Mick Reeves Gangster 63 Lite

[Jimbo565]

Jonathan

The cowl is built up using the Peter Miller method,bolt the engine in place,fit spinner with 2mm spacer behind it,then the nose ring and then build up the cowl with balsa block and sand to shape.

Plenty of pics in the peter miller build blogs. Check out Peter Millers BALLERINA  blog,Its all there.

Edited By Jim Carss on 02/05/2017 16:58:49

Edited By Jim Carss on 02/05/2017 17:04:48

[Braddock, VC]

I think one thing that you'll find with a 35 AX is that you will need the throttle open a lot more than with a larger engine.

I converted a kit built wot4 from an irvine 72Q to an irvine 36; I got the weight down to less that 4 pounds with no fuel and whilst it was good to fly there were times when I would have preferred a little more prop, landings were relatively fast, not much different to when the 72Q was installed, down lines from loops etc were quicker, I was turning a 10" prop on the 36 and a 14" one on the 72Q. The tank was changed to a 6 ounce one from a 14 ounce one and the 36 was good for 10 mins max whereas the 72 was good for 15 minutes or more.

Airspeed etc in low wind conditions equalled a club mate's OS 46AX powered wot 4, but in any sort of blow it lost out significantly. Apart from vintage models, I can't remember landing a plane in a blow with half throttle. TBH I haven't changed back as it is nicer to fly than it was with a big engine in and I think, if I were in your shoes with the cost of the engines so similar, I'd be inclined to go for the 46 or 55, just my 2p.

Incidentally, if you are set on a smaller engine, the irvine 39 is a cracking motor, I think every bit the equal of the OS.

[Jonathan M]

Posted by Braddock, VC on 02/05/2017 17:20:37:

I think one thing that you'll find with a 35 AX is that you will need the throttle open a lot more than with a larger engine.

I imagined that would be the case. The question is whether full throttle open for longer is better or worse for an engine (smaller) in the longer term than spending most of the time only in the first 2/3rds of the range (larger)?

The other thing about flying in higher wind speeds is that our patch tends to get very turbulent in any kind of a blow, +/- gusts, so I'm likely to be restricted to up to 10-15mph max rather than much higher than this.

[TIM Shaw]

The OS 35 AX is a super little engine - I have one in a Kik Fli 4 / 40, built - loosely- to Martin Kinders drawings.

This is around 53" span and just under 4lbs, and it flies very nicely.

But I consider it is at the lower end of the power requirement for this model, I can fly patterns with it, but Ii do not have unlimited vertical, for example, and while it will probably fly the Gangster 63 lite alright I seriously doubt you will get Pattern style performance from it.

Just to expand on that, in conjunction with the question you ask about throttle.

It is an unfortunate fact that most R/C pilots do not use their throttles as a fully proportional channel, which, of course, it is.

To fly really nice figures you need to be modulating the throttle all the time, and only use full throttle really for take-off and vertical climbs, and getting out of trouble.

If you limit yourself to having to fly with the throttle wide open all the time you will lose out on the flexibility a more appropriately sized engine would give you.

I am sure - provided the carb is properly set up, engines are best run at less than flat out for most of the time. sadly though, many people seem to be happy with max revs all flight.

JMTC

TIM

[David Davis]

I agree entirely. Years ago we had a young man called O'Neil in our club. He used to fly pattern ships powered by Saitos. It was a delight to watch him fly as he used the throttle constantly resulting in perfectly round loops etc. He finished fourth in the Nats with one of his models. I believe he got an RAF scholarship to Cambridge and moved away. Leastways, I haven't seen him for years.

[TIM Shaw]

Thanks for that David!

I do entirely agree about side winder engine mounting though, better for goo avoidance, better for aligning fuel tank and carb center lines, and (almost) impossible to hydraulic lock even with the brutal use of electric starters.

Upright would be a poor second choice, and I hate inverted engines with a passion - bit of a shame really, with a pair of Hanno Specials looking for homes and a Challenger and Touche in the build queue.....

Come to think of it, that might be why they're still in the queue.

[Jonathan M]

Thank you TIM for that really informative view, and your advice also on doing a side-winder mount.

I'm realising now that the opinions in favour of a bigger engine aren't just about easy power, and I should have probably waited a bit longer before purchasing the 35. However I still have the option - which I'm strongly inclined to take - of buying a slightly bigger engine for the Gangster build: the 46AX, or for less money an equivalent SC or the Irvine (which doesn't however seem available anywhere, yet).

I can either sell the 35AX totally mint (any takers?), or perhaps keep it for a slightly smaller sports-aerobatic better suited to its weight and power... possibly of my own design!

That would be fun to do: a RC enthusiast's progression from a foam Riot trainer on to an ARTF Acrowot, then through a Gangster kit onto a first scratch design?  (Another thread perhaps for another time.)

Jon

 

Edited By Jonathan M on 04/05/2017 12:11:10

[gangster]

Try the 35 first. It's a fine powerful motor. The MR website suggests that the prototype flew on a standard is 40. I am willing to bet that the 35 you have got has as much if not more chuff. The old 63 flew well on a cooking 61 and the lite is way lighter. Mine flys great on 650watt electric and most of the time on half throttle. Flying electric is a good way to learn that the throttle is actually a proportional control.Else the flights get too short I never realised that until I had been flying for about 30 years!

[David Davis]

Irvines haven't been made for several years. They come up on eBay fairly often. I own five of them all bought on eBay and ranging in size from a 36 to a 72. With one exception these are all the later red engines but I've owned earlier Irvine engines and they ran well too. The silencers were not very effective mind. The Irvine 39 and 53 are particularly well sought-after.

[Stuart Z]

Jon

Hopefully the 35 will do the trick and you'll have a gentle low winger that will teach you a lot. My old Gangster, long deceased for reasons I'll come to, was a great plane for aerobatic learning but mine was early in my modelling career and the engine was an Irvine 61' which Irvine changed from ringed to ABC for me, but at the end of the day it was a very heavy engine and had a high approach speed as a result and one day the resident gorse bush stepped out in front of it and the engine ploughed it's way through the bush but unfortunately the Gangster didn't fair so well.

Let us know how you get on with the new style Gangster with the 35 and if it doesn't live up to expectations, that's the time to upgrade. As said above, Mick Reeves advertise it for 30-40 size engines and the OS is usually considered amongst the best in all sizes.

Best wishes

S

[TIM Shaw]

All good advice here, I'm sure the 35 would give you a gentle flying Gangster - but I'm not sure that's really what you're after.

And its much more of a pain to fit a bigger mount later, particularly with a built up cowl

So my advice would be go for a 46 or 55 for this plane, OS if you can run to it, but don't rule out a modern SC or ASP either.

Then take a look at Martin Kinders KwickFly 40 drawings, and build either the Mk3 or Mk4 for your 35, changing it a bit if you want, been meaning to do a sort of retrospective build log on my Mk4 because, as a tight wad Yorkshire heretic I've taken a few liberties along the way and still ended up with a sweet flying plane.

I actually have 2 of the 35s, looking at an old USA design called Excalibur 2, and the Prettner Mystic drawings, to find a home for the other.....

If the debate has got you into scratch building and even designing your own, so much the better!

[Jonathan M]

I love this forum! Decades of experience distilled into cogent advice and persuasion... on both sides of the debate!

It IS a tricky one this G63 Lite. I'm not after a complete vandal of a plane, but I'd be annoyed if I found it under-powered for my core intention - which is becoming competent enough at pattern flying to eventually go for my 'B'.

To distract myself from the engine problem, I found myself thinking about a colour scheme whilst walking the dog after work. By the time I got back and into the local, and with a pint of real ale sinking down, I had enough of a basic idea to sketch out a scheme.

I'll post a picture of a proper colour sketch once I've gotten round to it, but it'll involve Profilm chrome black and chrome golden yellow (why do I fancy the most expensive colours?!) with a sort-of Gangsta graffiti graphic.

Jon

PS Had a gander on Outerzone.... Corr! I really like the look of the Mystic 30... ideal for the 35AX then!

[Nigel R]

A Chilli Breeze would also make a good first plan build for that 35AX, especially with a foam wing.

 

Tim, have you spotted the Ursa Major 25 yet (definitely in my bucket list, maybe in a 60 size):

http://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=7489

Edited By Nigel R on 05/05/2017 08:30:41

[gangster]

Just a couple of thoughts here. Why not ring the manufacturers. You are fortunate that you will get the answer straight from the horses mouth from one of the most experienced modellers in the country not some suited salesman in a distributors office.

Second thought why not drill the bulkhead for both sizes of mount. Easier than drilling later especially if you are going for a fixed balsa cowl. Maybe even space the 35 mount a bit off the bulkhead

I am not convinced that the 35 will not fit the bill and give all the vertical you need. Having said that I have never really understood how an electric compares to a glow in terms of comparison of performance. In my opinion the G63 is not a fast or hooligans model, never was the 63 was the graceful stable girl and if you wanted to tear up the sky you had a 52. I had a few 52 in my time and really did not give the throttle servo too much work. I have also had and loved a couple of the old 63s and now love the lite

[Stuart Z]

Gangster

Seems like a simple solution without committing to buying a 2nd engine at this stage. It will then depend on what experiences Jon has with the 35 before deciding what to do.

S

[Jonathan M]

Yes, that's a very good idea, especially as I've now got both mount sizes.

For this reason it also seems sensible to use a removable screwed-on cowl. The supplied thing is very flimsy, but I can use its shape to make a male mould, over which I can lay up a beefier fibreglass version - more hobby fun then! I've decided on doing a sidewinder, and if I retrofit a bigger engine then it'll be quick work to enlarge the cutout using the Dremel's grinding cone.

What about side-thrust? There's no mention of this in MR's instructions.

Which reminds me: I did try to ask Mick the question about engine sizes when I called to order the kit. He seemed very vague, said anything would be fine, so not much help really. Obviously the lower end of the range of 0.20 quoted on his website is a mistake, but he didn't seem interested in continuing the conversation and blamed 'computers'.

[gangster]

I totally trashed my cowl due to the electric mount falling apart. Having taped it together a few layer of glassing cloth. The thin stuff we use for covering turned it into a fine glass cowl. If I built another o would certainly glass the cowl. I do like a removable cowl these days and another option would be a removable balsa one. A la hanger monkey

[TIM Shaw]

Ursa Major is very nice Nigel - not unlike the Aurora 45S I have on the board at the moment, but that looks like a much more complete plan.

Gangster - certainly if Jon is willing to go down the transplant route it would make perfect sense to drill for both mounts now, and probably stand off the 35 from the firewall a little so the spinner backplate on both engines ends up in the same place, and the lighter, 35 will be mounted slightly more forward.

Bit of thought on the throttle linkage to make that adequately adjustable would be a good idea too.

I like to think I do understand 2 stroke engines, never got on with 4 strokes, and all I know about elektrikery is that all things electric work on trapped magic smoke, and if you let it escape, they don't work anymore.....

A member of our club flies the 63 lite on electric very nicely, but I couldn't even begin to equate the power of his set up to an IC one.

Wish this wind would drop a bit - really want to nip up to the field and set up the un-run engine in my new Aerostar 69.....

[David Davis]

Aerostar 69! Ubercool!

[Nigel R]

"Ursa Major is very nice Nigel - not unlike the Aurora 45S"

There's a "family resemblance" for sure - If I have it right, the Ursa Major is a smaller version of Cosmos, which was the immediate predecessor to Aurora.

[Jonathan M]

Firstly an apology to all those eager to see building progress: work and family stuff, an existing FF project which I'm determined to complete first - and now an enduring bout of something groggy - have all delayed my start on the Gangster! Grrr.

Secondly...

I keep seeing the new Irvine 39 being advertised: bundled with the Wot 4 Pro in ads, and also available 'for pre-order' on its own on some sites. Its not expensive and will fit the same mount as the 35AX if I choose to step up. Its not the old red one, so what's the story?

Also, the Gangster instructions suggest CA can be used for the majority of the build. This would be quick, but would it be as strong as say Aliphatic which I'd normally prefer? Does anyone use a fast CA to first fix assembled joints, then a slower glue around it for extra strength?

Cheers

Jon

[Stuart Z]

Hi

I heard that the 39's were obsolete and the last batch were "used up" in the Wot 4 Pro. Would be worth asking anyone advertising them if they have any, but my recollection of my 61 was that it was heavy compared to other makes and my Irvine 40 is a weighty chunk. Having said that they are good engines!

Thoughts on CA v Aliphatic? I prefer the Aliphatic in the warmer weather as I think the joint is strong and relatively quick drying. It also comes off your fingers a lot easier than "stray" CA. Having said that I completed a Flair Hooligan using CA starting in the shop buying the kit on Saturday morning and being ready to fly by Sunday night. So CA definitely has a place and I still use both preferring the Aliphatic for structural joints (alongside epoxy for bulkheads and the like) and the CA for speed where needed. I suspect the Aliphatic will give strength on less than perfectly cut joints. Not going to be an issue with your Gangster, methinks.

S

[John Emms 1]

There is clearly a lot of power system knowledge in this thread, and may I add to that:

My original Gangster 63 was doped tissue with enamel paint finished (common at the time), and had adequate power with a Merco 61 for the aerobatics I wanted to do, and had enough power for the B. That Gangster was 6 1/2lb. Consider the old Merco 61 to be equivalent in power to a current 40. I remember the Merco 61 being roughly equivalent in size, weight, and power, to the Irvine 40 Mk2 (I owned and used them both).

In electric terms, I consider typical 4S LiPo power systems to be 40 equivalent, and 5S power systems to be equivalent to 46. Electric tends to gain from the efficiency of larger propellers, but unless a new undercarriage is made for the Gangster 63 Light, the limit is 12" props, which for me, limits the electric power systems it is possible to use.

I only use Aliphatic, contact adhesive, and epoxy on wood...

[Nigel R]

Jonathan

"Its not the old red one"

Before OS bought Irvine, they were all bare aluminium. If you are looking at

https://www.sussex-model-centre.co.uk/irvine-39-abc-r-c-engines-supplied-new-but-unboxed

then that looks exactly the mid 90's engine, perhaps a box of new old stock has been unearthed? I thought Irvine were long since extinct in the wild, and that OS had killed off the brand. The 36 or 39 engines were the badgers tadger back in the 90s, they were the first "nearly 40 in a 25 size case" engine, when most other manufacturers had taken the 20 case to 25 or 28. I had the 36 (essentially the same engine) and used it for hours and hours and hours. Lovely motors as 2 strokes go. Light, powerful, top quality carb. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if I was looking for a motor this size.

In fact I'm tempted to buy one even though I'm not looking for a motor that size!

[Jonathan M]

Thanks for the feedback on the Irvine 39 - and to John for his experience of a 6 1/2lb model having enough power for a B with the equivalent of a modern 40 sized engine!

Just called SMC who told me that, according to Ripmax, they are newly-turned engines. They were supposed to be in by the end of April, now it might be the end of May?

I can't second-guess why they've been revived, except that its interesting that Ripmax have, in the form of the new Wot4 Pro, brought out the first IC-bundled ARTF with this engine, so maybe its a low-cost way of beefing up their market share?

Re adhesives, I wasn't impressed - when recently repairing my ARTF Acrowot's pancaked wing section - with the manufactured glue-joints. I'm not in any great rush, so will avoid permanently plasticised fingers and use Aliphatic for all the main balsa joints.