Jump to content

Laser Engines development.


Jon H

Recommended Posts

Its chicken and egg for me, but made easier now I have a better venue to fly at so I'll consider engines larger than 200 looking forward. Still surprised about the FT needle comments and based on my poor knowledge of what's available I would vote for the inline in the larger capacity. The logic is it will fit a larger range of available models and hence you should be able to sell more.

 

IMHO as for petrol, its of no interest to me as the complexity/reduced reliability (due to the number of components involved) does not outweigh simplicity/reliability of glow 

 

PS I probably consumed more fuel at OW than all of my models being flown over the three days from a cost perspective (nice cakes!)

 

PPS Please absolutely no more talk about a Laser radial.....It was bad enough seeing a V4 on Jon's test stand...?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the people that I know that use Petrol is for the increased reliability over glow however that does comes at a cost if you use certain brands then yes the reliability goes down but no different to using cheap nasty glow engines, In 15 years I have never had a malfunction with DA or GP engines and use reliable components such as Power box etc and thus the reliability goes up Certainly no evidence to see they are less reliable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont want to get too far off course but the reliability angle of petrol is overstated. 

 

Petrol engines are, from a statistical point of view, inherently less reliable than a glow engine. The simple reason is that that there are more points of failure within the system due to the increased amount of gear needed to get the thing to work with sensor pickup, cdi unit, cdi power supply and switch, spark plug connection, fuel pump etc all being additional points of failure over a glow engine. They are also more sensitive to poor cooling and there are a number of other concerns that add levels of complexity not seen in an equivalent glow. Also I cannot recall an unexplained dead stick on any of my glow engines in at least the same 15 years Jason mentions and yet i can think of plenty of people who have suffered dead sticks on petrol engines almost every week. 

 

Ultimately, the reliability of either engine comes down to the person operating it. If they install it well, tune it up nicely, filter their fuel, use good quality accessories, care for it and do the required inspections and maintenance etc either power plant will offer a very high level of reliability. If on the other hand they just chuck it in a model with barely a 2nd thought it is likely it will be unreliable due to this lack of care. 

 

But, to get back on track and clarify my earlier comments all developments at the moment are going to be low oil glow. I was just pointing out that petrol versions are being considered so that a total redesign is not needed should the time come. 

 

Hope that clears that up

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the in-line has no competitor in the market it means one of three things:

1) There is no market and nobody wants one.

2) There is a market but it's too small to warrant the expense of development/production/marketing.

3) There is a market and nobody has spotted it or they have spotted it and decided not to fill it (but not for reason 2 above).

 

So if there is a genuine market and it's big enough to warrant the production costs I would say it's a better bet than being a second or third player in the flat twin arena, unless you can offer something that the competitors can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:

Quick update and a show of hands needed. 

 

The 300 flat twin has been abandoned in favour of a 310 as we are near the end of our NOS 150 liners and there is no point making more so we might as well go for gold and make it an FT-310 from the get go. The 300v will then run out the last of the liners we have and then it too will be killed off and turned into a 310v. 

 

The next thing i need is a show of hands. Do i continue with the flats and make a 360 size, or should i focus on a 360 inline instead? Personally i would like to do both (and my 3 radials), but i am told that rapid firing so many new products out at once is bad due to the time involved meaning we wont be able to do anything else. I am sure i mentioned that at some point. its almost like we need separate production and R&D staff and not just one bloke doing everything...who knew? ?

 

Let me know your thoughts but please only vote if its an engine size/type you are actually in the market for in the foreseeable future. If the answer is both, say both and i will see what i can do to drive things forward. 

I am going to be building a Dave Platt FW-190A in the near future.  The plans call for a Super Tigre ST2500. 

 

Talking with Jon the FT310 would be a good engine for that plane.  But if an inline 310 would fit I would be interested in that.   The plans show from the engine mounting beam to the top of the cowl is 4.71 inches / 119.63mm.  The cowl is split with the top half being fiberglass and bottom half is built up.  But I do have a Don Lein/Bob Holman full cowl that will fit it.  The total height of the cowl is 10.44 inches / 265.18mm.  The firewall to the front of the cowl is 9.48 inches / 240.79mm. 

 

If the inline 310 would fit, I would be interested in that, otherwise it is the FT310.  So, both would be my vote.  Inch measurement in attached image are in blue.  MM numbers in my post are calculator conversion estimated.     

Platt FW-190 front end.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaun - I think there is a market for an engine suited to 5th scale/50/60cc class (80-90 inch span 20-25lbs) WWII fighters. This size of WWII fighter is about the maximum you would consider at club level and is a size most people can mange in a focus or golf size car so transport is ok. Above this size they become 'giant' scale and you start needing a van or similar to transport them and it becomes a completely different animal. I think this 5th scale Spitfire/Mustang size is something many modellers can aspire to and there are a large number of models that would be suited. even artf models like TopRc and CY model could be modified to suit this engine. Add to that ziroli, bates, fokkerc, topflite etc plans/kits and there are a fair few options for an engine of this type. Yes its more complicated and expensive than a dle 50 or similar, but do you want your Spitfire to sound like a dle50? If not, the only 4 stroke options are our V twins, which poke out of the cowl, or valach/kolm single cylinder 4 stroke engines which sit around the same sort of price but have their own issues to deal with with so i think there is a gap we can fit into. 

 

The only 60cc inline twin currently available is the NGH petrol and its performance figures are about 1000rpm down on what i would hope for from my example should i get it built. Being an NGH its long term durability is a little unknown and i have had customers tell me its £1200 asking price is too much for a chinese engine, especially if they have seen or have had issues with NGH in the past. 

 

Certainly i would expect the 360 version to be easier to sell than the 160 and 200 versions as using a £650 160 inline to power a £400 airframe (assuming a YT P51 was still available) is a harder sell than using an £850 engine to power a £1000 toprc or £800 cy P51 airframe. Especially when the YT P51 can be powered by any number of other cheap options. At the larger scale, the cost factor becomes less and less important as you are into a big expensive (maybe £2500-3000 all up?) model anyway and choosing an £850 engine over a £600 engine will not change the picture

 

 

TBM - I would go for either a flat or a V in the 190 as the full size had a short radial engine so the nose is very short. An upright v would work (see Nick Somerville's Sea Fury thread for a similar setup) or you could use a flat. The platt 190 can build as light as 16lbs in which case a 200 would work, but realistically i would aim for 18-20lbs and use a 300 size. All of my 80 inch WWII fighters are 20-23lbs and fly just fine using 300-360 powerplants. A 310 flat would be about 206mm wide if my memory is right and would easily turn 20x8, 20x10, 21x8. I was testing a 310v earlier on a 21x10 prop and it did ok at 6500rpm. Dont all get excited about the 310v yet though, i built this prototype back in 2012 or whenever it was the 155 came out. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

For me it has to be the 360 in-line for a larger WWII warbird and ultimately a radial. 

Why put an inline in a radial cowl? Surely a flat or v twin is easier to manage cooling and engine installation without bug modifications to the original design. Now if it’s a pointy nosed warbird then inline is a natural choice.

 

Now as for a radial 90cc Laser, I have already mentioned to Jon that I would consider one for my Fw190 even though I have a very nice looking Valach Petrol twin 85cc engine sitting under the bench for it.

 

looking further ahead I still have my BT Corsair plan pack for which with Jon’s current offerings I would choose the flat 310 twin. But if Laser radials emerge than absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would the radial have a single carb, like the saitos etc or individual carbs, I would think individual carbs would make installing the fuel tanks a nightmare compared to Inline, V and flat twins. The low oil glow versions make a lot of sense and ease of silencing the Laser 4 strokes makes them much more acceptable than the noisy unpleasant 2 strokes.

Edited by Frank Skilbeck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, robert chamberlain said:

Hello, I am confused as to what the numbers describing the various engine sizes mean. Are the model numbers ? Also , are they all four stroke?  Thanks for clearing this up for me. ------------------Robert

Robert, Lasers are all 4 strokes, the number refers to the engine size in cubic inches (blame the Americans for inventing glow engines ? ), so a 160 is 1.60 cubic inches, which is around 26cc, note Laser show the engine capacity in both cu in and cc in the specifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nick Somerville said:

Why put an inline in a radial cowl? Surely a flat or v twin is easier to manage cooling and engine installation without bug modifications to the original design. Now if it’s a pointy nosed warbird then inline is a natural choice.

I presume this wasn’t aimed at me Nick? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

I presume this wasn’t aimed at me Nick? ?

I don't think so. Most likely at me and my post above. 

 

I was thinking an inline would be easier to mount in the FW-190 since it has hard rails for the engine mount.  That way I would not have to do any firewall or fuel tank modifications.  I have a Saito 170R3 radial but it isn't enough to power for the Platt FW-190.  I will check Nick's thread out on the Seafury as it maybe something I can do with not a lot of work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

crikey...

 

TBM, yep you could make the model as a D9 version and use an inline but no matter what you do the hardwood mounting rails need to go. Composite mounts are far superior to beech or maple and any model calling for hardwood mounts needs a redesign to get shot of them when using a single cylinder engine. If you used our flat or v they are radially mounted and so the hardwood rails would need to go anyway, and the inline has its own mount as well. In the specific case of your 190 i would chop off everything ahead of the former F4, double thickness the firewall (3/8 thickness is good) at that point and work from there. If the engine is short, and i think it would be, you can laminate up ply disks to edge the engine forward for the perfect spinner gap. Once its all sorted glue the disks together/to the firewall and run long bolts through the engine mount, disks and firewall into captive nuts to pull the whole lot together. I am also not a fan of having a battery in the cowling. I know it gets the weight forward but having a mission critical power supply nestled next to a hot vibrating lump of metal seems like a bad idea to me. 

 

Radials. 

 

Yes, i would like to offer them in 50, 75 and 90cc sizes (300, 450 and 540cui if i remember rightly). The 90cc design is ready for production and has been for 8 or 9 years but there is no interest for some reason. Part of the hold up i think is due to a 90cc radial 'needing' to be petrol to achieve wide adoption and we arent really finished with that development yet. But i would like to build some as glow's and see how they sell and how the fuel consumption is on the LOG fuel. Certainly the 300 size is unlikely to present any problems in that regard. They would have to be single carb and testing would be needed to see if i needed to ensure even fuel charge distribution. I have some ideas, but need to test a plain version first so see if the added complexity is justified. 

 

As much as i appreciate the enthusiasm, they are sadly a pipe dream at the moment although i keep pestering. 

 

This does bring us to another point of conversation... 

 

I can easily get clearance for all of these new engines. Radials, inlines of various sizes, flats, and even perhaps the v4. There is a price though and that would be dropping the entire single cylinder range. Laser would then become like valach and kolm and would only serve the high end market with all the coolest toys. SImply put, its the only way to gain sufficient resource and time. 

 

I suspect this would not go down well but it is something that has already been discussed as rising material costs mean the smaller engines in the range might not have much of a future anyway unless we raise prices. As i have mentioned before i doubt anyone would pay 300 quid for a 70, so there might be some hard choices coming in the future. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I drop Just Engines £365 for an OS 72, expensive on fuel, and bit fragile. Nice engine.

Or pay £300 for a Laser 70, £325 for an 80 if a bit more grunt needed. Cheaper on fuel, robust. Nice engines. 
And a can’t see any “cheap” Chinese competition advertised. So I’df you want an engine, that’s the price, and it’s still a small extra in the overall cost of this hobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...