SACHS DOLMAR

[Tired Old Man]

Actually more so. The lumberjack that cuts wood for a living is often paid on a "piece work" basis and wants to cut as much wood as he can. That's why they hop up their equipment. We're talking some BIG engines here. Mahle is another parts manufacturer that comes into the scene when the Sachs based engines need a little boost in the breathng department.

Don't laugh at those wood cutters. They did all the engine mods we're using now in our custom engines years ago and made a bunch more money after doing so.

[rcign]

The engine is a 3.2 Sachs, 44 on the cylinder is the bore size in millimeters...
Very good engine, should work very well with a 23-8 Xoar prop.

[bcchi]

	Quote: Originally Posted by 3ddd
	if the crank is real soft and you can almost bend it with your hands,you have a real sach-dolmar engine

The true sachs crankshaft were not soft.If you have a soft crank in a Sachs engine it was a inhouse built crank from A&M. Yes you could throw the crank out of alignment by squeezeing it in your hands. You can eaisly ID the soft crank. If the engine has a machined alum rod it is a inhouse built crank. If the rod is steel with a copper color it is a true Sachs crank.The alum rod has caged needle bearings with a steel shell. With the Sachs rod the needle bearing run inside the hardened rod.
Pull the carb off and take a peek at the rod to ID. If you have a alum rod and the prop hub is running true keep flying it. Do not crash it or have a hard prop strike.
the sachs crank will fit the your crankcase. Sometimes requires a little machineing.
Not hardly worth it.
As far as I no there was not ever a True Sachs Dolmar model airplane engine.
But many engine builders used the Sachs piston and cyl and crankshaft.Most were very good and would run for ever if they used the Sachs crank.
Now I no someone will tell me about a true Sachs airplane engine . Maybe there was one, I thought I was wrong once,but found I was mistaken. Fliers are picking these up on E-bay ,some are good some are junk . Buyer beware.
It is now Sachs Maketa(sp).
BCCHI

[rcign]

There was a true Sachs engine many years ago, some engineers made a 35 or 45...I saw some pictures, the price was high, and never did see one of the engines, I guess they dropped the project..

[WangoTango]

"Now I know someone will tell me about a true Sachs airplane engine. Maybe there was one, I thought I was wrong once, but found I was mistaken."

BCCHI,
Good info on the cranks and rods. As far as the true Sachs airplane motor..... I had one and it was a true story...... Expensive, no service because the SD people folded up shop when they cashed my check! Everything else was builder motors by various companies. As far as your quote written above..... I like the way you think! Somebody out there cast from the same mold as me..... And I thought I was an original!!
WT

[bcchi]

	Quote: Originally Posted by youngflyer
	my brison 3.2 is almost identical to a sachs dolmar motor

Your Brison 3.2 does have a Sachs piston and cyl. Depending on the vintage if it has a Sachs crankshaft. All of the so called Sachs engines use the Sachs piston and cyl. Most of them use the sachs crankshaft like the Taurus and First place and FOX (very good engines). The newer Brisons used a cantalever crank one counter weight and no bearing in the rear. These were fine I have five 2.4& one 3.2. These were fine. Gary knew a lot about engine balenceing and these engines were smoother then the two counter weight Sachs crank.The new Brison sold by Kange I have not seen one but should be OK.
The problem was with the inhouse built crank made years ago by A&M. If the engine has a two counter weight crankshaft and bearing in the rear and a aluminum rod it is a inhouse build crank.
Take the carb off and take a peek at the rod. If running good fly it till the cows come home. Do not crash it or have a hard prop strike.
BCCHI

[bcchi]

	Quote: Originally Posted by rcign
	There was a true Sachs engine many years ago, some engineers made a 35 or 45...I saw some pictures, the price was high, and never did see one of the engines, I guess they dropped the project..

OK you win,I was wrong once darn it.
I believe way back I did hear of one never seen one.I no I will get flak from my statment about SACHS DOLMER. Everyone has a SACHS Dolmer. I may need help. Your order went out yesterday. I have a new circuit with new transistor very good. I sent you one 200MA module give it a test,we may have your 200,250 MA unit back.I have been flying the CHEXL ignition on ONE Li-Poly. About 400 MA battery drain. Sorry got off the subject.
BCCHI
Im am glad I live in WY.

[gumnuts]

	Quote: Originally Posted by WangoTango
	Soft crank? Some of the earlier Sachs Dolmar manufacturers included A&M, Yeager Machining, TG, Walker Machining and Air Hobbies. Just watch....... Some guy is gonna think of a way to fit 4 purple colored electric motors to a gearbox and drag a 40% bird around like no tomorrow! (HUH? They already do that!!??) AHHHHHH!!!!! The future is here!! WT

Many thanks for your info - can you tell me more about other Dolmar cylinder producers .Other than
Mahle i know squat.....have googled with little luck Aveen,A&M, Yeager Machining, TG, Walker Machining .Do you have any links to them or leads I may look into ?
- thanks again

[rcign]

5.8 Sachs use cylinders made by Kolbenschmidt...The logo looks like a "K" superimposed on an "S"...Much of the information in this thread is pure urban myth espoused by people who just plain don't know.......A Sachs Dolmar chainsaw engine converted with EI will outrun and oulast any other "made for model airplane" engine on the planet....And the magnesium alloy crankcases are in fact lighter than the
eye candy" CNC cases....
Same goes for Echo (BME, D&B) and Red Max (Zenoah) based engines...And Poulan(Brillelli) and Partner/Pioneer(Quadra).....And Precision Eagle(Sachs) and Husky Challenger(Husqvarna)..And A cubed(Sachs and/or Husky)...There are more, CRS prevails...
The letters A through D are there to get the correct fit between the piston and cylinder...Machining tolerances can vary, so the piston is matched to the cylinder....The difference is in the tenths of thoudandths...Quality control at its finest...
Walker engines came about when A&M cranks caused the demise of the the company...Walker engines used real Sachs cranks and a redesigned CNC crankcase..They were assembled by Carlos Gregada...They were acquired by Don and Carla Kanak and sold as Precision Eaglets so as not to be counfused with their other line...

[Tired Old Man]

Whoa there big fella!

You should note that a few of us have been preaching the same thing when it comes to the quality of all those "old" industrial type engines. I can still remember back to all the arguements about which was lighter and more powerful, the DA 50 or the Brison 3.2? Those in the know understood the benefits of the 3.2 over the 50. Many of them still do. Those designs put engnes like Fox, Echo, and First Place in the front of the line when it comes to life cycle and power.

[rcign]

Whoa there yourself....You know that "I" know better about you.". And Pe, and Jack, and others...".Much of the
information in this thread is pure urban myth espoused by people who just plain don't know"......Applies to the uninformed who mindlessly repeat the myths we see here all the time....like less oil = more power..And it takes X gallons of fuel or 4 hours on a test stand to break in an engine....Or "I haven't touched the factory needle settings and have run 5 gallons of fuel, how come my engine doesn't run right ?"

[flatspinjim]

Hey guys. Not trying to start a big brand war here, but why don't the Echos,FPEs, and Foxs get all the attention? A buddy of mine has an FPE and it's a VERY sweet running engine. I'm just curious here.

[rcign]

I KNEW there would be others...Chainsaw cylinders, machined cases....VERY good engines...

[Tired Old Man]

Mostly because of a lack of advertising in one form or another. Some companies have thrown a lot of money at advertising to obtain high visibility, others have started engine threads fed by a select few people based on a low purchase price. After that people jump in that may or may not have any real "hands on" with the various products.

It's not nesessarily the best longevity, best quality, or best performance that gets the attention. Not anymore in any case. If that was the case you would hear a lot more about Fox, FPE, Taurus, BME, Zenoah, and Mintor, along with DA, MVVS, and 3w. Today price is the initial qualifier in what engines are discussed in the popular R/C forums. Don't forget that R/C internet forums are much more dominant in information exchange than any other form of media now. Other, and/or much more important engine performance factors, are only after thoughts, if considered at all.

[jack strickland]

Hear hear all you engine lovers. A lot of facts in this thread, interesting. That 3.2 Sachs, by most any assembler, is a real screamer, and shaker. For you 5.8 Sachs fellows. You can get 3 of the 6 hub bolts as long as possible, and install them in line with the bob weight, this will smooth the bad shaker a little. A soft mount will be better, but the loosing mufflers and striped servo gears are better than shaking the plane to death. Did build several 8.4 twins from Sachs 4.2 jugs, turned within 100 rpm of 3W 150, smooth engine. Th 11.6 (2 ea. 5.8 Sachs jugs) was smother than the 8.4, go figure. Hi Ralph