Video

Both the Righter or McCulloch 0-15-3 engines and the 30 x 30 propellers come across ebay several times a year. Good Hunting to you.

Thanks for your comments. I was very lucky to acquire it and even luckier to find it in the excellent condition it was at purchase. I knew I had to run it.

You are most welcome. The definitive story on the Chrysler XI-2220 engine is available here: weakforcepress.com/CAE/CAE_3e.shtml

Thanks for your comments. It is an air-cooled engine which requires significant air flow over the cylinders to dissipate the combustion heat. That and my desire to keep the engine and operation as original as possible dictates the use of a propeller for both engine cooling and the necessary leverage for hand-starting.

Thanks for your comments. There is no specification for the use of alcohol fuel in the manuals for the for the production WWII drone engines (0-15-1, 0-15-3, 0-45-1, post war 0-45-35). The post-WWII McCulloch 0-100-1/-2 manual specifies 115/145 octane gasoline mixed 10 to 1 with two stroke oil. Once 115/145 gasoline disappeared, alcohol would be a potential alternative although the engine would be down on power, range/duration on the same fuel tank would be diminished, and corrosion would rear its ugly head despite the oil content.

Thanks for your comments. My goal for this engine, as well as my other WWII drone engines, is to run it and preserve it in as close to the original state as safe running allows. Hot rodding or pushing the only runner of its kind tempts failure. But if I had five of them, or access to parts, you bet, tweak-city...

Thanks for your comments. It is an artifact that is fun to share.

Yes, two-stroke, simultaneously-firing in opposed cylinders. Aft cylinders fire 180 degrees after fore cylinders.

Thanks for your comment. I had to look that up. Looks like the pony motor is 4 stroke. Pretty cool: czcams.com/video/CEyQyZXi0F0/video.html

@@tomfey6020 The later ones are not so much part of the main motor, but sat on top and was removable.

Thanks. The 17 horsepower is accurate and based on Righter literature. The WWII drone engines were based on chain saw and outboard motor technology of the late 1930's/early 1940's. They were low dynamic compression (4.2 to 1), ran on 71 octane fuel at 6 to 1 fuel to oil ratio, spun only to 3,800 rpm, designed to be rapidly and cheaply produced (wide tolerances), easily maintained in harsh environments by semi-skilled crew, and ultimately destroyed. The 4-0-34 is essentially a doubled 0-15-3 (277 cc) engine which made 8 horsepower. A later WWII drone engine, the 0-45-1 (747 cc) made 20 to 22 horsepower, and the hot rod 1946 0-45-35 engine (747 cc) made 35 horsepower on a 6.2 to 1 compression ratio using 91 octane fuel at 6 to 1 fuel to oil ratio. www.enginehistory.org/Piston/WW2Drone/WW2Drone6.shtml

Thanks. I'm still looking for a better run.

Thanks for your comments. It is satisfying for me and all this within a quarter mile to see and hear it run.

Thanks for your comments. The two-cylinder Righter/McCulloch 0-15-3 engines (one half of the 4-0-34) are fairly common and they made about 8 horsepower when new. They are very loud, relatively low torque, awkward to start, awkward to mount, would need a flywheel, they vibrate like crazy (simultaneously firing) and idle rather high. I doubt they would cool adequately unless baffled and moving at least 60 mph or so as a guess. Wide open throttle at 3,800 rpm they pulled the OQ-3/TDD-2 drone at 102 mph for up to an hour before fuel ran out.

All fun for me.

The plug specified in the manual is Champion 6-COM-62 gapped to 0.020 inches.

Thanks for your comments. It is a fun little engine and not as angry/terrifying as the 4-cylinder, 72 horsepower McCulloch 0-100's.

Thanks for your comments. These rotary valve WWII drone engines were built on outboard and chain saw motor technology of the late 1930's and designed for mass production at low cost. They were low compression, expendable, and non-man carrying. Righter already had in production a 2-cylinder, 2 stroke 45 cubic inch engine (0-45-1) that was making 20 to 22 horsepower. The choice to make a small displacement, 17 hp, 4 cylinder is mysterious. And yes, the 4-0-34 is quite a bit smoother than the opposed twins. www.enginehistory.org/Piston/WW2Drone/WW2Drone5.shtml

This engine has a relatively low true dynamic compression of 4.2 to 1 and the manuals for the progenitor 0-15-3 engine specify AN-F-23 = 71 octane fuel with a 6 to 1 fuel to oil ratio. I use 91 octane, 100% gasoline with modern 2-stroke oil at 8 to 1 ratio for longevity and theatre. The spark plugs don't care.

@@tomfey6020 Thanks for that info Tom. Are you on the lookout for a McCulloch H.O. 2-stroke drone engine? I bet they're equally thin on the ground.

​@@andrerousseau5730 , the 8 hp, opposed twin, 277 cc, 0-15-3 engines made by McCulloch or Righter, and the 30 x 30 propellers, are relatively plentiful, but are found in varying condition and completeness, and come across ebay a few times a year. The propeller hubs and Tillotson YC3A carbs are getting ever harder to find. I have a resurrected Righter 0-15-3 in my collection: czcams.com/video/npX-PWSFieQ/video.html

This engine, like the other WWII target drone engines (all 2 stroke) had no exhaust system. They were cheap, expendable engines built on the chain saw and outboard motor technology of the late 1930's and early 1940's. www.enginehistory.org/Piston/WW2Drone/WW2Drone1.shtml

Those are my "first start" shorts. Sexy beast...

Thanks and congrats on Pelican 22. I''ll neve have a Griffon 57 engine, but I do have a 1943 Righter 2-GS-17 CRP drone engine: czcams.com/video/HruyTW7c_4o/video.html

Thank you. It is an oddity. Righter had been making a very successful, mass-produced 22 horsepower, 2 cylinder, 2-stroke, 45 cu. in. engine (0--45-1) for 2 years, so why they decided to make a 17 horsepower 4 cylinder is a bit of a mystery.

@@tomfey6020 I grew up in the 1950’s and the first engine I ever “made run” with a round gas tank that held about a quart and a carburetor from a generous neighbor was a Briggs and Stratton W washing machine engine with a vent in the upper side of the crankcase opposite the exhaust. It’s the only one I’ve ever seen with a factory crankcase vent. I was about nine years of age. Great history. Thank you.

@@karlelliott9254 , thanks for your comments. Old engines of any type have their quirks and fascinations. Getting any of them to run is extremely satisfying.

Congrats on taking on that challenge! I suspect the CO2 or pressurized gas supply system would be quite a challenge for such a large engine.

@tomfey6020 Sorry, I didn't mention that was 60 years ago. I was using compressed air at about 25 psi.

@@tsbrownie , I did some system leak testing on the little Herkimer motor with a shrader nipple soldered on to a spent CO2 cartridge, fed by a bicycle pump. I had a lot of tinkering fun.

Why could you possibly need to know ?

@@tonywright8294 because I’m thinking to make one myself?

This tank was purchased directly from Boyd Welding: fueltankparts.com/

@@tomfey6020 thanks. I’ll look them up.

Thank you. No gearbox, rated 17 hp @ 3,800 rpm when it was new, swings a 30 inch diameter propeller x 32 inch pitch targeted for +/- 140 mph.

@@tomfey6020 i can't get over it's design, and power characteristics. A modern 500 ohc gives maybe 50 hp max, but the motor is enormous. One of 9? lucky fella. 🙏 😊

@@nothinghere1996 , lucky indeed. In 1946 Kiekhaefer made a twin-cylinder, two-stroke 0-45-35 drone engine that made 35 horsepower and weighed +/- 40 pounds: www.enginehistory.org/Piston/WW2Drone/WW2Drone5.shtml

@@tomfey6020 outstanding. are you going to put the motor into a real plane? would it have enough power, or is for model aircraft?

@@nothinghere1996 , no, this engine won't be flown in a model or full-scale aircraft. It is too heavy for its power for model aircraft and not powerful enough to safely fly a full-scale aircraft. Modern engines are better in every respect except they don't have the oddball history of the Righter 4-0-34.

I haven't quite sorted that out as it is intermittent and I don't like it. I think the miss is likely caused by the ignition system (fore cylinder points; aft cylinder points, or both sets of points) misfiring one or two revs, then coming back online. It doesn't happen at speed, rather at mid or low idle. The timer assembly is directly grounded, the point condition, point gap, and ignition timing spec out correctly, two new condensers have been installed, the (vintage) spark plugs are in excellent condition, and the plug wires and dual coils are new. If it keeps up I will change all four plugs to eliminate that possibility, then change all 4 spark plug wires. However, the misfire has not occurred in the last three runs on the current equipment. Go figure. Thanks.

Lean pop maybe has air leak somewhere

@@cheeseandpickles98 , thanks. The crankshaft has new, modern seals at both ends replacing the old spring-loaded leather seals and new gaskets all around. But if it is lean issue, I can just ritchen up the mixture, see it cures the stutter. The stumble only happens at idle, never when above 2,500 RPM.

Tom Fey can be emailed at doolittlefey@aol.com. Also: czcams.com/video/npX-PWSFieQ/video.html

Thanks for your question. The is an air-cooled aircraft engine which requires significant airflow over the cylinders to prevent the cylinders from exceeding proper operating temperatures.

Thanks! The engine is used only for short duration demo running, and the noise is part of its charm. It is used as a siren call at Oshkosh to draw spectators over to the Vintage in Review program. I'm also reluctant to alter any of the engine's originality beyond items required for safe running.

Thanks. I got lucky with this engine and it is a joy to see and hear it run.

Thanks for your comments. The Righter 4-0-34 has one third the displacement and one-quarter the horsepower of the McCulloch 0-100's in the post-war target drones, so perhaps the Righter is the diminutive grandfather. They are built to, and operate on, a shared basic design.

​@@tomfey6020>>> I was wondering how this engine compared to a McCulloch. I thought it looked smaller.

@@tomfey6020 Thanks for the info. At first I thought it was a waste to shoot them down and let them rot in the desert, then realized it was for the country's good.

@@PineValleyDigital , thanks for your service. Over 76,000 of the Post-WWII, McCulloch 0-100 powered Radioplane/Northrop target drones (OQ-19/MQM-33/BTT series) were produced and consumed by the US and multiple other countries.

Thanks for your comments. The MADO MD-550 drone engine is a reed valve engine, not rotary valve like the Righter 4-0-34 and McCulloch 0-100 engines, and is derived from the German Limbach L550E.

Thanks for your comments. The McCulloch 0-100-1 and -2 engines used in the gyrocopters and the post WWII Radioplane/Northrop gunnery targets were 100 cubic inches displacement and made 72 or 90 horsepower, respectively. That is quite a bit more displacement, horsepower, and weight than the Righter 4-0-34A.

SHAHED Drone engines was made on this base .

Thank you for your comment. The numbering is organizational, only to keep track of where the original yet mismatched cylinders were found when the engine was acquired. You are correct in that McCulloch 0-100's are conventionally numbered 1 (front port), 2 (front starboard), 3 (port rear), 4 (starboard rear).

Thanks for your comments. All fun for me.

Thanks for your comments. I do like old mechanical stuff!

I have done demonstration runs at Oshkosh and that is the extent of my plans for the engine. It is too rare, too low power, and too heavy for much else.

@@tomfey6020 I bet it would work on a go kart, which would make it easier to load/unload at an event 👍

@@Iowa599 Thanks. The whole running stand assembly weighs around 120 pounds and the intact assembly fits in the back of a Honda Odyssey van. The engine would never cool itself without a propeller and it is the only runner of its kind. It needs to be babied until the next caretaker.

Did you cut the roof off the Odyssey & make a snub nose pickup? i would.

No, the engine in the video is a Righter 4-0-34A engine, not a McCulloch. Although the designs are similar, the common 4-cylinder McCulloch engines have 100 cubic inches of displacement and make 72 to 90 horsepower while the Righter 4-0-34A has 34 cubic inches of displacement and produces 17 horsepower.

Thank you for your comments. My goal is to run it with the original, unmodified, stamped brass propeller with some transom weight and post an update. Stay tuned.

Lucky you! They are really cool engines. Not the most powerful, perhaps not the best engineered or built, but the cool factor is very high.

I am not aware of the existence or location of drawings for the Herkimer Twin. But depending on the size of your project aircraft, a WWII target drone engine might be a possibility: czcams.com/video/npX-PWSFieQ/video.html

There are no suppliers of factory parts beyond what collectors and museums have acquired. Try AUVM.net. More typically, collectors acquire a second engine for parts, but the 2-GS-17 is becoming more scarce. I made my own props for safety when running in public as the originals are now 80 years old. Try "WWII Dronehead" on Facebook or doolittlefey@aol.com for help.