its RSV Bob's fault

I've got a pair. The unique spraybar location makes fueling one of these an engineering challenge!

I see mounting one sideways with a shallow, long tank as one way to have the tank centered on the spraybar. I'm half-tempted to hang one on a crudely scratched out DMECO All American in this configuration.

The other "half-temptation" is to revisit the profile fuselage/plank wing BHM Mosquito. I'd set the engines upright and park the fuel tanks on the wing above crankshaft centerline. That way the engines won't flood out like my first try (before the custom-built pancake tanks that worked right).

Really, I need to make a flip-flop test stand and try the engine with various tank heights as I run the engine upright and flip inverted.

There are two types of NVA's, a one piece spray bar with a small orifice (hole) in the middle pointed downward in the throat that works like most do.

Then there is a two part split NVA spray bar. Each half mounts to each side of the venturi, with a portion of the needle exposed in the middle.

The preferred I am told is the first one, the one piece. This is academic for me, because my 4 - .074's and 2 - .11's have the less preferred 2-part assembly.

I've been told that the 1st is easier to adjust and hold its setting. Nonetheless they both work, ideal or not.

Good Luck , I sold all mine heavy with not much power . SO

Eric
I'm keeping your comment in mind. I also wanted to share a chuckle. Your steaming turkey was identified on my phone as something steaming. It wasn't until I zoomed in that I saw a turkey. Given your negative comment, I hope you can understand...Bwahaha!

Yes, they are heavier than our Cox's, the .074 has about the power of a Babe Bee. The .11 is more powerful but like a mild .09. Given the size of Gilbert RTF's, the .074 is a shoe-in for a .049 and the .11 somewhere just above.

I heard that the R/C crowd was using the .11 as a special Gilbert only pylon event. The selling point had good intentions, but now we know that modelers love power, and a weaker engine is not a selling point. It I believe was an experimental gamble that didn't really pay off. The Fox .09 Rocket didn't stick around but a couple years, giving way to the Fox .10 and Fox .15-X, even though the assumed marketing point was they were very easy to start and run for beginners. (I guess no one wants to be called a "beginner" )

But, in the right airframe I believe they will properly perform. I wouldn't put the .11 in a Ringmaster Jr., but a 1/2-A Dumas Tom-Tom II or a DeBolt All American Jr. would be about the right speed. The size of the Gilbert RTF's which these planes powered would be a good indication of "typical" wingspan and wing area, IMO.

Instead of comparing with Enya, OS, Cox, K&B .09's - .10's, I suppose a better comparison would be with:

Sceptre Flight Engine Tests: Frog Venom .09
0.084 BHP at 14,000 RPM on Frog Red Glow Nitrated Fuel (5%?)

Sceptre Flight Engine Tests: Fuji 099-S
0.105 BHP at 11,500 RPM on 5% nitro, 25% Castor oil.

Sceptre Flight Engine Tests: McCoy "9"
Power not stated but RPM numbers seem to compare favorably.