Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
October 20, 2019, 12:14:27 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: OS MAX .40FP  (Read 889 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
bigrip74
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 12
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 304


Topic starter


Ignore
« on: February 27, 2017, 05:51:12 PM »

I was given (2) OS MAX .40FP MOTORS IN GREAT CONDITION. My question is what are they good for? Such as Stunt, Racing what ever. I have a Carl Goldberg Buster on the table now to re familiarize myself with what I have lost in the past 4 decades.

Bob
Logged

If it aint broke dont fix it!
Konrad
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 38
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,163


Measure twice cut once



Ignore
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2017, 09:00:15 PM »

They are ok entry level engines. Stock they are not well suited for the 4-2-4 break that you might be use to with some of the older engine designs (i.e. the Fox 35 Stunt). As for a competition application she is too large a displacement and/or too weak to be competitive. The FP series was introduced in the time frame where OS was experimenting with the single step process for the application of electroless nickel plating (This destroyed her reputation). The industry (metal finishing industry) standard for this kind of application is a dual step process. As a result the nickel plating in the OS ABN engine is less durable than contemporary engines. 

Use fuel with a high oil content 22% or more if using castor oil as a lubricant. If running the engine dry make sure that half the oil content is at least castor oil. As the OS FP has a lot more power than the older designs I would run your Buster on longer lines and on a flatter pitch prop (like a 5 inch verses the standard 6 inch pitch).

Have fun and remember to start out with short engine runs. Not out of concern for the engine but rather to give you time to adjust to going around in circles again. I jumped back into CL with a combat ship after a 40 year hiatus. BIG SICKENING MISTAKE!! Tongue
Logged

Cut it twice and it's still too short!
bigrip74
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 12
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 304


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2017, 10:43:52 PM »

KONRAD, thanks for the heads up and I had planned on letting my brother do the turning till I can take over.

Bob
Logged

If it aint broke dont fix it!
NormF
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 12
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 503




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2017, 11:30:42 PM »

I think that would be a lot of engine for a Goldberg profile. The .40FP would be more suited for a Sig Twister or Banshee and even there, it could probably use an extra head shim or two and a smaller venturi. A .25FP would be a more suitable size for the Buster. Do follow Konrad's fuel recommendation and add castor.

Norm
Logged
Konrad
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 38
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,163


Measure twice cut once



Ignore
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2017, 01:33:05 AM »

Isn't the CG Buster a 35 size ship?

I think the Sig Buster is the smaller 19 size ship.

Its been years so I don't claim to know. But true the FP is a bit on the powerful side for a profile 35 sized ship. That is why I'd fly the CG Buster on longer line and with a flatter pitched prop.

BTW the FP 25 is has close to the same power output as the old baffle 35s.
Logged

Cut it twice and it's still too short!
bigrip74
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 12
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 304


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2017, 02:32:35 AM »

The airplane in question is the CARL GOLDBERG BUSTER 40" wing span for .19-.35. I flew RAT RACE back in the late 1960's and am more familiar with K&B .40 RR engines plus I have not flown any CL for 4 decades.

The information on the OS MAX .40FP has been illuminating and the tips are great to start back into CL. The 424 break was very interesting and Ive been researching this.

The more info given has been a gold mine to keep me from making too many mistakes before I go out to fly.

Bob
Logged

If it aint broke dont fix it!
Sundance12
Model Airplane Builder
Global Moderator
Platinum Member
*****

Kudos: 71
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 1,058


MAAC #25680, VE4BDF (amateur radio callsign)

WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2018, 11:11:20 PM »

I have a OS.40FP on a slightly modified Sig Banshee and its a really fine combination. Took it to 2009 Sig control line Contest in Iowa. Runs a high break, which is just fine. It's not meant to run in a low break like the fox 35 of of. The FP 40 for stunt is one of my favorite engines and super reliable. Flys the pattern without a hickup. Don't overlook it's potential.

Cheers

Sundance12
Logged

Resources and tools for scratch builders and plans builders.
www.northof49tech.com
TimWescott
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,018



Ignore
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2018, 02:26:28 PM »

... As for a competition application she is too large a displacement and/or too weak to be competitive...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but AFAIK they're good for entry-level stunt.  I have a Tower 40 which is supposedly an FP clone and it's a great stunt engine for planes up to around 48 ounces.  They want to run at a high-RPM wet 2-stroke.  APC 11x4, 11.5x4 or 12.25x3.75 props should all be tried.  Do not even think about running them in a 2-4.  Use a stock muffler, or try to find a Tower 40 muffler (they're lighter).  Use a tongue muffler if you must, but don't come crying to me if it doesn't work as well as you'd like.

I mostly use 46LA engines for my big planes (as a matter of economy -- I can't afford $400 for a good piped setup, or even $400 for a good electric setup).  I can certainly vouch for those, when they're set up correctly.

You should use a small(ish) venturi -- if it won't hold a needle setting in the air, or if it has to run in a 4-stroke to get the speed down, your venturi is too large.  I use nylon mesh that's made for wrapping flowers or brides' heads.  My current ride has a pile of five layers, although I'm going to find a smaller venturi for it rather than continuing with the madness.
Logged
Konrad
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 38
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,163


Measure twice cut once



Ignore
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2018, 04:38:13 PM »

... As for a competition application she is too large a displacement and/or too weak to be competitive...
The last time I looked at the rule book (decades ago) the max displacement for most classes that had a displacement limit was .36cid. Now there was a lot of talk to bring this up to 6.5cc to allow the then very available and  profitable RC .40 CID to be used as the core for a control line engine. For sport the FP 40 is adequate in fact it is often too powerful for the designs drawn way back when for the .35 CID. As you mentioned the need to use of very small venturies to choke the engine back. Now the LA/FP 40 is far too weak to compete with the 36 CID combat engines.

I mention that many of today's schnuerle ported . 25CID actually have more power that the sport baffle .35 cid engines of the past (read Fox 35 Stunt).

The Piped 40's were a nice combination as it allowed us to get the power of a .60 CID and still used the low drag wires. This made trimming nicer and actually allowed
the plane to handle wind a bit better (less wire drag effected by the wind).

Today the electric is by far the best power source for CL stunt. With the electronic speed control set in heli governer mode we can finally get that constant speed we so desired when trying to set up our CL engines for the 4-2-4 break.

All the best,
Konrad
Logged

Cut it twice and it's still too short!
TimWescott
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,018



Ignore
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2018, 07:35:38 PM »

The last time I looked at the rule book (decades ago) the max displacement for most classes that had a displacement limit was .36cid...

Ahh.  Sorry -- I had my head wrapped around stunt, for which the displacement limit is 0.90 cubic inches.  I have no clue of the state of other competition classes.

For anything requiring motor performance, the FP is going to be pretty lame -- it's designed to be an easy-to-handle RC sport engine, which means it does NOT put out tons-o-power for it's size.  But apparently making a nice tractable RC engine also makes a pretty good CL stunt engine.

I agree with you about electric, unless the person you're giving advise to already knows how to use nitro engines and likes it.  Starting from scratch, electric does have less of a learning curve than nitro, though.  (But really -- once you get your electric sounding and smelling like a nitro plane, it's too heavy for stunt).
Logged
Konrad
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 38
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,163


Measure twice cut once



Ignore
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2018, 10:01:10 PM »

The last time I looked at the rule book (decades ago) the max displacement for most classes that had a displacement limit was .36cid...

Ahh.  Sorry -- I had my head wrapped around stunt, for which the displacement limit is 0.90 cubic inches.  I have no clue of the state of other competition classes.

For anything requiring motor performance, the FP is going to be pretty lame -- it's designed to be an easy-to-handle RC sport engine, which means it does NOT put out tons-o-power for it's size.  But apparently making a nice tractable RC engine also makes a pretty good CL stunt engine.

I agree with you about electric, unless the person you're giving advise to already knows how to use nitro engines and likes it.  Starting from scratch, electric does have less of a learning curve than nitro, though.  (But really -- once you get your electric sounding and smelling like a nitro plane, it's too heavy for stunt).
Why would one want to get an electric sounding and smelling like a nitro bomb? Shocked Roll Eyes

Please don’t get me wrong I loved the 2 stroke engine. I flew FAI F2A with Irvine 15’s. I also built my own FAI F3D pylon engine. But for the last 3 decades or so electric have been very viable and in the last 2 decades they really are the most practical power source for our toys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED9Tpwxf62E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGXI3UbMHBs

I have to disagree with the weight statement. I’ve flow electric from the 1/2A to 60cid size C/L aircraft. My electrics are just as light as my glow powered models. Some of my bigger C/L could fly 2 patterns on the same battery charge. The electric is far superior when it comes to line tension as there is much more torque (more prop disk). The electric really helps with your flying as the motor runs are far more consistent and reliable (read I can get in more good training flights).

Here is my attempt to go down memory lane. This small 1/2A sized combat ship flew each flight just as good as the next (no wandering needle). All the E-flight were just as good as the best flights I had with the glow powered aircraft of my youth.
http://www.hippocketaeronautics.com/hpa_forum/index.php?topic=17913.0

Today there is no practical reason to use glow*. Nostalgic concern are the only reason I can think to fly glow C/L stunt. I might still try glow in FAI speed and combat but even there….

* Looking at the support equipment needed for glow is a turn off; starter, battery box, glow plug driver, tack, fuel pump. For electric C/L ground supportI use a charger, power supply, and timer programer box. To go from electric R/C to Control  Line all one really needs is the timer.  The only down side to electric is that any time you crash you are putting 2 years of power at risk (assuming you are using a new battery). With glow you are only loosing 5 oz of fuel.

All the best,
Konrad
Logged

Cut it twice and it's still too short!
ghostler
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 196




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2018, 09:53:26 PM »

Konrad, wasn't there someone in the CL cottage community that sold specially timed cylinder/piston sets so the .40 FP could do the 4-2 break?
Logged

George Hostler
Clovis, NM, US
Konrad
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 38
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,163


Measure twice cut once



Ignore
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2018, 10:27:12 PM »

Konrad, wasn't there someone in the CL cottage community that sold specially timed cylinder/piston sets so the .40 FP could do the 4-2 break?
I don't know if anybody bothered with the OS .40FP. But others have done this for some higher valued engines. What I found interesting is that some of the 4.5cc to 5.5cc heli engines made good Cl 4-2-4 break engines. I'm thinking maybe the OS 28 heli and the ST 34 heli.

What we are looking for is a smaller blow down period*. I would cut the inlet ports higher and then sink the cylinder down into the case. Piped timed engines need not apply, I'm thinking Webra 28 and 32's.

This class of engine never was my forte.

*Blow down is half the differents in the cylinder exhaust timing and cylinder inlet timing

All the best,
Konrad
Logged

Cut it twice and it's still too short!
Big G
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 3
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 131



Ignore
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2018, 04:00:08 AM »

When I made a triumphant return (!) to CL about 10 years back, I 'collected' a few OS 40FP's, all used and in variable stages of being worn out. The best had good compression, etc., but had two traits:

1] after wasting a lot of time and effort, I realised that the FP does not lend itself to a 4-2-4- set up. It works better on a 'wet' 2-stroke.

2] the FP likes 25% castor and 10% nitro fuel.

3] it has a very annoying tendency to 'run away' after about half a tank, picking up speed until the model was just about un-stuntable. A lot of time of effort was put into trying to find a cure, including cutting-down the silencer, blanking off an intake port, smaller venturi, etc., etc. None of this really worked.

4] having said all that, I have seen FP's running really well in stunt models, and it seems (but I have absolutely no proof of this, merely my observation) that the very early FP engines were better suited to CL stunt than the later ones.

5] I eventually threw in the towel with FP's and moved to OS 40LA's (this time all new) and found them much more tractable and easier to set than an FP, even though they have somewhat less power. And they also like my 'usual' 20% castor and 5% nitro fuel. The LA25 also works well if you like smaller models.

I now feel that if I could turn back the clock and start it all over again, I'd go electric......

G
Logged
Konrad
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 38
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,163


Measure twice cut once



Ignore
« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2018, 09:25:17 AM »

When I made a triumphant return (!) to CL about 10 years back, I 'collected' a few OS 40FP's, all used and in variable stages of being worn out. The best had good compression, etc., but had two traits:

1] after wasting a lot of time and effort, I realised that the FP does not lend itself to a 4-2-4- set up. It works better on a 'wet' 2-stroke.

2] the FP likes 25% castor and 10% nitro fuel.

3] it has a very annoying tendency to 'run away' after about half a tank, picking up speed until the model was just about un-stuntable. A lot of time of effort was put into trying to find a cure, including cutting-down the silencer, blanking off an intake port, smaller venturi, etc., etc. None of this really worked.

4] having said all that, I have seen FP's running really well in stunt models, and it seems (but I have absolutely no proof of this, merely my observation) that the very early FP engines were better suited to CL stunt than the later ones.

5] I eventually threw in the towel with FP's and moved to OS 40LA's (this time all new) and found them much more tractable and easier to set than an FP, even though they have somewhat less power. And they also like my 'usual' 20% castor and 5% nitro fuel. The LA25 also works well if you like smaller models.

I now feel that if I could turn back the clock and start it all over again, I'd go electric......

G
So true.

But if trying to make a modern schnuerle ported sport R/C engine into a C/L engine of old, you will likely need to change the blow down timing. A "dirty way" to do this is to raise the cylinder. Because of the sine function of the crankshaft raising the cylinder a linear amount will have a greater effect on the cylinder inlet timing than the cylinder exhaust timing. True, both timing will be too high. But it might help with that run away issue.

Please note that due to the materials and procces OS used with their ABN/ABL the P&Ls are not suited for post plating modification of the cylinder ports. If you can strip off the nickel plating and properly reapply a some electroless nickel plating they might be suitable for reworking. 
Logged

Cut it twice and it's still too short!
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!