Re: Sanye AP 09 RC

Ken Cook Sat May 13, 2023 6:20 am

I owned both the r/c version and the control line version of the .09. The r/c version had good response but the entire assembly was prone to air leaks. The muffler in my experience robbed a little more than 1k rpm's. The venturi size is too large on the control line version or I should state it's right on the edge. On launch, it would just quit if not set rich enough. Rich enough meant too rich for proper flying. I placed bladder tubing stretched over the venturi with a bellcrank bushing in the venturi to reduce the ID in order to make it work at the field. I had mine on a Sig Akromaster. The engine is relatively quiet when compared to a TD .09 or other older period .09's even without the muffler. I had done a fairly large review of this engine with the Akromaster when it was first introduced. This was on the now non existent Stuka Stunt. The engine handled low nitro to high nitro without issue. I truly wished the engine was a side exhaust application. I also feel this might have secured it's position in the market as well. The rear exhaust mounted profile in a control line application is very problematic due to the tank directly behind the engine.

The AP .061 was quite the thing due to what was now the defunct company Norvel. Larry Renger from Cox talked the engine up a fair amount and also designed a plane around this engine. He also had his personal friend make a control line venturi for this engine which also utilized existing parts from the existing r/c carb. Hobby People was selling the AP .061 for $29.95. The AP .09 ended up selling for $10 more and at the end, the .15 was the same cost.

My experience with the .15 was for .15 size combat. We wanted a engine that didn't cost a lot, offer good performance and was readily available. Cost was the only positive. It was lacking in power and our older FP .15's which were essentially worn out offered more power. We also had one break a connecting rod. In all fairness, I can't say for sure if it was due to our pushing the engine or a previous ground strike. Towards the end of Sanye's existence, the .15 was being offered in plastic bags without boxes for $29.95. At the given time, Sig was having a closeout on the Norvel .15 AME versions for $40. The majority of us put the AP .15 behind us due to the Norvel's power. Unfortunately, as much as we enjoyed the Norvel, it's very small separate prop shaft would also prove too problematic. it would get snapped off and the engine would go on a shaft run. One of our club members started to make threaded shafts that would bend vs snap.

1/2A Nut Sun May 14, 2023 5:20 am

Here is an AP .09 run with a good amount of prop pitch.
160° timing as I recall with a Uctkam 1.5cc pipe.

APC 4.75x5.5 / 22.24k rpm / 116 mph prop pitch speed.
Per calc. static 165w / 12oz thrust / 20% Nitro and Oil
5.25 x 5.5 would work well as a flight prop for speed.
Spinner weight is nearly half of the stock spinner.

vs static prop test for max rpm / unloaded flight state:

Peak 27,131rpm / 201w / APC 5x3 / 1.5cc pipe.
Static 21oz thrust / 77mph

Small Cox Logo

GallopingGhostler Sun May 14, 2023 6:25 pm

Brad, that was really humming along, sounded more Tee Dee like. Very Happy

Ken, I enjoy reading about your experiences, a lot of good experiential knowledge there, real hands on experiences.

Some were mentioning about the purpose of the rear exhaust. Some time back I recall seeing an earlier Sanye, it was rear exhaust as part of their racing engine heritage I gather. Photos showed this. Unfortunately with the expiration of a lot of legacy forums and sites with their ISPs, historic modeling info seems to be evaporating into oblivion. Ken pointed out valuable documentation evaporated with the loss of the Stuka Stunt Forums site. We lost info with the folding of the Brotherhood of the Ring site.

**944_Jim** Mon May 15, 2023 11:04 pm

Hmmm...my .09 APs?
https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=10451

GallopingGhostler Tue May 16, 2023 12:17 am

944_Jim wrote:Hmmm...my .09 APs?
https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=10451

Actually Jim, it could be adapted for C/L use, too, without much modification. I think this is what you had in mind, no?

Interestingly enough, there is also a full fuselage C/L version with same wingspan:

https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=9193 Outerzone: 39in Grumman Skyrocket Paul Palanek Nov. 1953 Mechanix Illustrated

One could make Paul's version with a profile fuselage and either profile or full engine pods, or make the R/C profile version and use Paul's full size engine pods for more scale look.

**944_Jim** Tue May 16, 2023 5:20 am

George,
I was thinking solid flaps, tail structure, and internally framed fuselage based on the FunFly shape of the RC ship, but with a bellcrank for CL. The reality is I have a pair of "who cares" engines, and a desire for a fast-built "who cares" almost disposable model. If it flies, that would be good. If it flies well, that would be awesome!

GallopingGhostler Tue May 16, 2023 5:46 am

944_Jim wrote:I was thinking solid flaps, tail structure, and internally framed fuselage based on the FunFly shape of the RC ship, but with a bellcrank for CL. The reality is I have a pair of "who cares" engines, and a desire for a fast-built "who cares" almost disposable model. If it flies, that would be good. If it flies well, that would be awesome!

Jim, I think you're action plan has definite merit for a fun, well flying aircraft. And regarding the engines, I think that some of the more stringent comments were in reference to them in hard use as competitive styled flying engines. These are sport engines and as such, as long as one uses them in a sport sense and treats them with respect using standard, approved Cox fuel with moderate nitro should do fine.

Our Cox engines don't have bronze bushed crankcases yet have reasonable durability. Even with the loss of 1,000 RPM with the cake pan mufflers, proper discipline in fuel tank location and plumbing, the standard venturis should still do OK.

One thing I noticed is that back in the 1940's and 1950's, even 1960's, many C/L designs were less than optimal making them fun fly but in no way stunters able to do the full AMA pattern. Then, there was such as thing as sport flyers, who flew them for the fun of it. I think many of us here are still that way.

In your plans using the FunFly as basis, should be a decent stunter, IMO, but still look classy.

aspeed Tue May 16, 2023 12:39 pm

I can't find my engine log book, but remember that the .09 did not have as great of a loss from the muffler as the AP .15. I opened up the exhaust hole to 6mm and it was not too much loss. Compared to the TD .09 I found the performance a bit better with a 7-4" MA prop. 10% fuel and no muffler, with my random examples. For some reason the AP .15 has a bushed rod, maybe it was found not to need it in the .09. I believe the AP .09 was used in some team racing or Goodyear racing in Australia with good results. I have tested mine, I have 3 of each .09 and .15. and they seem quite good, almost up to the LA .15 performance, being a bit slower likely only because it is really a .135 cu in. The .09 was about equal to the OS .10. Yes, the muffler is the weak part, but some fields do not require them, and something else can be substituted like a pipe. I made a couple adapters for a pipe, bought the die, 10mm, forget the pitch. Made up a new stinger on the muffler to get a 6mm hole, tapped the muffler for 5/16" or 3/8" thread and drilled the hole. Lots of meat to go with a larger hole, but I thought 6mm is what the F2D is limited to, it used to be 8mm. I have only flown the .15, not the .09 yet. Same bolt pattern and weight and I figured more power is best, no replacement for displacement. Here are some pics...again, iin case someone missed them. Notice the bypass ports milled in the sleeve.
The .15 is a slot all the way through. So, maybe the .15 is even a bit lighter?
More fins on the head to offset that, I have made a turbo plug head for them too, and it is good for 1,000 rpm IIRC. Going by those figures, an opened exhaust, and the turbo head, and maybe a pipe, 2,500 rpm boost is not out of the question. I would keep it propped for about 20,000 rpm max because I found the rod to be the weak point, at least on the .15.

GallopingGhostler Tue May 16, 2023 5:50 pm

aspeed wrote:The .15 is a slot all the way through. So, maybe the .15 is even a bit lighter?

Sceptre Flight Engine Tests show the .09 weighs 4.5 oz., whereas the .15 (0.136 cu. in.) is 5.4 oz.

Yet, I go to Hobby King:
https://hobbyking.com/en_us/ap-09a.html .09 weight is 153 grams (5.40 oz.)
https://hobbyking.com/en_us/ap-hornet-0-15-two-stroke-glow-engine.html .15 weight is 150 grams (5.29 oz.)

Appears to be a discrepancy somewhere. I suspect that Randy Randolph's engine article may have the 5 and 4 switched (should be 5.4, not 4.5, editorial error).
http://sceptreflight.com/Model%20Engine%20Tests/AP%20Hornet%2009.html

I don't have a .15 to compare with, unfortunately. Nonetheless, I am happy to have the .09's. Back of the envelope calculations:

AP .15 bore: 15.52 mm (0.611 in.)
AP .09 bore: 12.50 mm (0.492 in.)
Stroke for both: 11.9 mm (0.469 in.)

Volume difference of displacement:
Bore difference = pi x (D1²/4 - D2²/4) = 3.1416 x (0.611² - 0.492²)/4 = 0.103089248 sq. in.
Volume difference = 0.103089248 x 0.469 = 0.0484 cu. in.

Now calculate volume difference of liner below swepted volume (piston at bottom dead center):
Assume piston height is same as diameter: 0.492 in. (AP .09)
Based on photo of .15 liner, eyeballing it is about 50% of circumference is bypass port total width.
Bore difference = 0.103089248/2 = 0.051544624 sq. in.
Volume difference = 0.051544624 x 0.469 = 0.0242 cu. in.

Total Volume difference = 0.0484 + 0.0242 = 0.0726 cu. in.

From https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-alloys-densities-d_50.html I chose Brass 60/40: 532 lb/ft³ x (16 oz/lb) / (12³ in³/ft³) = 4.926 oz/in³

Brass cylinder liner weight difference = 0.0726 x 4.926 = 0.358 oz.

.15 liner is 0.4 oz. lighter. Given that the .15 has a beefier cooling head, the Hobby King data appears to be more accurate it seems, putting the .15 as being 1/10th oz. lighter than the .09. Someone who has a scale and both engines could better clarify weights to settle the issue.

**944_Jim** Wed May 17, 2023 5:23 am

ASpeed,
Any chance you remember how thirsty the .09 is? I'd like to determine a tank size for three-to-four minutes flights.
I've appreciated reading your usage notes.

Thanks.

aspeed Wed May 17, 2023 7:24 am

I only flew the .15, but it had a 2 oz tank and lasted pretty long for a flight. I was getting dizzy and was glad it was over, so maybe an oz tank would be good. It was a home made venturi but not really big because it was on suction. For fuel usage I always check the Norvel website. They state the consumption in the stats. Their .074 is 10 oz/hr so the AP .09 would be a bit more. If throttled down it may be more or less. The Norvel .15 uses 17 oz/hr (500cc/hr. or 8.3cc/ min). so maybe somewhere in between. http://www.nvengines.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=25&category_id=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=65

aspeed Wed May 17, 2023 8:15 am

GallopingGhostler wrote:
aspeed wrote:The .15 is a slot all the way through. So, maybe the .15 is even a bit lighter?
Sceptre Flight Engine Tests show the .09 weighs 4.5 oz., whereas the .15 (0.136 cu. in.) is 5.4 oz.

Yet, I go to Hobby King:
https://hobbyking.com/en_us/ap-09a.html .09 weight is 153 grams (5.40 oz.)
https://hobbyking.com/en_us/ap-hornet-0-15-two-stroke-glow-engine.html .15 weight is 150 grams (5.29 oz.)

Appears to be a discrepancy somewhere. I suspect that Randy Randolph's engine article may have the 5 and 4 switched (should be 5.4, not 4.5, editorial error).
http://sceptreflight.com/Model%20Engine%20Tests/AP%20Hornet%2009.html

I don't have a .15 to compare with, unfortunately. Nonetheless, I am happy to have the .09's. Back of the envelope calculations:

AP .15 bore: 15.52 mm (0.611 in.)
AP .09 bore: 12.50 mm (0.492 in.)
Stroke for both: 11.9 mm (0.469 in.)

Volume difference of displacement:
Bore difference = pi x (D1²/4 - D2²/4) = 3.1416 x (0.611² - 0.492²)/4 = 0.103089248 sq. in.
Volume difference = 0.103089248 x 0.469 = 0.0484 cu. in.

Now calculate volume difference of liner below swepted volume (piston at bottom dead center):
Assume piston height is same as diameter: 0.492 in. (AP .09)
Based on photo of .15 liner, eyeballing it is about 50% of circumference is bypass port total width.
Bore difference = 0.103089248/2 = 0.051544624 sq. in.
Volume difference = 0.051544624 x 0.469 = 0.0242 cu. in.

Total Volume difference = 0.0484 + 0.0242 = 0.0726 cu. in.

From https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-alloys-densities-d_50.html I chose Brass 60/40: 532 lb/ft³ x (16 oz/lb) / (12³ in³/ft³) = 4.926 oz/in³

Brass cylinder liner weight difference = 0.0726 x 4.926 = 0.358 oz.

.15 liner is 0.4 oz. lighter. Given that the .15 has a beefier cooling head, the Hobby King data appears to be more accurate it seems, putting the .15 as being 1/10th oz. lighter than the .09. Someone who has a scale and both engines could better clarify weights to settle the issue.

OK, I checked it. The motor with no muffler but with the throttle are both 4.90 oz. The muffler is .50oz. with my very slightly thicker stinger. A bit of weight could be saved by just drilling out the tapped hole in the muffler to 6mm. I did drill out the first diameter in the muffler a bit too to .284". Felt that was the limit for strength and, ahem, performance. The TD .09 weight compares well at 2.85 oz. but there is no throttle. The power is about equal. I don't consider weight of a motor a big issue, especially if there is more power. 1 or 2 oz seems like a lot as a % of the motor weight, but really it is the % of the total plane weight, and often the light motors need extra nose weight added to the plane, or at least a bit more motor mount length(weight too)

1/2A Nut Wed May 17, 2023 6:44 pm

Here is a juicy pic showing a SY performance engine the AP .09 / .15 likely spawned from.

GallopingGhostler Wed May 17, 2023 10:24 pm

Brad, thanks for posting that photo. Thumbs Up

It looks similar to another I saw a while back. From your stash of engines? Don't know much about Sanye legacy, but heard they were decent speed engines. Casting looks a little rough, guess similar to Fox they focused on the internals versus the externals.

1/2A Nut Fri May 19, 2023 8:45 am

Thank you, no not from my stash - casting is good compared to Race GZ / CS.
I may also have a pic of the pipe buried in one of my folders.

Sponsored content