Bruce Collinson Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Jon, Will Sherwood reminded me that they have lots of replacement engines in stock. I felt it only right to remind him that there weren't any Lasers. Begs the question though, which I did raise a few days back, if a Laser will run on 7.5% oil, what's so different in an OS or Saito? Of course nobody will ecpect you to endorse it, just observations please. BTC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David P Williams Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 I'd be happy to fly the WWXL without a cowl, unless you want to check cooling etc on a cowled engine. I'm glow only at the moment, so if it was the 180 petrol I'd have to run it on Aspen cos of the stink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Wills 2 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Lasermix 05 Pro low oil is on Leeds site at 16.99 a gallon, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted July 7, 2020 Author Share Posted July 7, 2020 Posted by David P Williams on 07/07/2020 13:13:26: I'd be happy to fly the WWXL without a cowl, unless you want to check cooling etc on a cowled engine. I'm glow only at the moment, so if it was the 180 petrol I'd have to run it on Aspen cos of the stink. Cooling is an important factor so we do need to test that. If the engine only works when dangling in the breeze its not much use in a scale model for example. The cowl only needs to be simple. Some balsa sheets formed to make some sort of a cowl, a layer of glass if you want and a bit of paint. Nothing crazy. Bruce, i dont want to get too far down the rabbit hole on this thread but to be honest i think OS would be fine, saito mayb not. OS use a bronze big end bush like we do so would probably be ok. However, their crank material is different, which grade of bronze is it they use....etc. I cant make any promises so wont even try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Collinson Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 K. B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Berry Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Posted by Jon - Laser Engines on 07/07/2020 12:47:42: Chris, i didnt know it was on sale in the shops. Are you sure they didnt ship normal laser 5 as this stuff is only available from MT direct as far as i know. If it is the real stuff (laser 5 diet?) they best not sell it to anyone for other engines as they might die. Robin, the gearbox idea is in the 'thinking out loud stage'. I will worry about the technical aspects later. Martin, one thing at a time! Right now i have 5 engines to develop and test plus a gearbox to investigate. David, WWXL is a good test bed. A 180 petrol would do it as would my 'new' 30cc multi on glow. The petrol would need the least number of mods as the 30cc would need you to make a new cowl. That said, the more cylinders the more fun right? Take your pick Laser 5 diet...i like it Jon. Yep I checked with Leeds and they had 8 available, so I ordered 4. The label just shows 5% and hasn't got any details other than the standard Technics branding. Its a little cheaper as well. Invoice says low oil. MT tell me its been under development/testing for a while and awaits a name. It does clearly state low oil on the website and invoice. Whichever way, it will fly off the shelves....no pun intended...maybe. I have been mixing hi oil with methanol to give a low oil mix for about 3 gallons now and my laser twins and singles have run without any noticeable difference other than cleaner! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted July 7, 2020 Author Share Posted July 7, 2020 I checked with MT and the Laser 5 Pro name is a place holder of sorts, but in truth i kinda like it. If you compare it to a normal bottle of laser 5 is should be quite a pale colour by comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David P Williams Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Posted by Jon - Laser Engines on 07/07/2020 13:37:10: Posted by David P Williams on 07/07/2020 13:13:26: I'd be happy to fly the WWXL without a cowl, unless you want to check cooling etc on a cowled engine. I'm glow only at the moment, so if it was the 180 petrol I'd have to run it on Aspen cos of the stink. Cooling is an important factor so we do need to test that. If the engine only works when dangling in the breeze its not much use in a scale model for example. The cowl only needs to be simple. Some balsa sheets formed to make some sort of a cowl, a layer of glass if you want and a bit of paint. Nothing crazy. OK I'm up for the 30cc multi glow then, much more interesting than the single petrol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted July 8, 2020 Author Share Posted July 8, 2020 Cheers David i will add you to the list Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Davis Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 "Laser 5 Low Oil Mix." A bit predictable perhaps but informative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Flyer Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 Hi Jon . I also have a WWXL spare which could be used as a test bed for almost anything up to 40cc . What is also an ongoing concern is my DB Spitfire which I’m just starting to build. I’m going to put a build log up on it later. Regarding engine choice for it is an open book . The one thing I am keeping is a split wing, and would rather not go into major wing surgery on it in order to fit a low tank for the laser 180 . If you had reduction gear available I might be able to raise the engine a bit as mentioned or possibly use a petrol 180 . One thing I often wonder is why not make the 180 single bigger maybe 240 or 300 single as a petrol. I think there is masses of demand there too, plus it sounds a fairly simple project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted July 8, 2020 Author Share Posted July 8, 2020 The way this has worked out is that i need engines for some of my own models and assumed that as the models i am building are relatively common, others would need them as well. The models in question were a 5th scale 88'' spitfire, 5th scale 89'' mustang, and a DB 80 inch spitfire. The new 200 (30cc) is intended to suit the DB Spit and things like 1/4 tiger moths, Chipmunks, Stampes and so on. It uses the shorter cylinder of the 100 so the tank sits a little higher than it would with a 180 fitted. Its not much, but it all helps. The slightly smaller 25cc version of this engine is well suited to Mick Reeves Spits, galaxy mustangs (if they still exist), 70-75 inch warbirds/tiger moths and so on. The bigger spit and Mustang have 3 options to choose from in the 50-60cc range. More on that as development continues. The idea is that each will fit within the cowl without mutilation. To clarify again, reduction drives are at the brainstorming stage and are not going to be part of the current round of testing. Consider the engines already mentioned as the 2020 test program, reduction drives next year maybe? I have to design it yet and i am more into finishing off these engine designs first. I only asked the question as i wanted to see if there was enough interest to justify looking into them at all. Edited By Jon - Laser Engines on 08/07/2020 09:54:32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 "The new 200 (30cc)" are these multis the narrow angle vee you mentioned a while ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted July 8, 2020 Author Share Posted July 8, 2020 Posted by Nigel R on 08/07/2020 10:22:55: "The new 200 (30cc)" are these multis the narrow angle vee you mentioned a while ago? Cant give too many public details at the moment as there are other things i need to consider and i have been asked by someone outside of Laser to keep certain details quiet for the time being. All will become clear as to why but dont worry, all will be revealed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 I'm not sure that calling the new fuel 'Low Oil' is such a good idea, even if the name matches the description of the product. Psychology might put people off in that 'Low Oil' will be regarded by many as new, risky, regarded as experimental, not what we're used to, an unknown given years of pouring 20% through engines etc etc. A name with a more positive ring should be thought up IMHO - same product but with an upbeat swing! I'll leave that to those with better imaginations. I won't go into detail, but many years ago a company that I worked for as an engineer, greatly improved one of its products by including within the device something that in normal everyday use would be regarded as hazardous. The machines that were improved became known as what I'll now call 'A' type versions and our customers knew that substance 'A' was usually something nasty in normal day to day life if one came into contact with it. Sales fell away and subsequently we were instructed never to refer to substance 'A' again, but to something else that I don't recall now, but was much more neutral and non-threatening. There never was any risk or danger to anyone, of course, substance 'A' could never pose a risk to the user when integrated into the equipment, but merely its name was good enough to cause panic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Engine Doctor Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 How about " Laser Light 5 Fuel" Or "Laser Spec 5 Fuel" I agree with Cuban8 that having Low Oil in the fuels name will frighten off the modelers who dont understand how it works and will give fuel to the castor brigade who will start their "Fire and Brimstone " rhetoric again . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted July 8, 2020 Author Share Posted July 8, 2020 Gents, while i agree with the comments about frightening folk off with a name and appreciate the interest in our new fuel/its marketing materials that is not the focus of this thread. If we could bring it back to testing of the petrol and other new engines that would be great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Welford Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 Jon, as you know I'm a user of your engines so I would be interested in "beta" testing new engines. I have a Toni Clark Sopwith Pup to build so a 60cc multi-cylinder that is capable of swinging a large diameter prop would be of interest. Shorter term I have a airframes that could be used for testing new design engines. Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted July 8, 2020 Author Share Posted July 8, 2020 Thanks Robert None of the engines in this round will suit a pup as they are all aimed at aircraft powered by inline engines and are the wrong shape. Again as i mentioned before, these are prototypes so dont put them in anything you are not prepared to loose in a dead stick should one happen. If you have something you dont mind hacking about to suit just so they fly that would be ace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Findlay Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 Jon, How about an in-line twin for a start but offset the cylinders for cooling purposes and the noise from the off firing cylinders should be great?.. I’ve realised... As a machinist this completely would change the current use of valve gear for both singles and twins. How about putting the a substantial Cam on the side of the engine and using that to drive the propeller..Also giving you 2 to 1 reduction?.. I’m sure you could easily make it a triple set up? Using your 80 bore and stroke? But using your 120–180 size fins in that set up would be Awesome! As a machinist I know it’s very important to keep the parts count down for profitability....And reliability... Just my few penny’s worth.... Getting back to reduction drive, Would it require the same hand props? If geared, Would we have lubricate the gears with grease now and again? (For most model flying I know a coating of Molikote Would be more than enough) Ath Vince Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Richardson Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 Jon as I have previously stated I would be more than willing to test a gas /petrol engine in the 30cc range, I know it may be an issue me being on the west coast of Canada but that is for you to decide. I have an 80" span Citabria Pro bumbling around on an 18x10 prop driven by a Super Tigre 3000 it is not by any means new and would take very little time to convert to gas, the decision is entirely yours of course but i"m willing and able Tony>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted July 9, 2020 Author Share Posted July 9, 2020 Vince, thanks for the input but the overall configuration of the engines has already been set. I just have to build it. Tony, im sure i can get a 180 petrol over to you with the next batch. Not used an 18x10 on it before but i would expect high 6 to low 7000's? something like that. That said on a citabria i would use probably an 18x8, 19x6? perhaps 19x8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manish Chandrayan Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 Jon, I would suggest prioritize the 180 petrol development over others. The market has been waiting for a petrol product from the Laser stable. That inline, the one that you mentioned in earlier posts should be interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manish Chandrayan Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 Jon, I would suggest prioritize the 180 petrol development over others. The market has been waiting for a petrol product from the Laser stable. That inline, the one that you mentioned in earlier posts should be interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul d Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 Just my thoughts but if your going down the route of adding a reduction gearbox then why not go the whole way and develop a engine that's "A true 4 stroke" with in sump lubrication? if nothing else it'll put a end to the how much oil is to much debate. The gearbox idea is a great one btw, surprised it's not a common feature on larger engines ( of any brand). Edited By paul d on 09/07/2020 09:36:41 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.