Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

I've had several recent changes to my engine data through buying and running other motors, so the data is more complete now. Please note the addition of the Brillelli 46 (a SWEET engine) and the RCIGN-modified Zenoah G-62, which I am including because it is definitely IN THE 50cc CLASS, WEIGHT-wise.

If you all would like this posted someplace as a reference other than on my website (link in signature), let the RCU Admin/moderators know. When I first did this in February, they couldn't figure out where to put it.

FWIW - this is the REAL data, no fudging, all weights are from two digital, calibrated scales except for the DA 50 and ZDZ 50NG, but those numbers were provided by reliable persons.

[link=http://www.rcaerobats.net/GAS_ENGINE_WTS.htm]GAS ENGINE WEIGHTS[/link]

jstanton

My Feedback: (14)

This is fantastic information for those of use who are very interested in gas engines of thos size. It looks like Brillelli Models Engines is on the right track. I have order one of thier new 54cc engines they are anout to release and have a new 40GT coming.

Antique

My Feedback: (4)

Great chart..
If you get a NIB G62 from atimatik for $265 on Ebay the total cost comes to $440

Tor

Interestingly, the MVVS/Evolution 45 is the only one sporting a can as chosen exhaust.

Hence it will likely be the one with the best power to weight ratio of the bunch, while still even being one of the lightest.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Thanks, Jim.... of particular interest to me, though is what is happening with SIXTY cc motors. Courtesy of Brillelli and RCIGN, we have TWO really good, and lighter, 60cc motors. I figure those will make these somewhat -slug-ish-87" + arfs "more better".... ain't nothin' like cubes, and my issue (as many others) has been these "30%" ARFS are usually SLUGS weight-wise, and the 50's "work", but they don't really give you "heads up" performance.

Strap a sixty on the front that weighs only a bit more than the 50.... well.... they will be different animals.... and I'm HAPPY to see the available motor pool "grow"....

xtdsm

Thanks for the effort bro, now that's just awesome.

bluemagic98

I dropped my Evoluton 58 on the scale at UPS with ign 4.24lbs not the lightest engine but sure had plenty of power

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

That was without muffler, true?
And without battery/switch?

bluemagic98

corect

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

I have revised my weight sheet based on some new motors I've acquired, and thought folks might like to evaluate the data....
http://www.rcaerobats.net/GAS_ENGINE_WTS.htm

Enjoy!

Comments welcomed.

tkg

My Feedback: (1)

OK, so why does the last G62 have a battery, ain't it a magneto engine???

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Pretty fun looking at the weight comps between DA, Brison, and Taurus. Only about an ounce difference between the DA and Taurus, with the Brison actually lighter than either. Just too funny[sm=shades_smile.gif]

Thanks for the update.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

tkg - thanks for catching that... overly zealous in making sure they all had the same battery weight
Fixed now, and reformatted to fit easier on most monitors.

Silver - one of the purposes of my data is to demonstrate the "real world" operations weights....

ed42d-RCU

My Feedback: (13)

Great info. It would be nice if the Moderator would sticky this for future reference.

Tor

You are missing an important point - performance. If you don't put that into the equation, you might aswell throw in a 26cc engine and it will be lighter than the bunch, but obviously it won't perform as well as in the 40 to 60cc range as those you are displaying is in fact spanning. Atleast the manufactor rated performance or even better an RPM readout on all engines with the same prop, at the same temperature and altitude would provide that - even then it would be hard to compare, because they may not all be runnned it completely and it would require they all be tweaked to their optimum.

Tor

...Further more, I don't understand why you choose to present the MVVS 45 with a can as the only one. Obviously it would be the lightes if you picked a Bisson pitts for that one as well.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

I was considering not even responding to you, but thought better of it..... I "chose" to put the data in **MY** spreadsheet because it was THE INFORMATION THAT I HAD. Period. I will not post information from unknown (to me) or unreliable (to me) sources, so that should satisfy your query about the MVVS muffler issue.

Your other post about "performance" is meaningless in this thread. And frankly, "performance" of motors is so freakin' RELATIVE TO THE PROP and MUFFLER selected, that it is even MORE MEANINGLESS to attempt to side-by-side compare motors.

I'm sorry if my information insults your sense of value of the data.... but it helps SOME, and that's why it is posted here.
You do not need to use the information if you feel it has no value.

Tor

Eeeeasy Bob

I am not insulted, I merely just pointed out that comparing by weight alone is meaningless and that your spreedsheet would have much more value if you compared "apples-to-apples" (as you even write yourself). Comparing the weight of a 62 cc with a 43 cc is not even comparing fruits! But more like a cow with a carrot.

Seems more like you were insulted, which I have no intent of apologizing for. If you choose to be insulted, so be it. If you choose to publish data, be prepare to have people questioning the data.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

It is a WEIGHT SPREADSHEET. INFORMATION. DATA. PERIOD.

You're not "questioning the data", you are inferring that this information has some purpose other than what I have stated. It does NOT.

Leave me alone about this already..........

tkg

My Feedback: (1)

Digital scales "usually" dont lie. But unless you can test all the engines the same day with the same prop, the numbers may not "lie" but they sure can miss lead. While thrust is sorta an interesting number. I fly a plane not a thrust meter

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

-

Tor

Ok, so what is this for?

I think most people know that a 62cc is heavier than a 43cc. Other than that you are comparing a lot of different mufflers that doesn't weight the same, with no regard for what performance difference they provide. What should this information be used for???

(Other than concluding that the weight of different engines is different).

Balsa Steel

My Feedback: (3)

I looked and I don't see any engine comparisons in the spreadsheet, just posted weights and some prices. Nice work aeorobob!

Rcpilot

My Feedback: (78)

I've done a lot to try and keep this thread on topic.

It is my impression that aerobob is doing nothing more than simply providing KNOWN weights of engines in a READY TO RUN condition. That is all. He has not done any comparison between Brand X or Brand W. All he has done is provide the actual and true weights of the engines.

If YOU, the user, want to compare the weight vs price vs performance--then thats your option. You can go over to the Tachomoeter forum and get performance numbers if you want. Aerobob has already done 66% of the work for you and provided you with the engine weight and cost.

OR, buy 15 different engines and set them all up with the same type muffler and provide your own Tach readings in ANOTHER thread.

You should be thanking Aerobob. Not hassling him about it.

Tor

-