. He is collecting parts (retracts, etc.) and has decided to use his G-62 to power it. His might be the ARC version, now that I think of it.

Ed Cregger

I hate to admit it, Harlan, but during the last few years, I too have had a bit of a yearning to fly off of water. Is this one of those things like seniors moving to Florida or heading for icy sidewalks?

Ed Cregger