"3for3" <mor_rc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:LUSck.13011$jI5.5339@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Ed Cregger" <ecregger@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:fZ3bk.26365$s77.4095@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "3for3" <mor_rc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:aB2bk.3284$vn7.1167@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Hi Ted,
>>> My experience with the 5 ST engines that I have owned/own has been
>>> varied.
>>> I have never experienced that moving the spray bar has made a
difference
>>> in the performance of the Super Tigre engines. I have also tried
placing
>>> a brass ferral in the carb throat to decrease the intake diameter with
>>> no positive effect.
>>> Today I have two G-51 that are three years old and they both misbehave
>>> on a regular basis. One is on a Seamaster and I have the low needle at
8
>>> plus turns out to keep the low end and mid transition from going lean.
>>> The other G-51 is on a trainer and is always full of surprises. I
don't
>>> know if these engines are sensitive to barometric pressure or the
>>> alignment of the planets. Some days they run very acceptable and other
>>> days they are threatening to stall during transitions.
>>> I have a G-45 and a 40 (Italian made) that run like clocks with no
>>> issues what so ever.
>>> I did own ( and now returned to Tower Hobbies with full refund) a 61
>>> size engine that ate three planes.
>>>
>>> I see others peoples responses indicate that they need a lot of
>>> break-in. If more that three gallons of fuel does not qualify for
>>> break-in, then I need to sell these G51's to some unsuspecting person
on
>>> Ebay and go buy some magnum XLS-46's.
>>> I have not replaced my temperamental ST G-51's because I am frugal and
I
>>> like a dead stick challenge at least twice a week. If I were to
purchase
>>> new engines I would not purchase a ST again. I own OS, GMS, Magnum,
Jett
>>> and Weston engines and do not have the trouble that I have with the
two
>>> G-51's.
>>>
>>> On a side thought, maybe the issue with the G-51's are a quality issue
>>> with machined surface tolerances and are on the margin of acceptable
>>> dimensions.
>>> Does anybody know what happens when the crank intake area under the
carb
>>> opening and the inside wall of the crank case get leaky?
>>>
>>> Thanks for reading
>>> RCS
>>>
>>> "Ted" <tkennedy63@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>
news:b975c373-fd62-4388-8d65-3ad1457d1364@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>I am having a bit of a problem getting my ST 51 to run smoothly. I
>>>> have had STs before so I know you have a delicate balance between the
>>>> low end and high end before you get it just right. I recall reading
>>>> somewhere that the position of the spray bar is very critical as
well.
>>>> Has anyone also heard of this? And what position would be ideal? Most
>>>> engines like it pointed straight down but I seem to think the STs
>>>> prefer a little upward thrust of the spray so if you are looking from
>>>> the needle valve side it would be pointed around 4 o'clock. Any
>>>> thoughts or experience on this? Many thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Ted
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> I'm going to treat this subject as though there are folks reading my
>> response is brand new to the hobby - not you.
>>
>> The first thing I would do is to compare the ST.51 engines' features to
>> those of the engines you own that run well. Are they ringed? The ST.51
is
>> a ringed engine. Are you using the same glow plugs in all of your good
>> running engines and is this the same type of glow plug that you are
using
>> in your G.51 engines? Fuel? Prop sizes for equal and near
displacements?
>> Inverted engine installation?
>>
>> Can you see where I'm going with this? I realize that you have probably
>> already been through this routine, so forgive me for being simplistic,
>> but many times the things that are causing us grief are simplistic.
>>
>> If your other ST engines are running great and are nearly the same
size,
>> might not their carbs switch with your problematic .51 engines? Might
be
>> worth a try.
>>
>> A ringed engine can have quirks in running that are caused by a
defective
>> ring, or a defective ring slot in the piston. Changing a ring and
>> inspecting the ring slot/groove is an easy process and is one that
might
>> yield an answer to your problem. I can think of nothing about the ST.51
>> design that is problematic on a regular basis.
>>
>> I am not telling you that I don't believe you or that you are
>> hallucinating. I believe you. Let's get to the bottom of this. Now it
is
>> time for you to answer some of the above questions, if you please.
>>
>> Ed Cregger
>>
> Mr Ed,
> Hopeflully this information will satisfy your curiosity. I have replaced
> the stock carb with a perry carb with no improvements. I did replace the
> ring in one of the two engines with no improvement. I buy plugs a dozen
at
> a time and all of my 2 cycles have the same plug. All of my 2 cycles
that
> I own use the same 15%N 20% synth/castor mix fuel.
>
> I have an 10.5 x 6 on one engine and a 9.5 X6 on the second. These
engines
> were purchased within 6 mos. of each other 3 to 3.5 years ago.
> I'm done with the one. If you would like, I'll ****p it to you. If you
fix
> it, let everyone know what I did not do to get the engine to run
> satisfactorly.
>
> thanks,
> rcs
-------------
There have been a lot of posts through my mind since your original post,
so
pardon me if I get confused with the particulars of your situation.
All of the props you listed are small for an ST .51, so I assume that you
are trying to go really fast with this engine. Frankly, picking a large
displacement version of an engine that was built in a smaller engine's
crankcase was not the best move. Notice how heavy the Rossi .45 engines
are?
That's because they carry more metal in their cases, metal that can be
removed to form larger bypass passages. The larger bypass passage permits
the Rossi to breathe better and produce more power. Usually at a very high
rpm. If you read some reviews, you'll notice that folks are not generally
as
happy with the .53 sized Rossi either and for the same reason as the .51
Tigre. The larger displacement engines should be used to carry more prop
and
conventional rpm levels and not used for very high rpm engines.
My choice, had I wanted a Super Tigre to go fast in that size range, would
have been for the .45 ABC. It would have been a better engine for high rpm
operation than the .51.
Sorry if I'm completely disconnected from this thread. Thunderstorms in
the
area mess with this old man's noggin.
Thanks for the offer of sending it to me. That was nice of you, but I'm
very
busy with my recording studio (amateur), motorcycle and ham radio. Flying
is
being relegated to very small glow and electric models these days. Good
luck
on your next choice of engine.
Ed Cregger
|
