Sanye AP 09 RC

1/2A,
5x3 prop? Isn't that what the Cox rubber duckie is?

I figured this engine should be able to swing a bigger prop with authority. It is almost twice a Cox in size.
Any chance you have access to a Norvel BigMig .074?
I'd like to know how the AP stacks up against the smaller Norvel since I have a pair on the Mossie.
If the AP can't keep up with the Norvel, then I think I'll skip searching for a second one with the venturi.
Thanks for your input.

1/2A Nut, you had that Sanye turning and burning.

I've got a mild APC 7x3 prop on it for now, just for test running. When I get a chance to run it, will post results.

Jim, having the CL version, you've got an unusual one. The only ones I've seen for sale thus far are the RC throttled ones.

I used a 7x3 on an Enya .09-III TV, it flew a half-A plane very .049 like, but really opened up with a 7x6 wood. Since the Sanye has a higher RPM curve, I imagine that once unloaded, it will probably pull a plane with a 7x3 to 7x4, may be a 7x5 like it had a .15 cross scavenge engine.

The limiting factor here may be the very restrictive stock muffler, it has a very small expansion chamber like the old Tatone Calumets (when internally molded baffles were removed). 1/2A Nut's tuned pipe is the ultimate, but I imagine that a larger chamber muffler like a small can muffler would do it good. Caveat would be making a suitable header pipe with the right thread. However, its stock muffler is attractive in that it is compact and light weight.

944_Jim wrote:You basically stole it!

Jim, you're right considering I got it for $10 before shipping, but then they were a low cost $30 engine when new 10 years ago. I find it difficult to believe that some think now they can get $77 to $90 for their NOS engine. Did notice that no one on E-Bay wants to pay those prices, as they remain unsold at auction close.

944_Jim wrote:From what I've read, the muffler to head gasket is the same as a Cox .049 head gasket. You stack the gaskets to get your desired muffler angle.

Gasket is smaller, would have to check, but I think a .020 or .010 gasket would be a better fit. Exhaust port is definitely smaller than .049 gasket diameter.

944_Jim wrote:One of the forums mentioned drilling the muffler outlet a little bigger to get some more oomph from it.

Muffler exit tube is thin wall, may be 1/32" to 1/20" thick. I suppose one could drill out the hole, but then would lose the pipe that gets the glop away from the engine, although I guess they could drill and tap a hole and cut threads on a larger pipe. Might increase noise to objectionable on some flying fields.

1/2A Nut wrote:You can use a Saito .72 muffler on it the threads fit. Look at the still pic in the vid before hitting play as I have it covered up when running to keep the goo on the towel. Published on Dec 9, 2015; AP .09 Hornet; MA 5.5x4.5 19,300 / .92lbs /14.72oz thrust / 82mph /.20hp / 149w; est. unloaded 21.3k / 91mph

Thanks for simulating unloaded in flight RPM and lead on a less restrictive muffler, Brad. I looked at Saito threaded header pipe adapter and mufflers, going current higher E-Bay prices negate that option for now.

Thanks, Brad for letting me know of these good solutions.

Good looking engine there George , 1/2a nut had that baby singing !!!

That's interesting, Brad, I didn't know they made a marine version, too. That boat ought to be a screamer with that tuned pipe.

I didn't know the conrod was all aluminum. I'm wondering if they used a higher silicon content harder aluminum alloy, which may account for why the connecting rod is unbushed. You're right, 2 weep holes for oiling would ensure that the it would remain lubricated.

I don't have the instructions for the .09, but have them for the .15, which is I gather the same engine as stated with thinner sleeve (decreasing weight) and a finned head to rid the heat with lessened mass and more gas. Instructions state:

AP .15 Standard and R/C Model Engine Instructions wrote:
Fuel

The AP Two Stroke Engine is designed to run on fuel that is a mixture of methanol, nitromethane, and lubricants. The oils mixed into the fuel provides all the lubrication and most of the heat dissipation for the engine. Do not use fuel that has incorrect oil contents or is old and has been exposed to air an/or moisture.

The fuel used for break-in should have no more than 15% nitromethane and no less than 20% Oil content (made up of a mixture of Castor or Cast/synth mix). We STRONGLY recommend the use of NFX 15% X-TRA Nitro fuel for the breaking-in period and for the first flights. Once the engine is broken-in, a fuel containing 25-35% nitromethane can be used. Do NOT use a fuel that contains only synthetic lubricants. Fuels with some or all Castor oil for the lubricant will make the engine run cooler and last longer.

Now I can understand why they recommend 20% minimum oil with at least half (implied) or more as Castor oil. That conrod bearing area needs Castor to keep it adequately lubricated.

1/2A Nut wrote:Yes I use castor blended mix with the engine. The marine effort was all hand made cnc parts as far as I know, the western market only has the aero engine option. My guess the engine may have been designed for car use too.

That is interesting, you never can tell simply by looking at it. That was a nice job of professional machining then to create a water cooled head version. You hardly hear of power boat RC modeling any more. Back in the 1970's, it seemed quite popular and all the hobby outlets offered marine versions of engines. I even remember the Dumas Swamp Buggy series of air prop boats in all sizes from half-A on up.

So you have a .15 how does that one run for you, have you benched the .09 yet?

I don't have a .15, I got the instructions off the Hobby King website.

I would not use a beefy APC 7x4 on the .09 the more lean mean MA 7x4 for sport use would be less stress on the engine.

I took a look at the AP .15 article on Sceptre Flight:
Sceptre Flight Model Engine Tests, AP 15 Yellow Jacket


The .15 produces 0.28 HP at 16,500 RPM. Suitable props appear to be the APC 7x5 to Masters 8x3. The .09 having the same stroke but slightly smaller bore diameter, I imagine the curves are probably similar but HP output would be less. The late Randy Randolph's .09 article mentions a HP of 0.25, but this seems to be optimistic from the manufacturer, conditions how obtained are not stated. It is probably true with no muffler, CL venturi and a higher content nitro fuel.

I think you may be onto something there regarding props. The APC 7x4 produced 13,000 RPM on 10% nitro fuel. The .09's peak HP is probably close to that of the .15, which is 3,500 RPM down. The engine has minimal cooling fin area. The head has no cooling fins. I'd think the heat sink style .15 head would probably be more appropriate. I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the original Sanye design was geared more toward CL speed. Those engines do very short runs and engine has time to cool when run is over.

The APC 7x4 may be more appropriate when used as a CL engine, as the runs are usually only a few minutes run in a rich 2 cycle setting for stunt. The engine doesn't get as hot. The restrictive muffler probably doesn't help. Running richer at a lower RPM, a wider pitched prop may be more optimal for thrust.

Anyway, will know more once engine is used in practice.

I used the .09 on a Sig Akromaster with so so results. The FP .10 wins my favoritism hands down. I felt the engine was quite heavy. The engine using the muffler takes up a bit of footprint. Not a good combination for close coupled airframes. As recognized the stock muffler is a very poor design which robs over 1000k rpm's. I couldn't remove mine on the Akro due to using a plastic tank which was jammed right up to the muffler practically. I did like the engine in terms of operation, it started well. I didn't have the control line venturi. I recall at the time that those that purchased the ventuiri claimed it didn't work well on suction because it had too large of a opening. My prop choice was both the MA 7x4 and APC 7x4.

A few of us were using the Yellow Jacket .15 for .15 combat. That was a few wasted weekends. The .15 didn't quite develop the rpm's we seeked vs the OS or Norvel .15. We had two break the crankshafts and that was the nail in the coffin. My engine stayed together and I ended up selling the big 3 as a lot on Ebay last year. The .061, .09, .15. Of the 3 the .061 was a real toilet, that engine cost me more in plugs than I paid for the engine itself. It never ran as well as a real Norvel , but for some reason I tinkered and tinkered. This is the curse of the control line pilot. You have cheap and then you have CONTROL LINE CHEAP. If newspapers could fly, we would keep flying it until the ink wore off. Larry Renger bragged about it for stunt and how it utilized a bronze bushing for the crank. Mine wore out by the time I got it running decent enough. I had a new bushing installed in the case and that one is still with me.

Ken Cook wrote:I used the .09 on a Sig Akromaster with so so results. The FP .10 wins my favoritism hands down. I felt the engine was quite heavy. The engine using the muffler takes up a bit of footprint. Not a good combination for close coupled airframes. As recognized the stock muffler is a very poor design which robs over 1000k rpm's. I couldn't remove mine on the Akro due to using a plastic tank which was jammed right up to the muffler practically. I did like the engine in terms of operation, it started well. I didn't have the control line venturi. I recall at the time that those that purchased the venturi claimed it didn't work well on suction because it had too large of a opening. My prop choice was both the MA 7x4 and APC 7x4.

Ken, thanks for the frank inputs. Yes, it is a bit heavy for a small engine. In general, heavy is not good unless compensated with a tremendous HP advantage. It weighs 165 grams (5.8 ounces), the same as my unmuffled Enya .19-V TV. The FP .10 unmuffled is 4 ounces. I finally found the AP .09 manual pages posted by aspeed on RC Groups. I took his scans, cleaned them up as a single PDF manual and posted it in their engine manuals thread:

RC Groups Engine Manuals In PDF, Page 26, Post# 40131304

It states,

AP 09 User's Manual wrote:The diameter and pitch of the propeller needed for the AP 09 depends on the application. Weight, size, drag, etc. are all factors in determining correct size. Some experimentation will be necessary. Please keep your selection within the size parameters listed here:

6x4, 6x5, 7x3, 7x3.5, 7x4. Use 7x4 for break-in procedures.

This more or less mirrors yours and Brad's observations. Randy Randolph in his article mentioned there wasn't an advantage to using the 6x4 with the stock engine and muffler, took it beyond the power curve when unloaded in flight.

A few of us were using the Yellow Jacket .15 for .15 combat. That was a few wasted weekends. The .15 didn't quite develop the rpm's we seeked vs the OS or Norvel .15. We had two break the crankshafts and that was the nail in the coffin. My engine stayed together and I ended up selling the big 3 as a lot on Ebay last year.

Of course, you were doing "pedal to the metal". I gather that there were some compromises made to the engine to make inexpensively enough (i.e., the round bar stock machined / polished muffler with stamped swedged sheet aluminum backplate, unbushed conrod, etc.) for the sport use crowd. They were selling for under $30 under single quantities 5 years ago. (At that price, reminds me of the McCoy .35 Red Heads of 50-60 years ago.) When I run mine, I will use the basic CL mix with adequate Castor and ample total oil.

The Sceptre Flight .15 review mentioned to consider the engine similar in power to the older cross scavenge engines as a mild modern .15, although ball bearing equipped. This is interesting, tested HP at 0.28 is the same as the Enya .15-IV TV. The AP turns 7x4 to 8x6 props. The Enya turns 8x5 to 9x4 props. I think I'll stick to my Enyas.

The .061, .09, .15. Of the 3 the .061 was a real toilet, that engine cost me more in plugs than I paid for the engine itself. It never ran as well as a real Norvel, but for some reason I tinkered and tinkered. This is the curse of the control line pilot. You have cheap and then you have CONTROL LINE CHEAP. If newspapers could fly, we would keep flying it until the ink wore off. Larry Renger bragged about it for stunt and how it utilized a bronze bushing for the crank. Mine wore out by the time I got it running decent enough. I had a new bushing installed in the case and that one is still with me.

I find that sometimes, one needs to take the engine reviews and model building articles with a grain of salt. The manufacturers pay magazines money to do the reviews and advertise. Writers will downplay the negative aspects and post optimistically, for sales. In contracting, they call this "puffery". So far, I don't have an AP .061. Since I recently acquired a Medallion .049, this is sufficient for me.

I want to thank you all for this information. Based on what I read, I can now stop spending (entirely too much) time watching for a venturi-equipped match for the still-new in-box one that I already own. Fortunately I paid a negligable amount for what seems to be a difficult engine to build a CL airframe around.

Now I need to start considering a profile model of the appropriate wingspan...maybe 30" with an inboard mounted tank so it doesn't interfere with the rear mounted muffler. Anyone have a recommendation?

1/2A Nut wrote:The .09 in lieu of it's design being dual use as a .15 has it lacking per Ken's findings as a .15. I have many .15's of different brands the most powerful version of that displacement has not only quality materials / design used throughout but is bigger bolder more is better bigger ports, bigger carb, robust bearings. larger dia. crank etc. This all leads to an engine that can hack the rpm hack the loads placed on it and keeps delivering. The .09 as is can hang least in my testing due to the over build it has for use as a .15 frame. For me it's yet again one of those engines.

I am willing to accept the additional weight for the added benefits. Hold a 1970's OS Max .15 in one hand and a .15 Novarossi Rex in the other you get the idea. Engines for CL use vs RC have variances that make one better than the other, for me it's high pitched props for speed the engines that can put out the rpm I favor.

I hear you, Brad, there's more to the madness as to why I opted for the .09 and not the .15. Yes, the heaviness of the engine is one factor why I shied away from it initially. But I like the compact muffler and angled NVA. In a plane like the Hobby Shack Real Thing even with stock muffler it would even there probably do very well. In CL, a short coupled plane like a short nose biplane would put it to good use.

Your use has shown that the engine can perform if equipped with the right muffler. Tuned pipe and RPM's you are turning are indeed aggressive and you have taken it beyond sport modeling status.

The .15 appears to be a marketing attempt to garner more sales. I see it is no longer offered, and thus gather that it wasn't really all that popular of an engine. Another factor is the development of high powered battery systems and extremely efficient electric motors particularly in the smaller sizes, that make the smaller engines a dying art.

In the right plane, the engine will do a lot of good. So far, I seem to be more talk than do. Since turning 60 4 years ago, I've found that I've been slowing down more than I'd like to. When younger, one has a lot more energy, shoot, I remember overhauling auto motors and painting cars in high school.

Now, there are days in which I struggle to get motivated to do simpler things. I guess this is the caveat in getting old.

944_Jim wrote:Now I need to start considering a profile model of the appropriate wingspan...maybe 30" with an inboard mounted tank so it doesn't interfere with the rear mounted muffler. Anyone have a recommendation?

Jim, the engine if muffler is pointed say down in a profile model with engine mount pancake (sideways), then the engine mount area doesn't require major modifying. The fuel tank may need relocation because of the space needed for the muffler.

My Ringmaster Jr., 30" span, 200 sq. inches was nose heavy with an OS Max .15FP-S. Engine weighs 4.6 oz. w/o muffler and probably the same as the AP if muffled. It was designed for the early 1950's .15's of the day that were lighter in weight (3.5 oz.) and lower powered, hence its longer nose.

I'm thinking something with a shorter coupled nose like a WW1 aircraft and more wing area, may be 240 sq. in. for lighter wing loading might be the ticket at least for me. 36" span 300 sq. in. DeBolt All American scaled down to 33" or 34" wingspan would be about the right speed for the AP .09, me thinks.

It is amazing what a little clean up does to an engine. I cleaned / polished the bare aluminum parts, the coned prop nut, muffler and head with Mother's Mag Aluminum Polish, brushed the dust and loose bits off the crankcase. Found there was a burr on the carb mount shaft, filed off with a fine file, now it sits where it should compressing the O-ring. It will be ready to run, once I find where I put my engine stand and run up tank.

Good eyes, Brad, I hadn't noticed the needle ratchet was missing. A closer look, O-Ring makes needle movement stiff so it doesn't move much, under vibration would be a different story. I may be able to take some fuel line, use a nylon wire tie or wrap a couple loops of soft wire with ends twisted over the chromed needle holder portion to hold needle in place.

Never seen those, they are unique aluminum bottles, a neat way to fuel these engines in a compact manner.

1/2A Nut wrote:You can use a Saito .72 muffler on it the threads fit.

Thanks, Brad for the tip. I'll keep my eyes open for a Saito header pipe and muffler.

- George