flash over

What's the smallest radial engine you have seen.I want to build a bipe with a true radial engine,unfortunately the smallest I've seen is OS 170 which is only a 3 cylinder I would like to see a small five cylinder in the 1.20 or smaller range.

tango28charlie

Saito FA90R3D 3 cylinder 0.9cid is the smallest radial. It's only a 3 cylinder but I don't know of any 5 cylinder engines smaller than 3 ci.
Charlie

NeoGenesis

My Feedback: (27)

I have not seen a smaller 5 cyl....most likely because the power to weight ratio is lost.....but Satio does produce a .90 3 cyl. I owned one briefly and man did it run nice........but it sounded even better.




Neo

flash over

Thanks guys I'll lookup that .90 saito.

Neogenesis:Why "only briefly"?

fiery

My Feedback: (2)

OK guys .. you want small?

My G-Mark .30 (that's 5cc) 5 cylinder radial is the business. Pulls a 9x6 prop and likes 15% nitro.

Hardly for giant scale though![&o]

fiery

NeoGenesis

My Feedback: (27)

I bench ran it....started calculating some numbers.......and then found that it was too much weight to put into my GeeBee. The wingloading would have been too high. That's the only reason I sold it. I love it otherwise....ran and idled great. And that sound.....gotta love the sound. I will own another on some day.




Neo

Edwin

My Feedback: (2)

Saw a 5 cylinder advertised just a week or so ago. Had Cox .049 jugs. Thats the smallest I've seen.
Edwin

Meesh

My Feedback: (135)

Edwin,

That 5- cylinder with the Cox jugs only has one real cylinder. The rest are dummies.

It looks pretty neat though.

Edwin

My Feedback: (2)

Guess I shoulda read the ad. Just a passing interest.
Edwin

Meesh

My Feedback: (135)

That's OK! It had me going too! Sometimes we read what we "want" to see. I recently purchased a toy on *bay for my granddaughter. I was excited when I found it because I had been looking for a while. I used "Buy it now" and purchased it immediately. After I calmed down a little I went back and re-read the ad. That's when I realized it was not new. It was supposed to be a Christmas present for her. Oh well! I guess I'll keep looking.

flash over

Fiery:
Thats what I'm looking for.I want a small radial for an appropriate .40 to .60 size plane if possible I'll go bigger if I have to.I just don't want to build a quarterscale due to high cost of engine, plane and radio equipment.I've seen some for a 1.20 to 1.50 planes But as I said I'd like to be smaller than that.

Meesh

My Feedback: (135)

I think this is what you NEED!

[link=http://www.minimodelengines.com/Feature5R.htm]Mini Radial Link[/link]

This is incredible!

flash over

OK meesh, that might be too small,besides he isn't selling them yet.But I have to admit very cool though.
The g-mark engine looks cool toobut its apparently out of production and alittle too smallit supposedly has the power of a single cyl. .20.

Hey meesh did you notice you logged answers on both forumns.Thats a first for me.

Meesh

My Feedback: (135)

Flash over. I did notice that you had the same post on the "other" site. That's strage because I hardly EVER go there. If you'll notice, that was my first post.

The link was meant for your enjoyment. That things is a museum piece if I ever saw one!

800 hours to design and make it. Wow! What a craftsman!

wayneparrish

My Feedback: (16)

Have you checked on the Technopower Radials ? That would be the logical choice to start as they have many variations ! Wayne

jeffEE

My Feedback: (5)

I own a Twin Cyl. that has 2 .049's. It no longer runs, but I will tear it down one of these days and find out why. It was built in the early 60's I think.

CGAV8R

My Feedback: (2)

The Wankel isn't a true radial, but it kind of looks like one.

flash over

The wankel looks possible to me what I haven't been able to figure out is,is it a 2 or 4 stroke.If it's a 2 stroke it could be a good fit for a 40 size plane,if a 4 stroke it would be too small.By the way I'm referring to the os wankel as thats the only one I've seen.

Meesh

My Feedback: (135)

It's a 2-stroke.

angry elvis

would the .90 saito 3 cyl power a .60 size ww2 bird?

DKjens

My Feedback: (50)

Actually, a Wankel engine is neither a 2- or a 4- stroke engine, just like a turbine engine isn't. A Wankel is just that, a Wankel engine, with its own intake, combustion, burn, exhaust principle. If OS labels it as a 2-stroke it just means they are as confused about it as many other people are.

The Raven

A wankel rotary IS OFFICIALLY a four stroke despite what some will argue. Believe me, I've owned many and done over 2 decades of research on this.

However, it does have a lot of similarity in operation to a 2 stroke. To be honest, it's a bit of both but has more in common with four stroke operation (no transferring from the crank area).

stevesak

My Feedback: (27)

To be specific, a Wankel is not a true radial. It is called a Rotary (Often confused with Radial) because of the triangular rotor that is the engine's "piston".

The coincidence is that the WW1 round engines where the crankshaft was fixed and the entire case & pistons rotated with the propellors are also called Rotaries....

The round engines of WWII where the engine case was fixed to the aircraft and only the crankshaft turned with the prop was called a Radial.

The WWI engine is the true "rotary" engine. The new engines with the Felix Wankel design are the "New Rotaries"

But I digress... The real reason that I'm adding my two cents is because the discussion talked of whether the OS Wankel was a two stroke or four stroke because there was a stated concern about power.

The important answer here is tha the Wankel cranks at incredible RPMs and is generally more powerful than almost all TWO STROKE engines of a similar size (.30). This makes it much more powerful than the average four stroke engine in the .30 category.

I know that there might be some specific examples that might prove me wrong, but I'm speaking in generalities here to let you know that the Wankel is small, kind of has a "radial-like" appearance because of the way that it is designed with the radiating cooling fins, and it is superbly powerful for it's displacement.

Just pay close attention to your weight requirements because it is generally heavier than its "Pistoned" counterparts of equal displacement.