ms_sjo

It's been about a decade since I was last on this forum, and i'm here because I just ordered the Schumacher Procat Classic kit! The Procat was the first decent model I raced with when I was a kid probably around 90-91, so when I saw this come up at a fairly reasonable cost, I just couldn't help myself! Now it may just end up a shelf queen.. I don't race, or do anything R/C anymore.. but I am curious what other people have purchased the kit, upgrades etc.. I saw one chap had some carbon parts - are they for the original Procat, or new release for the Classic kit?.. Just curious about what's out there really! Thanks 🙂

I've used this guy before with good results: http://www.maxbashing.com/mbforum/showthread.php?18228-N-Design/page8

I guess only the manufacturer could tell us for sure, then.

Yeah, I see the marketing spiel on their website. So either the website is wrong, or the MSDS information is out of date. The latter would be a bit concerning.

Just pure castor according to the MSDS. 10-12%. That total oil percentage is comparable to other fuels, like Bryons, Optifuel Race, MT BigBang etc. Pure castor though will varnish an engine over time, definitely something to run after-run oil through if leaving the engine for more than a few days. The problem with a fuel like this is the castor will help seal the engine as parts of it wear over time. This is all good, for the most part, however when you then switch to a pure synthetic fuel with additives, it will 'clean' the engine (again over time), removing the deposits left by the castor oil and you will lose some compression in the engine. Unfortunately a quick switch back to castor won't instantly fix the problem!

This is nonsense. Look here to find out what's in the fuel: http://www.powermasterfuels.com/images/msds/Nitromethane10-30_RSD-ISS-MSDS-NA-US.pdf

Right.

The turbulence is caused by the pressure waves from the tuned pipe. I can take a video of an engine on my dyno if you want to demonstrate this?

There's a lot of turbulence inside the fuel tank under high load, it's perfectly normal.

Looks a Fioroni clutch copy?

There's something not quite right on that page describing the NR engine. 13mm square? That'd leave you with a 1.72cc (.11/12!) engine, not 3.45! (.21). The Fastrax engine, being slightly under-square (e.g. more stroke than bore), maxes out at about 36k rpm. The NR may go higher, but gearing (e.g. pinion/spur ratio) will make both of them equally useable for bashing. I'd probably go for the Fastrax..

This might be of help: http://www.clubmap.bmfa.org/

Real dyno results. 1) How is the dyno calibrated? 2) What correction method was used on the dyno? 3) What condition were the engines in? I can tell you as a fact that power output changes radically with engine wear on this type of engine. As the other chap touched on, power is a function of torque. A 23cc engine is going to produce a lot more torque than a 3.45cc one, however power is limited to how fast you can spin the engine whilst maintaining air flow! A real world example; petrol vs diesel engines. A ~150hp diesel engine will typically be faster than a 200hp petrol one, even though it doesn't spin anywhere near as fast. Why? Torque (and appropriate gearing).

As per title, need std fit 90 deg exhaust manifold for .21 size engine. Not fussed on brand/spec. Let me know if you have anything. Thanks!

In the process of sorting out my new space..