DC Wasp .049

NEW222 wrote: Lastly, for now anyways, is that a propritary glow plug in the head for the Wasp? Never seen one like that before.

That's an Enya glow plug by the look of it.

The Wasp first appeared in 1971-and was very much a standard 049-comparable in power to the Babe Bee.....and a much better engine than the DC Bantam it superseded. It also gave rise to the 'badge engineered' Frog Venom (otherwise identical but with 'Frog' on the case rather than 'DC Ltd'..) and internally the same. Two separate tanks were available-a cylindrical one attached to the backplate by a single screw and a bell shaped combined tank.radial mount-which cleverly had the same mounting footprint and lug spacing as the Cox tanked reed valve 049s. these latter tanks can be found plain or anodised red-as can the cylinder head fins. The rarest variant is the DC Bee-where they machined off the beam mounting lugs, fitted the radial tank mount as standard and anodised any parts normally coloured a distinctive yellow.

The Wasp was very cheap in its day-I remember buying one retail here in Dunedin NZ for a mere $7.95 NZ about 1973....that was even less than a Babe Bee from the same shop-and certainly the cheapest engine ever sold new in NZ....still plenty of them around -though you don't see many actually in use on models...

As regards plugs-DC did sell their own plugs-and had a suitable one for the Bantam and Wasp-their EG 150...shown fitted to the Bee below....these were 1.5V and of a fairly squat appearance...their saving grace was they worked quite well on dry cell batteries-which were all most beginners had [DC did sell a suitable glow connector wired for a special Eveready heavy duty dry cell





ChrisM
'ffkiwi'

A 5x3 is probably underpropping it slightly-I found they ran well on a 6x3 ....they were after all just a sport motor-no pretensions to high performance. 15% fuel is about the ideal-and if memory serves is what the AM engine test of the Wasp employed. A word of warning-fitting a silencer-well at least the OEM DC one-caused a massive power loss.Here is a precis'd version of the original 1971 test (originally published in the July 1971 Aeromodeller)


ChrisM
'ffkiwi'

You will hopefully enjoy diesels-once you acquire the flicking and setting skills....in some respects they are quite different to glows...in others similar. The biggest difference you will find is that the compression adjustment has far more effect in a diesel than the needle setting.....in fact its the primary control-not the needle valve....within limits, diesels will happily run over a wide range of needle valve settings-but for a given fuel and a given prop, only one compression setting will give you smooth peaked out running...obviously for economy and efficiency, you want the needle at optimum as well.....but diesels will throttle quite well by backing off (ie reducing) the compression setting and richening the needle setting.....which is quite useful when reduced power is needed for trimming...

....on the debit side, they do tend to make quite a lot of mess running-and some folks (and most wives!!....) dislike the smell of the fuel and/or exhaust residue. Contrary to popular belief in the US....they are NOT cheaper to run than glows....they have lower FUEL CONSUMPTION....but if that fuel is three or four times the price of glow fuel....then your actual operating costs may not be any cheaper

ChrisM
'ffkiwi'

I have seen both of these engines pulling the KK Firefly very nicely.



I sould also recommend removing the starter spring and catch plate on the Merlin. While the spring starter does work - if you decide to flick the propeller - it is likely that you will catch one of the sharp points of the catch plate - a true finger ripper!

Well running hard on the heels of the introduction of the Wasp in the middle of 1971-and actually preceding publication of the Peter Chinn engine test in the July 71 issue of Aeromodeller, the Aeromodeller staff were so enamored of the Wasp (no doubt in comparison with the insipid performance of its predecessor the Bantam) that they designed a fully flapped semi scale P-40 Kittyhawk fully flapped stunter which was published as a full size free pullout plan in the June 1971 issue. A quick search of Outerzone suggests it is not among their extensive listings....but it is plan CL1112 according to the APS plans coding...

22" span....but a bit lacking in wing area IMO.....

ChrisM
'ffkiwi'

It is actually plan number CL1122 and is titled “Kittywasp”.

I have never seen one built or in flight but it is very similar to the KK Radian with a wingspan of 22” and these I have seen flying pattern.

Found the plan