Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
June 27, 2017, 04:46:10 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: ED BEE MARK 1  (Read 952 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
scrowoash
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

Zimbabwe Zimbabwe

Posts: 22


Topic starter


Ignore
« on: April 21, 2017, 03:54:11 AM »

Hi Everyone,

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this:
I have a ED BEE MK1 that i want to use in a 1/2A controline all sheet plane. This engine runs but it has hard starting( i used an electric starter). i am concerned that having a screw-in backplate which also accepts the intake tube, there is a possibiity of the intake timing being changed from dis-assembly. Does anybody happen to know the intake timing specs? I read the BEE MK 2 has increased power due to a longer intake period. Is there an advantage to utilising this period on the MK1?

Looking forward to any advice.

Regards

Woody.
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 34
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,575



Ignore
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2017, 05:35:36 AM »

The ED Bee 1 is very easy-starting and shouldn't need an electric starter. It is slightly more powerful than a Mills 75. I suspect there may be something wrong with it (worn/no compression?) or fuel. I don't think there is any possiblity of the induction timing being wrong. The intake pipe will be at 1 o'clock seen from the rear.
Do you have diesel experience? If not, it can take some acquiring, but be very careful with an electric starter.
Logged
scrowoash
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

Zimbabwe Zimbabwe

Posts: 22


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2017, 06:07:55 AM »

I do not have a lot of diesel experience. What i found is that if i flick it fast, it will fire. does not start easily like the Mills or the ED Comp Special. What prop should i start with? I am using starter fluid, kerosene and castor oil. Come to think of it, maybe the ether content is too low. Maybe i should up the ether to 40-45%?
Logged
DavidJP
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 18
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,968




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2017, 06:42:24 AM »

I agree with what Bill has said. 

Please be very careful with the electric starter on any of these small engines as you could easily break something.  My guess is that given the engine is quite old the liner and piston may well be worn and the firing is as a result of the build up of fuel in the combustion chamber.  Is there any sign of leaking around the seal of the back plate? If you turn it over by hand and hold it at top dead centre does it hold or is there leaking down the side of the piston? You can sometimes see bubbles if there is fuel present.
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 34
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,575



Ignore
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2017, 08:03:55 AM »

I know very little about starter fluid. I gather it can be anything from ether to all sorts of stuff. I suspect fuel is your problem and you need to get proper ether or proper fuel. Three equal parts will work
Logged
Footloose
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 1
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 16



Ignore
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2017, 03:48:19 PM »

Scrowash

What you really need is a PAW 149, it's difficult to overpower a control line model and it's always better to have too much rather than too little. The PAWs are easy to start and very strong and better still I have a few of them and I would be only too happy to send you one free of charge, gratis and post free in the spirit of this hobby.
If you send me a PM with an address I will send it to you, I may even have a spare 7x6 prop as well.

Bert
Logged
ffkiwi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 394



Ignore
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2017, 01:00:16 AM »

Hi Everyone,

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this:
I have a ED BEE MK1 that i want to use in a 1/2A controline all sheet plane. This engine runs but it has hard starting( i used an electric starter). i am concerned that having a screw-in backplate which also accepts the intake tube, there is a possibiity of the intake timing being changed from dis-assembly. Does anybody happen to know the intake timing specs? I read the BEE MK 2 has increased power due to a longer intake period. Is there an advantage to utilising this period on the MK1?

Looking forward to any advice.

Regards

Woody.

Well apart from sharing the name there is not a lot in common between the Mk1 and Mk2 ED Bees-porting is quite different-virtually everything is different-except probably the disc-which seems to be the same in both-so forget that aspect of the timing. Mk1 Bees did not wear well-so if it is hard to start you're pretty much stuck with it. Take note of the warnings regarding electric starters-though the Bee is a lot more solid than many other small diesels.....steel conrod for a start....which means that if you get it badly wrong you're likely to break the gudgeon or crankpin rather than bend the rod as usually happens. Personally you could hardly have picked a worse offering to power a CL model with-they were pretty gutless (so were the Mk2s-until the very last model variant!)-about the same power as a DC Merlin of 3/4 the size. That being said you can still use it for your stated purpose-but you'll have to a) keep the model light, and b) possibly fly on shorter lines than is comfortable. In any case Footloose has made you an extraordinarily generous offer-in your position I'd accept it gratefully. Now it is possible to misassemble the Mk1 ED Bee (and the 1.5cc Hornet) and mess up the induction timing-this occurs when the backplate is screwed home after being removed-or even just partially undone-and the crankpin seats in the induction slot (which is bean shaped-and on exactly the same radius from the central pivot pin as the drive hole in the disc)-this is readily detected though by removing the induction tube-and if the engine is mistimed the rod and bigend will be visible in the induction cutout. This is one of the foible of the Mk1-and there's not a lot you can do about it, except keeping on unscrewing and re-screwing in the backplate until the crankpin seats in the correct hole in the disc.

 The Mk1 Bee should turn a 7x6 OK for C/L use-though a 7x5 would be a lighter load-and allow it to get closer to its peak. For FF (which is probably the use it is better suited for) an 8x3 or 8x4 is about right. Bill Dennis has raised some issues about starter fluid that are quite valid-there are many brands-and many formulations-all of them to my knowledge contain SOME ether-but 'some' can be as little as 20%-which makes them totally useless for a source of ether for diesel fuel. The best ones are 80% or more ether-and even here you need to factor in the other components as part of your fuel mix ie-the '20% not ether' is factored into your final fuel mixture as part of the kerosene component so you end up with the appropriate mixing ratios to give at least 30% ether in your final fuel mixture. Experience also indicates that the highest ether blend starter fluids are used in cold climate areas-and those for use in tropical areas are at the low end of the scale 20-25% ether content.....so given where you are -i'd be reading the contents label or spec sheet very carefully to ensure I wasn't purchasing a useless (for your purposes) product.

 ChrisM
 'ffkiwi'

PS and before you ask-there is NO alternative to diethyl ether for this purpose-there is no other chemical compound that can be used as a substitute.
Logged
OZPAF
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 37
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 3,404



Ignore
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2017, 03:54:58 AM »

Actually I learnt to fly CL using a ED Bee Mk1 in an own designed model and if I remember correctly on 35' lines of light laystrate.

I still have the motor - it is around 60yrs old now and still starts easily and runs well. I used a 7x6 prop and it was powerful enough to fly around 20" WS models. It now resides in a semi scale own design Camel biplane of around 20" Ws and 12-14oz weight

If you are having that much trouble starting it then I agree with the very good advice you have been given about the ether content of your fuel and it will be necessary anyway to find a source of ether to take advantage of the generous offer of a PAW 1.49.

Good luck .

John
 





Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: ED BEE MARK 1
Logged
ffkiwi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 394



Ignore
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2017, 04:39:33 AM »

Not disputing that John-but the chances are that the original poster has a worn engine and less than optimal fuel blend. For scrowoash-there is virtually no difference in power between the Mk1 and Mk2 versions of the Bee-it produces a little bit over 0.06BHP -as Bill Dennis noted-just a little more than a Mills 75 for a lot more weight and bulk! [0.061BHP for the Mk1, 0.064BHP for the Mk2] The Mk2 went through at least 3 distinct sub variants from 1955-1963...and the very last version the 1960/61 model had extensive porting changes by Gordon Cornell the new ED engine designer-and produced nearly double the power of the earlier version-0.11 @ 15,000rpm-so very respectable by 1cc diesel standards [see:      http://sceptreflight.net/Model%20Engine%20Tests/ED%20Bee%20Series%201960-61.html     for a test of this version]    But a PAW 149 will leave it in the dust-giving you much more in the way of options for models after you've passed the trainer stage-and the PAW 149 will fly a stunter quite nicely on 45 ft lines-or a 1/2A Combat model on whatever line length your local rules allow.
   Another thought that occurs regarding starter fluid-[I have no need to use it as I have suitable access to ether] the examples I have seen [often in the MSDS data]-quote a range of ether contents (note I'm referring to a single brand here-not the range of different branded products) ditto for other components. This means that there can be significant can-to-can-or batch-to-batch variations-but still within the manufacturers' specifications. When trying to make up accurate fuel mixes-the last thing you need is variable %s in your starting materials! The take home message should be that starting fluids are an option of last resort as a source of ether-and if you can obtain ether any alternative way-then it is preferable to do this. For a lot of diesel users, due to legal or local restrictions on sale, starting fluid is often the only option.

 ChrisM
 'ffkiwi'
Logged
OZPAF
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 37
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 3,404



Ignore
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2017, 07:33:07 PM »

Quote
Not disputing that John-but the chances are that the original poster has a worn engine and less than optimal fuel blend. For scrowoash-there is virtually no difference in power between the Mk1 and Mk2 versions of the Bee-it produces a little bit over 0.06BHP

No worries Chris - I agree. I just provided my experience for what it was worth and a bit of interest.

John
Logged
scrowoash
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

Zimbabwe Zimbabwe

Posts: 22


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2017, 08:27:26 AM »

Hi Everyone,

Sorry for the late response, have been really bogged down at work. I want to thank everyone for your extremely valuable inputs to this question, i have really enjoyed these comments and i have learned a lot! Thank you all again.

Footloose, your offer is extremely generous! Thank you very much! You mention the 'Spirit' of the hobby, no other interest group offers as much help and support as this hobby does! i only hope i can pass the same on to future upcoming modellers!

All the best to everyone in this wonderful modelling world.

Scrowoash.
Logged
scrowoash
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

Zimbabwe Zimbabwe

Posts: 22


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2017, 06:25:24 AM »

My late dad told me he built a Ron Moulton Rascal from aeromodeller plans and powered it with a ED BEE MK2 and remembers it having ample power. i do not know what lines or length however. Probably one of the later Gordon Cornell variants??
Logged
qazimoto
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 34



Ignore
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2017, 06:40:32 AM »

My late dad told me he built a Ron Moulton Rascal from aeromodeller plans and powered it with a ED BEE MK2 and remembers it having ample power. i do not know what lines or length however. Probably one of the later Gordon Cornell variants??

I thought that Gordon Cornell was only involved with ED in the Fury 1.5cc diesel era? Could your dad be confusing the latter with an ED Bee?
Logged
scrowoash
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

Zimbabwe Zimbabwe

Posts: 22


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2017, 09:55:52 AM »

I think i have my facts wrong concerning Gordon. My dad's engine was definitely a ED Bee MK2. You will know more than me regarding Gordon's involvement.
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 343



Ignore
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2017, 09:00:02 PM »

You are right the late Mk 2 Bees were subtely changed and put out a very respectable amount of power. the early ones were not as good. That was one of the first things Gordon was involved with when they were dealing to the Fury.
Ricky
Logged
ffkiwi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 394



Ignore
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2017, 10:54:15 PM »

My late dad told me he built a Ron Moulton Rascal from aeromodeller plans and powered it with a ED BEE MK2 and remembers it having ample power. i do not know what lines or length however. Probably one of the later Gordon Cornell variants??

I thought that Gordon Cornell was only involved with ED in the Fury 1.5cc diesel era? Could your dad be confusing the latter with an ED Bee?

Gordon was involved in a lot of things at ED from the late 50s on-till the early 60s (they went bust ca 1964-by which time Gordon had moved on and George Fletcher was chief designer)-this includes the Fury->Super Fury upgrade, improving the ED Bee mk2 and trying to sort out the ED Pep shambles (which was largely developed behind his back)    George Fletcher has the less than stellar ED Cadet....and possibly the stillborn ED Condor to his credit.

 ChrisM
 'ffkiwi'
Logged
scrowoash
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

Zimbabwe Zimbabwe

Posts: 22


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2017, 04:23:30 AM »

So does anyone know what was done to improve the performance on the ED Bee MK2? The only area i assume one can play around with is transfer porting. I am no expert, but does this sound right?
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 34
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,575



Ignore
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2017, 05:17:35 AM »

This may be of use:
http://www.modelenginenews.org/cardfile/edb.html
http://sceptreflight.net/Model%20Engine%20Tests/Index%20Diesels.html
Logged
ffkiwi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 394



Ignore
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2017, 04:44:46 PM »

So does anyone know what was done to improve the performance on the ED Bee MK2? The only area i assume one can play around with is transfer porting. I am no expert, but does this sound right?

Not really-not unless you're a model engineer and have access to machine tools-and a suitably experienced skillset to use them. The Bee has a hardened liner-so that rules out filing the ports-about all you could reasonably hope to do would be lighten the piston slightly-which would reasonably be expected to reduce vibration somewhat (not that the Bee is noted for a lot of vibration in its standard form in any case!) which might yield you a few hundred more rpm at the top-lightening can be done either by milling out the interior of the piston-leaving the gudgeon pin support area untouched-or bu drilling a ring of holes vertically in the piston walls (a la Oliver tiger tuning)-again you need machine tools to do this accurately. You could rework the induction timing by filing the intake port in the disc-but the engine's breathing is largely limited by the induction tube-which is only 3/16" OD-and it is not really practical to alter this (read impossible if you wish to retain the original tank setup) unless you're prepared to sacrifice the backplate assembly.
   In any case-as I've noted earlier-there are three distinct submodels of the Mk2 Bee-the first has 6 fins and internal transfer flutes-the second 5 fins and 3 external transfer ports of 3/32" diameter, and the final one-the 'hot' one 5 fins and 4 external transfer ports of 1/8" diameter-a contoured lower cylinder and a shorter lighter piston than the earlier models-so there is no way to change an earlier variant to the later one-though you might be able to grind the 3/32" external transfers larger and gain some increase-without an example of the final cylinder type to check against you would be guessing as to the actual timing-there was nothing mentioned in the test report as to whether the actual port timing (as opposed to port area) had been altered (other than that implicit in increasing the port diameter)

  If you have the time-and access to plenty of ED Bee spares-then you could experiment-but it is unlikely you could succeed in approaching the power of the final version by modifying earlier ones-as much of the development was of the cut and try basis-and is not able to be calculated in advance eg the shortened piston-by how much do you shorten it?  Well only by doing incremental modification and testing do you find out-and if you go too far-there's no going back...! Likewise with port areas, intake timing etc.

  ChrisM
  'ffkiwi'
Logged
Footloose
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 1
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 16



Ignore
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2017, 10:41:23 AM »

http://i874.photobucket.com/albums/ab308/15bert/Mobile%20Uploads/2017-05/CD37634A-92C3-4540-A57C-C9F73A9CDA56_zpsmw8bi4cz.jpg  

Well, I have tested thePAW I'm going to send to you. it is a good strong runner, I'm sorry about the delay but I wanted to make sure that I'm sending you a good engine.
It will be in the post to you tomorrow.

Bert
Logged
scrowoash
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

Zimbabwe Zimbabwe

Posts: 22


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2017, 06:14:37 AM »

Heello Bert,

That PAW looks wonderful! I really appreciate your effort and generosity here. Thank you very very much! I promise to post pics and video of the finished article and in action. Thank you also to everybody..Chris, Bildennis and others who commented on this thread...i have learned a lot!! The good news also is that i have managed to source pure ether here in Lusaka, so at least i will be starting on the right foot. I still have questions and will be asking them here. I think for me the engine tinkering and engineering aspect is a big 'pull' for me in this hobby, being a fitter-machinist, i can appreciate the tolerances and workmanship that goes into these little marvels of engineering.

All the best to everybody.

Woody.

Logged
ffkiwi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 394



Ignore
« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2017, 05:39:26 PM »

Woody-good-you have the key ingredient for diesel fuel sorted then. The rest is not too problematic-kerosene is readily available in most parts of the world-and the oil....well you can use mineral oil at a pinch, (diesels don't mind it-unlike glows) though most people use a castor or a synthetic in their fuel (or a castor/synthetic mix). In desperation medicinal or vetinary castor oil works-though some people dislike it as it is not degummed to the extent that castor oil intended for IC engine work usually is.
     Just to emphasize one of my earlier posts-yesterday I was in the NZ equivalent of K-Mart (we have KMarts here as well -but they're not too common) and was browsing the auto products section when i came across a can of engine start product. read the label closely.......25% ether....so it would be useless for making up model diesel fuel-since by the time you had diluted it by adding oil, the ether content would have been less than 25%. A good example of how not all engine start products are equal!....and why if you can do it-it is much better to source ether as the pure product!...[and 'solvent' or 'industrial' grade-the lowest of the commercial grades-is quite adequate-there is no need to buy ultra pure ether such as 'analytical' or even higher purity grades such as 'spectroscopy' or HLPC.

   ChrisM
   'ffkiwi'
Logged
scrowoash
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

Zimbabwe Zimbabwe

Posts: 22


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2017, 06:45:08 AM »

Hi Chris

Thanks for your comments. Yes, i did the sums and the ether content would end up way to low and useless for our purposes. In a way i am glad i have discovered this, because i ran 2 diesels using this 'supermarket starter fluid' previously in my ignorance and was disappointed with the performance. Now i know why the performance was poor! If it was not for this thread, I would have kept fumbling along with inferior fuel mixes. Kerosene of course as you said is no problem and i have been using the drug store castor oil as it was the easiest available. I will try get some industrial type castor then based on your comment regarding degumming.
As said previously...i have learned so much on this thread. Thanks again to all who helped!
Logged
ffkiwi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 394



Ignore
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2017, 08:29:56 PM »

Hi Chris

Thanks for your comments. Yes, i did the sums and the ether content would end up way to low and useless for our purposes. In a way i am glad i have discovered this, because i ran 2 diesels using this 'supermarket starter fluid' previously in my ignorance and was disappointed with the performance. Now i know why the performance was poor! If it was not for this thread, I would have kept fumbling along with inferior fuel mixes. Kerosene of course as you said is no problem and i have been using the drug store castor oil as it was the easiest available. I will try get some industrial type castor then based on your comment regarding degumming.
As said previously...i have learned so much on this thread. Thanks again to all who helped!


Woody-I did an awful lot of flying in my 'poor university student' days using nothing more than supermarket kerosene, medicinal castor oil from the same source and ether. It did help that I was a chemistry graduate, was enrolled for a PhD in biochemistry and lived just across the road from the biochemistry department-so I had access to facilities that most modellers don't ! ....this included synthesising my own nitro and amyl nitrite! ...but that's a story for another time. Medicinal castor works quite well-is completely adequate for sport flying purposes-and is available in small quantities-being a FFer I didn't use much fuel in any case-a couple of litres a year at best-so a 100ml bottle made half a litre of fuel at 20% lube content...and was equally useful for glow fuel. Proper lubrication castor is better-because it is generally degummed-so runs a bit cleaner that's all-but that's mainly an issue for R/C fliers running silenced motors for 20 minute plus flights- moaning about how black and dirty their mufflers get. At the practical level I doubt an ED Bee or PAW 149 would notice any difference between medicinal, veterinary or racing castor grades-used at the same %. If you can get degummed castor well and good-but you might not be able to buy it in small quantities-and it is likely to be quite expensive.  You might though-if you have such things in Zimbabwe-enquire at your local go-kart or motorcycle racing club-as these people would use racing castor in some of their machines-and might sell you a litre or two at a reasonable price...since they probably buy it in 44 gal (200-litre) drums!

  If you can get Amsoil products in Zimbabwe then their diesel cetane improver is virtually 100% DII-and a bottle will last you a lifetime at 2% v/v in your fuel. [A 'nice to'-rather than a 'must have' though-you can still get by on 'straight' 3 part diesel mixes-the nitrate just allows you to run a bit smoother and a snid less compression]

  The people who have mainly 'pushed' the engine starter fluid approach tend to be from the US and Canada-where the laws regarding the sale of ether to private individuals tend to be very strict-not to mention varying from state to state and province to province. Also-having very cold winters-especially in Canada and Alaska-they tend to use 'engine start' quite frequently. Over there the various brands all seem to be high ether content-for example 'John Deere' brand is better than 80% ether. With this level of content it is quite practical to use it as a source of ether-and you factor in the remaining % content as part of your kerosene proportion in the fuel. Elsewhere in the world-as you have discovered first hand-the ether content is far far less-to the point where such products are useless for making up model engine fuel-whilst still being more than adequate for their stated purpose of starting recalcitrant full size engines.

   ChrisM
   'ffkiwi'
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!