Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > Pylon Universe - RC Pylon Racing > Club 40
Reload this Page >

RCPRO Club 40 Rules Committee votes not to allow Evolution .46 in Silver Class

Notices
Club 40 Discuss all Club 40 flying here.

RCPRO Club 40 Rules Committee votes not to allow Evolution .46 in Silver Class

Old 05-24-2016, 06:30 PM
  #1  
Ken Erickson
Thread Starter
 
Ken Erickson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, IN
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RCPRO Club 40 Rules Committee votes not to allow Evolution .46 in Silver Class

Yes, early last winter, we voted to accept the Evolution .46 nx with one-piece muffler. However, testing in Texas and Indiana has shown that our planes, with this engine, are demonstrably faster than with the Thunder Tiger .40 Pro.

We know we need to do something and wanted to use the same engine as AMA 424. There was one abstention, all others voted to return to the Silver class being .40 only.

If you want to race in the Silver class this year and do not have an engine, contact the leader of your circuit and ask if anyone has one with which they would be willing to part. If you are not presently with a circuit, contact me and I will see what might be available.

Ken Erickson
Chr. RCPRO Club 40 Rules Committee
Old 05-25-2016, 05:40 AM
  #2  
kane
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Ken,

I am very surprised by these comments. The NMPRA, and AMA adopted the EVO .46 into AMA 424 this year and after two seasons of testing it was proven that it in fact was not superior to the TT 40, when using the APC 9x6 prop and the 1 pc muffler.

Rather than banning a particular motor, it would have been prudent to insist on the usage of one propeller, the APC 9x6 that is approved for AMA 424.

Hopefully, Club 40 finds a direction.

DK
Old 05-25-2016, 08:04 AM
  #3  
elmshoot
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nashville, IN,
Posts: 1,704
Received 32 Likes on 28 Posts
Default

Dan,
Trust me we were all suprised to see how the EVO.46 out performed the TT.40 in our airplanes.
If we allowed the EVO.46 in the Silver class, doing so would have religated any other engine to the dust bin in Club .40 Silver. I will be doing some further testing after the NATS to see if we can find an equivelant powerplant for the Silver Class. Using a std propeller might be one solution that we will evaluate.
Last weekend I did some bench running in the test stand comparing the TT.40 and the EVO using the same APC9X5. The .46 was peaking out at a little over 15 K while the .40 was at 14.8K. That is a siginificant difference between the two engines.
I know we always hope we buy the "one off" engine that is the really hot engine from the MFG. I don't think thats the case. I had 1/2 gallon through the engine on my test stand and breakin prop but I don't think that is anything unusual here.
More testing to follow.
Sparky
Old 05-25-2016, 08:30 AM
  #4  
kane
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Tim,

First of all those numbers do not make sense. We can turn both the TT and the EVO at or over 17K with a 9x6. Did you do your testing with a 10 or 11" prop?

Secondly, 200 RPM is not significant at all. 1000 RPM is.

Thirdly, static RPM testing with a flying prop is not the method that should be used to determine an engine's performance.

How does the EVO 46 unload compared to the TT?

I wish that someone would have asked for some input from the people that offered the EVO .46 as a solution before making statements about the engine's performance.

DK

Last edited by kane; 05-25-2016 at 10:15 AM.
Old 05-25-2016, 09:58 AM
  #5  
Ken Erickson
Thread Starter
 
Ken Erickson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, IN
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

We were unhappily surprised as well.

In our 2016 rules, published in November, we had added the EVO 46 to the Silver class, based on the AMA/NMPRA recommendation. I was not concerned about the RPM numbers our guys were getting with their break-in props. For me, the only thing that matters is what happens in the racing.

At our race on the 14th, I witnessed the plane with the EVO engine run away from the others in the straights. The engine was needled rich enough to avoid the starving in the turns, which was experienced by the Texas circuit. The plane was still faster.

We have 4 very competent race pilots . They were all there that day. The other three were trying their darndest.

When Club 40 was started in San Antonio, 10 years ago, we chose to use .40 engines in support of AMA/NMPRA. One of our goals was to graduate some of our guys to 424. I believe that is still true.

We really want to find a way to use that engine, but the guys who vote on the rules expressed the need to stay compatible in the short time and at the Nats. Some of the ideas, besides a standard prop, were a "restrictor plate" (carb) and exhaust restriction (muffler).

Our guys are not done testing, but they see a problem right in front of them and are aiming for homogeneity at the Nats.

In the meantime, they are helping new racers.

Ken

Last edited by Ken Erickson; 05-25-2016 at 10:08 AM.
Old 05-25-2016, 11:09 AM
  #6  
DonStegall
My Feedback: (1)
 
DonStegall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MonroeNorth Carolina
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Dan,

I did not make the rule proposal, but I did vote YES for it.

There are issues with the Club 40 planes and the Evolution 46NX besides the performance. Sorry if I had not updated you on this.

Because our engines are mounted upright, in a left turn we are getting fuel starvation with the 46NX with the one piece muffler. Put a TT PRO 40 muffler on the Evo 46NX and the problem goes away. Guys have done a wide range of option testing. Raising the tank, using bubbless tanks. One workable solution was to use a flexible exhaust outlet and restrict it using zip ties. It is a back pressure issue

We are not banning the Evo 46NX from Club 40. Only the Silver class that had an exception to the .40 c.i. for the NX is being changed.

We do not require specific props in Club 40 because the Sky Raider Mach II and LA Racer 40 have similar but different characteristics. And now we allow the SIG 4 STAR 54 as well and it is a different drag profile.

I too hope Club 40 gets worked out. We are shrinking in many places because of the engine issue. The 46NX will do fine in the Gold class and I believe that due to the lack of new TT PRO 40's we will see the Gold class emerge as the premier class.

I have been fighting the .40 versus .46 battle ever since creating Club 40. It was a big deal to get local racers that had no 424 engines to buy .40 engines over their beloved O.S. 46 FX/AX/AXII and engines like the Magnum 46 XLS and other .46 sport engines.

I have seen the part for the original 46NX muffler on the Horizon site and that muffler has no problems with fuel starvation. So we can still maintain synergy with AMA 424.

Don

Last edited by DonStegall; 05-25-2016 at 11:34 AM.
Old 05-25-2016, 11:30 AM
  #7  
kane
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Can anyone tell me what prop was being used during your testing?
Old 05-25-2016, 12:08 PM
  #8  
DonStegall
My Feedback: (1)
 
DonStegall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MonroeNorth Carolina
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by kane
Can anyone tell me what prop was being used during your testing?
Dan,

I hate to say it but I have not flown a Club 40 plane with an Evolution 46NX on it. I have flown a 424 plane with one. I have run the 46NX on the bench only for prop testing.

I can't speak for what the other guys have been doing with props, but what I found was that with my APC 7.8x6C props that I use for break-in, the 46NX was only 200-300 above the best TT PRO 40 I have left. With an APC 9x6, my TT PRO 40 would turn 16,800 to 16,900 and the 46NX could do 17,200 to 17,400 really peaked. I did not have my Fromeco TNC tach at that time.

I did tests with heavier props and the 46NX could pull a 10x7 to more than 1000 rpm's over a TT PRO 40 trying to turn it. With our heavier and draggier Club 40 planes, the prop makes a big difference because of the additional torque that the 46NX seems to have.

As I said, the Evolution 46NX is still legal for Club 40 Gold. The .40 c.i. limit with no exceptions applies to Club 40 Silver.

Don
Old 05-25-2016, 06:45 PM
  #9  
skooterII
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Amarillo, TX
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Dan, I tested my Evo on my c-40 with a 9.5x6 and I was getting 17.1k peak. I test flew it with verry little pinch (16,800k) and I felt it unloaded pretty good. This was after I had to raise the tank to fix the issue. I was happy with its performance on the way it was set.
Old 05-25-2016, 10:23 PM
  #10  
skooterII
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Amarillo, TX
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=Ken Erickson;12217603] However, testing in Texas and Indiana has shown that our planes, with this engine, are demonstrably faster than with the Thunder Tiger .40 Pro

I don't understand how you can say the Evo is demonstrably faster that the TT 40. Look at Georgetown's last race. Fast time was 1:25.33 with the Evo .46nx. 2015 NATS fast time was 1:24.89 with a TT .40 pro. The Evo doesn't seem to be any faster to me in this case. We race c-40 with .46's "OS Ax/Fx mostly" in Amarillo and I ran my TT .40 pro agianst them and never had a problem keeping up or outrunning the .46 engines. And that's with running the same props.
Old 05-26-2016, 06:35 AM
  #11  
Ken Erickson
Thread Starter
 
Ken Erickson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, IN
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thanks for the suggestions.

Testing is still happening. We want the engine to work!!!!!!

Smaller tanks, mounted as high as possible, have been used for quite some time. This does seem to solve the starving. On May 14th we had the EVO with the high tank not starving and a new Silver pilot with stock tank at stock position, starving. That is our answer to the starving problem.

We were 110% confident in the AMA/NMPRA testing when we voted in November to accept the EVO into Silver.

I am the Chair/Coordinator of the C40 Rules committee, not a voting member, unless there is a tie. Our finest/best people are still working on this .

But we do not have the answer.

Fact is we have never specified a prop for Silver. If that is found to be the solution, we probably will.

Ken
Old 05-26-2016, 08:13 AM
  #12  
GREG DOE
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: , TN
Posts: 892
Likes: 0
Received 26 Likes on 23 Posts
Default

Guys, I can't elaborate right now, but I think it is the right decision. Because the Club 40 airplanes are "dirty" compared to a Quickie, and because Club 40 rules allows any stock prop, the Club 40 airplanes should benefit from the greater torque of the .46 displacement.
Don Stegall recognized this in his comment:
I did tests with heavier props and the 46NX could pull a 10x7 to more than 1000 rpm's over a TT PRO 40 trying to turn it. With our heavier and draggier Club 40 planes, the prop makes a big difference because of the additional torque that the 46NX seems to have. Later, Greg
Old 05-26-2016, 09:23 AM
  #13  
kane
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Greg,

I agree. Don hit the nail on the head with his statement. AMA 424 can only run a 9x6 prop. From what I gathered from Bob Petrinec they were running a 10" prop and the there was a noticeable difference. Bob and crew are doing some additional testing today hopefully more information is available later today.

DK
Old 05-26-2016, 06:33 PM
  #14  
GREG DOE
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: , TN
Posts: 892
Likes: 0
Received 26 Likes on 23 Posts
Default

Here's a little data for anyone trying to compare the Thunder Tiger, and the Evolution. These are my numbers with a dial caliper. Your readings may vary. The take away is the difference. The Thunder Tiger muffler exit has a taper to it, but at it's smallest it measures approximately .240". The Evolution is .315". The carburetors compare at .295" for the TT, and .300" for the Evo. Fuel feed to the Evo would probably benefit from a smaller muffler exit hole. Someone mentioned using the TT Muffler on the Evo. This would probably result in little on no loss of power, with greatly improved fuel flow. Now I have a question for the folks who have experience with the Evolution. The remote needle valve on my engine would not back out far enough to get a "rich" setting. I tried all kinds of adjustments with no success. Finally I removed the needle valve from the remote bracket and installed it in the traditional location on the carburetor, and it worked great. Has anyone experienced this problem? Greg
Old 05-26-2016, 07:37 PM
  #15  
skooterII
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Amarillo, TX
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Yes. Had this problem with the first Evolution I owned. Now it's the first thing I do right out of the box.
Old 05-26-2016, 11:22 PM
  #16  
DonStegall
My Feedback: (1)
 
DonStegall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MonroeNorth Carolina
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GREG DOE
...

Now I have a question for the folks who have experience with the Evolution. The remote needle valve on my engine would not back out far enough to get a "rich" setting. I tried all kinds of adjustments with no success. Finally I removed the needle valve from the remote bracket and installed it in the traditional location on the carburetor, and it worked great. Has anyone experienced this problem? Greg
I found that the stock remote needle valve would let me run it as rich as it should be during break-in. Even though this engine has a true ABC piston/sleeve, it is best to keep it warm enough during break-in. That said, in this video on break-in, you can't see it, but I used a JETT exhaust mounted remote needle valve instead of the the stock RNVA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7MqNEdJk2k On my Quickie, a fuselage mounted JETT RNVA was used.



Here are a couple more videos that newcomers or those just interested in the engine may want to view.

You can see the exhaust JETT RNVA at the start of this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHLdty8dugU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1WqHGkMXl8 I posted the prop results in the last video description and you can see the differences:

I picked the props that are used by most people in Club 40 Silver.

Thunder Tiger PRO 40

7.8 x 6 - 18,700
9 x 6 - 16,500
10.5 x 4.5 - 15,400
10 x 5 - 14,800

Evolution 46 NX

7.8 x 6 - 18,600
9 x 6 - 16,740
10.5 x 4.5 - 15,900
10 x 5 - 15,270
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_4641.JPG
Views:	128
Size:	117.6 KB
ID:	2164357  
Old 05-27-2016, 06:47 AM
  #17  
Star_Scream
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Amarillo, TX
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I’ve flown C40 and kept up with the forums for several years. This class has generated a lot of excitement around the country for its simplicity and low cost. I find it disappointing the rules committee has decided to make the Evolution 46NX illegal, 7 weeks before the NATS. This is a move that has disgruntled many and will prevent the growth of C40 due to the lack of manufactures who actually produce a .40 size engine. Several people have spent their hard earn money on an engine deemed to be in compliance with other Silver class engines, only to be told at the last minute it was all a waste. Can someone tell me what happened that was so catastrophic to warrant this engine being deemed illegal? It appears this rule change was based on the results from the Georgetown, TX race; which took place last month. After reviewing the fast times for each pilot I don’t see any difference between these times and the 2015 NATS times. I have raced C40 planes with OS 46 engines against others with Thunder Tiger 40’s and have not seen a difference in speed that merited a concern. My opinion of C40 planes in a racing sense is it takes a lot to make them handle but once this is achieved a huge amount of speed can be gained. Anyone that’s flown a Q500 plane can attest to this. The better handling plane typically wins. What type of test needs to be performed to prove this engine is competitive with the others? I’ve tested and flown planes with .40 and .46 OS Max, Thunder Tiger, Evolution, ASP and Magnum engines. The propeller I use the most is an APC 9.5x6. These engines can all turn this prop between 15.9K – 16.2K on the ground; set rich so they’ll unload in the air. From what I and others have witnessed at C40 races there’s not much difference in speed between these sport engines. I hope the rules committee reverses their decision concerning this engine with the NATS just around the corner. If the decision isn’t reversed, I’d recommend everyone with the Evolution 46NX engine that’s thinking about racing C40 not go that route and instead move into 424 pylon racing.
Old 05-27-2016, 09:12 AM
  #18  
DonStegall
My Feedback: (1)
 
DonStegall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MonroeNorth Carolina
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Star_Scream
...

I hope the rules committee reverses their decision concerning this engine with the NATS just around the corner. If the decision isn’t reversed, I’d recommend everyone with the Evolution 46NX engine that’s thinking about racing C40 not go that route and instead move into 424 pylon racing.
Ken has asked the RCPRO Club 40 Committee about using a specified prop for Club 40 Silver (not Bronze or Gold).

All of the NMPRA / AMA race testing was done with APC 9x6 props from what I know. If you look at my bench numbers, the Evolution 46NX had just a little over 200 RPM's more than a TT PRO 40 running the same 9x6 prop on the same fuel within an hour of each other.

So I'm going to ask all of the people who are participating in Club 40 Silver or want to, if they would accept standardizing on the APC 9x6 for the Silver class?

The Evolution 46NX can run with the baffled muffler in Club 40 Gold, and I really don't want to try to pick a single prop for Gold.

If I had to pick a single prop for Bronze, it would be the APC 10x5 and not the 9x6 because those engines just don't turn the RPM's of the bearing engines and need a longer prop.
Old 05-27-2016, 09:57 AM
  #19  
Ken Erickson
Thread Starter
 
Ken Erickson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, IN
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Star_Scream ,

Your last sentence speaks to one of the reason we started Club 40 in the first place. We wanted to have a fun, simple, slower racing class from which those who caught the fever would want to move up into 424. We wanted to support our 424 brethren by using the same engine as they used. Two reasons: make possible easier transition and cause more demand, so the manufacturer would be happy to continue selling that engine. Yes, we did and have let folks use other .40s. Back then, only 10 years ago, lots of people had .40s and we wanted to sucker, or shall we say entice, them to try racing.

When AMA declared the .46nx equal to the TT Pro, we said, "Yea!" and, in November, voted to include it in our list of approved engines, with no testing on our part.

Our leaders and fast guys all ordered the engine. Lots of bench testing occurred. But the proof is in the pudding and the pudding is when the planes are in the air. Our (Indiana) pudding was in the air on May 14th. It was truly not equal!!!

The committee members decided not to discard the TT 40 but to put the EVO .46 on hold. A case of "Damned if we do and damned if we don't".

Now our best people are testing propellers, trying to get equal pudding.

Ken

Last edited by Ken Erickson; 05-27-2016 at 09:59 AM.
Old 05-27-2016, 10:03 AM
  #20  
kane
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Ken, I appreciate what you are trying to convey. However your message is not accurate. In Club 40 with a big prop the motors are not equal. In AMA 424 with a 9 x 6 prop they are very equal and this has been proven over the last two seasons of competition.

DK
Old 05-27-2016, 10:19 AM
  #21  
skooterII
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Amarillo, TX
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I'm not on board with the one size fits all on the props. In 424 where the planes are way more similar to each other that works for them. But with the sky raider, la racer, and four star there is to much difference in the planes to standardize the prop size. In my opinion.
Old 05-27-2016, 10:25 AM
  #22  
kane
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Skooter, I don't have a dog in this fight. The Club 40 guys are doing their own thing. All I am saying is that it is working for 424 and I do not want the two classes to get mixed together. Ken's statements should be taken at face value for Club 40 only.

DK
Old 05-27-2016, 10:48 AM
  #23  
Star_Scream
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Amarillo, TX
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I think the rules committee should evaluate this situation; taking into account the FACT there aren’t any manufactures producing a quality .40 and develop a set of rules for .46’s. Whether you want to allow multiple engine manufactures or just one. The rules need to be set so they can’t be changed at the last minute before a major race. In my opinion, if reducing cost is a major concern there should be a one engine rule like 424 and 426. There are several good engines in the .46 size. The two most notable are the OS Max 46AX and Evolution 46NX. We should just pick one and be done with it, until these engines become obsolete.

Last edited by Star_Scream; 05-27-2016 at 11:01 AM.
Old 05-27-2016, 10:59 AM
  #24  
skooterII
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Amarillo, TX
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I hear you Dan. Iv just seen it mentioned a few times on standardizing the prop for the silver class and I don't think it will work with this class of planes like it does in 424.
Old 05-27-2016, 11:11 AM
  #25  
Oldbob
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: georgetown, TX
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Well guys here is what I found out yesterday. Ken Hopson andI flew our sky raiders both with EVO 46’s. On our first flight Ken used a 10 X4 APC and the exhaust-exit-restriction to increase muffler pressure. I used a 9X6 APC without the exhaust-exit-restriction. As best as we could tell bothplanes were flying at about the same speed. On our second flight we both used a9 X 6 APC prop. We both had the stock fuel tank that came with the kit. We bothwere able to fly about 25+ laps without any sagging in the turns. By using the9 X6 APC prop I tach ’ed 16,800+ on the ground.
Monday we will go back to the field, weather permitting, formore testing. Ken will fly the EVO 46 and I will fly my TT 40. We’ll try the 9X 6 APC on each engine. I’ll post the results here after our test.
Bob

PS. Skooter the whole object of allowing the EVO 46 is to haveanother engine for Club 40 that would NOT obsolete the TT 40’s still flying. Thework done by the NMPRA guys solved the problem for 424. It is now up to us inClub 40 to find a way not to obsolete the TT 40s and not give an unfairadvantage to guys using the EVO 46. The EVO 46 has more torque and can turn alarger prop. Therefore if a single prop rule is implemented it would be for theEVO 46 only thereby bringing the EVO more in line with the TT40. You can stillplay with props when running a 40 size engine.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.