Swap Meet find! Which engine would you use?

I was just thinking about a side/profile type beam mount. The back side of the pod doesn't have a cheek, that's where the tank goes. This profile mount would allow room for the intake/carb. I was thinking at the swap meet, that the Queen Bee would be the engine I'd use. I've been wanting to build a plane for the QB .074 for quite some time now.

You would have to go through the engines and give them all a bench run. All three engines there have a somewhat bad reputation, but they can all work fine once they are "fixed".

The TT .07 looks like the latest version, so it might be fine, should give you about the same power as a Norvel .061 engine. Don't over prop it, a 6x3 is about the right load for them.

The AP is a hit and miss, you need to open the engine up and clear out any rubish that they might have left. Check the head gasket for leaks etc. If you want to have a stable idle You'll have to add an airbleed hole to the carb, start with a small one and work from there, I have something around .03 -.04 mm on mine (I think).

The Queen Bee is the heaviest and possibly the weakest out of the engines shown. The stock plug is a power robber, and a compromise due to the sloppy carb design (no low-end compensation). They work better with an 09 head, but they also need a few mods made to the carb (airbleed etc) in order to idle well and reliably.

Yes, at the very least pop the back of the AP and flush it if you ever plan to use it.

I would use a 5g or 9g servo directly on the pod for throttle control so everything was contained in the pod. The big advantage of this is you can build a second pod and swap to electric or a different motor choice.

Hard call on what to really do. More power will be handy.

Phil

I think a Norvel .074RC might be near ideal, as it can handle a 7x3 prop and provide a little more thrust for take-offs. Assuming that a 7" prop would clear the fuselage, if not the APC 6.3x4 works well on that engine too.

The Queen Bee, when sorted out, will give you about the same power a typical .049 (non-reed) engine, with the added benefit of a muffler and throttle. The expense comes with having more than twice the weight of a typical .049 engine though.

I know Diesel engines are not for everyone, but the Queen Bee with an RJL .09 diesel head makes for a great engine and it could work very on that plane I imagine. Again assuming that there is enough room for at least a 7" prop, or perhaps a three-bladed 6" could work too.

I know that my opinion is not "politically correct" to be told on this forum, but I would go electric with this one. Waterplanes are usually flown over water and the scream of a glow engine will be heard all over the lake. With electric you can fly over a calm lake late in the evening without bothering anyone.

Just my opinion

Well, there are also "tons" of different foamies available from HK etc., but where is the fun in that...?

Personally I have never understood why anyone would like to remove the most fun part of the hobby...

If noise is a problem, one can add a second muffler, a large volume is all that is needed. One can also convert to diesel fuel, they use larger props at lower revs, and have smoother note to the exhasut. The reliability is also higher as diesel engine tends to just go and go, and even if the settings would be a little off they never quit. When I fly with the dieselized Queen Bee at reduced throttle settings it is more quiet then the high frequency pitch from electric motors. That is usually one of the first comments that I get from hard core electric only guys when they see it for the first time.

I do think the electric motor would be the best fit for the project. You never have a died stick that you need a boat to get your plane. But, the diesel Queen Bee sounds like a good idea also. Does someone still make the parts to convert one?

Well, I simply think that electric would be the most booring option, we can't all think alike I guess...

If you you don't push the idle too low there is no risk for a dead-stick. Timing the fuel consumption is no harder than timing the battery level with the electric stuff, they die very suddenly too, and then you really have a dead stick...

Here are some proper diesel conversion heads (the .09 is a direct drop-in on the QB); RJL heads at Mecoa

Thanks for the link to convert the Queen Bee. My first chose for this project in the Queen Bee, and it would be more fun for me to us it over the electric. We are on the same page with that. I have not ruled out the QB.

Still haven't decided which engine, but here's the day two's progress.

Cool plane, I like it...but I gotta say I'm not a big fan of the Cox .074, I don't think they had the power or throttle response compared to other engines in its class, but hey it's a Cox so that might be reason enough. Have you benched the two .074's, it would be interesting to see results?
I'd go electric, because with electric you can walk down to any lake, set it down and take off and shouldn't bother anybody with the noise or draw attention to yourself. you could even stop the engine out on the water and restart with just a touch of the throttle lever...and no oil to wipe up!

Mark- Those are the same reasons I'd go electric. We have our own pond at our RC club to fly off, most of the year. It does dry up for a couple months, but we usaully have three joint-two club float flies each summer when our club pond is dry. The pond is about full now and I'm trying to get this plane done. I've been looking for a project for the queen bee and would love to power it with a cox engine. I am worried about the .074 power also. I don't have a huge need to fly really fast and it's a rudder/elev. plane, but I do need enough power to get it off the water.

And day Three! I've got to keep this moving. to many planes so little winter.