Doug47

My Feedback: (24)

Fact's all. I'm not complaining either !
It's no big deal, .60..61-.65, what's it all matter anyway ?
None of us are international competitors or anything of the like. Good engines are good engines two stroke or four.
Displacement differences that trivial (.61-.65) don't even really matter, all the other internal stuff is what makes the difference.
It kind of reminds me of when Tower will do these silly 'combos' where some high performance aircraft will include a plain bearing trainer type motor .
A .65 LA for instance would not be any advantage over the 60's-61's guys are talking about here.
BTW, my new Rossi 60 has been one sweet handling and a.. hauling motor. Don't hesitate if you'd been considering one. Doug

energyman

My Feedback: (2)

Doug,

What exhaust system are you using on the Rossi? Isthe enginethe
AXE Rossi 35R60? Thanks.

Energyman

AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken

My Feedback: (180)

I've got some final numbers on the OS .65AX with 11x7 and 11x8 APC props if anyone is interested.
Numbers are peak using 15% Cool Power, OS 8 plug.
Stock muffler:
11x7 - 13,000
11x8 - 12,400

Macs long header cut to 4.5" and 1060 muffled pipe (there was no gain in RPM from 4.75 to 4.5"):
11x7 - 14,800
11x8 - 14,000

Full throttle run time with 16oz tank, 11x8 prop, on pipe at ~ 13,600 RPM. - 8 min 15 seconds. (Roughly 2oz/min)

I see my numbers are very close to KLXMASTER14's.

Jeff Worsham

My Feedback: (28)

I think those are very respectable numbers and within 100-200 rpm of my old rossi .60 running same 11-8 and 11-7 props on 15% fuel at 5800' elev (that was on a cool morning here and helped compensate for the higher elev). Sounds like the .65 AX is keeper!

Doug47

My Feedback: (24)

Hi, it's the stock tuned pipe and header that comes with the 35R60 with a tuned pipe and header for 289.00. It is a 'muffled" (Not much ,that's for sure !) tuned pipe. The manner of attaching the exhaust extension, the header and the tuned pipe itself are all very muchso first rate by any standard.
http://shop.vendio.com/RossiEnginesU...184/index.html
I ordered this motor on the phone from the company who rran the ad I posted here and had it in 3 days, West coast to Ohio.
I am very pleased with all aspects of this motors performane, how easy it was to dial in, how non-critical the needle is. very ,very nice motor.
Plus, the front bearing anyway is a sealed ceramic one...no kidding. I haven't looked at the rear one but as far as the front goes there's no question what it is. Doug

lfinney

My Feedback: (44)

your motor is the five port version, a 10 mm carb would unleash it......

Doug47

My Feedback: (24)

Holy Cow lfinney !
It's hard enough to keep my 55 year old brain leashed to this thing now. Wow. . Doug

pitstop000

My Feedback: (26)

Sport_Pilot

Actually it is a much stronger engine than the .61 FX, and from the numbers Ihave seen is about as good as the .65 AX, at least with muffler and 11-8 prop. However, the older OS, Webra's, Rossi's, HP, OPS, YSetc would outperform the present OS offerings.

Doug47

My Feedback: (24)

Maybe there's some confiusion about the .65LA.
Like all O.S. motors it's well made, dependable, etc. but it's way down in performance compared to the FSR,SF,FX,AX and it's not particularly close. It's a fine engine for trainers and mellow sport flying.
It's got that little air bleed carburetor, all plain bearings and cost a lot less than the others and shouldn't be expected to run with the higher performance ball bearing motors, and it doesn't. Doug

Sport_Pilot

I think the FSR and SF may out perform the LA .65, but the 65 outperformed theFX by more than a bit. In fact the .61 FX is a bit of a dog on performance.

IMO OS is no longer that well made. Better than motors from China, but thats about it. Well at least the two strokes, the four strokes are better than that but the bearings seem to go out a lot.

AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken

My Feedback: (180)

It was the remote needle valve that was the achilles heel on the FX line of OS engines. I never had one that didn't leak. I'm very impressed with the new .65AX. It starts easily, the carb is excellent and it puts out real usable power with small or large props.

energyman

My Feedback: (2)

Thanks Doug,

It is the same engine I have on my Tiger Tail III. 14,000 rpm on APC 11x8 with full length long Mac header. It also has the 8mm carb. I have some of the 10mm carbs and they do bump the rpm some, but Rossi had some issues with the idle needle on the 10mm carb that has been fixed by providing longer idle needles.

Energyman

alex24

The S414 16 ounce Cylinder Fuel Tank is soon to be available from Tower Hobbies!
[link]http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXCLRX&P=7[/link]

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

On the other hand..
An O.S. .61FX in a scratched 6.5 lb Super Kaos (2 seasons ago), 11.3K to 11.8K on stock mufller, 11x7 Rev-Up,using 10% home brew, was plenty fast with plenty vertical. Same O.S. .61FX in 7.5 lb H9 P-7 last season on same prop, same fuel,flew fine but could've used more rpms for stronger vertical. Same O.S. .61FX this season on same P-7 with APC 11x7, same fuel, but with Macs long header and 1062 quiet pipe is running 13.2K to 13.8K and it's on the rich side (idles at 3.5K and transitions nicely). One can touch the cylinder head after shut down so room to lean yet. Sooo, from my experience, it's a far cry from a being a dog (it's one of three I have).


And to date the bearings are holding up just fine...

Sport_Pilot

I said a bit of a dog, it is not a complete dog.  And compared to the older OS's it is.   It should have turned over 14,000 with a pipe to come close to an FSR.  I have an HP Gold Cup that will out turn that with a muffler compared to your tuned pipe numbers.  But to be fair it was desinged to be quite and perform with the stock muffler and  with larger props.  The LA .65 would outperform it but would be better with an 11-8 rather than a 11-7.

Doug47

My Feedback: (24)

That is absurd, and there's no expert, of whom I consider Clarence Lee to be one, in the world who would agree with that statement.
Also, the only .61FX that a 65LA would outperform or even come close to it would be one with a major problem.
The 65 LA is a fine little sport motor, but it's a mildly tuned, plain bearing engine. We have two guys in our club with .61FX's that run super, I had one for the last three years I ran the daylights out of before making a trade with another guy in the club for it and it's still running strong.
The 65 LA does have the capability of spinning some larger props at good rpm, due entirely to the aforementioned mild port timing. Performance that would be good for slow flying 'Cub' type applications. For instannce it may well turn more rpm with a 14x6 than a motor with more radical port timing and a carburetor that flows tweice the air/fuel.
A tuned pipe on a motor with port timing like the 65LA has and with that carburetor would give a performance increase only of the auditory hallucination type.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But not their own facts . Doug

Doug47

My Feedback: (24)

From R/C Report re-printed for O.S. this article says you're wrong :
http://www.osengines.com/reviews/osmg0561-rcr.html
Then you have the only HP Gold Cup ever made to do such a thing. Come on.
Then again, your 65 La is something really special to, isn't it ?
What's with all the BS?
Doug

Sport_Pilot

The numbers on the web page show this to be only an average performer. And proves the fact it was designed for low noise not better performance. Note it is compared to the standard SF with an 11-7 prop which was not the prop you would normallyuse on the SF. In the May 2003 MAN .60shoot out the OS .61 FX was among the worst performers. In fact the Magnum OS clone was probably the worst.The LA .65 was better than the FX .61 and the Tower .61 and Fox .61 were the best performers. No Jett's, FSR's, OPS, or YS engines which would likely blow them all away.

My Gold Cup would run just under 14,000 RPM with a Semco muffler with a 11-7 prop. Don't remember which brand prop.Not sureof the fuel. I do recall Ihad to find the right glow plug so the nitro might have been a bit high.

This has nothing to do with build quality. That is rather the number of pealed liners, broken bearings, etc that seems to be problematic with modern OS engines.

landeck

My Feedback: (1)

I have 2 FSR 61s (actually a 61 and a 60), 3 SF 61s, and 1 FX 61. All but one FSR is in a plane I am currently flying. The SFs and FX have 12x7 APC props. The SFs I have been flying since the late '80s and the FX for the last 5 years. None of them has ever given me a bit of trouble and they are among my favorite engines. The FX is in a H9 Pulse XT 60 and gives all of the power you could ever want. The loops take up the whole sky, verticle is great, and the reliablility is outstanding. The rear needle valve has caused no problems. There is no way I see the FX as being any kind of "dog." I love my SFs but I love my FX too.

Bruce

AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken

My Feedback: (180)

It's called "Trolling".
From Wikipedia: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3

ChiefK

True enough.... but I've been biting my tongue for a while now waiting for the engine chatter to return to Dirty Birdy chatter. I do my engine talk on the Webra thread.

ChiefK

AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken

My Feedback: (180)

Heading out to fly one now.

Sport_Pilot

Not trolling. Since when is callinga somewhat underperforming engine a bit of a dog inflamitory? Its just aengine a hunk of metal. Not even made by anyone we know,except perhapsif someone from Japan is lurking.Nno one should be upset about what I sayabout a hunk ofmetal.Rather suprised buy the response actually. IMO It is just a fewOS fans overeacting. I am fond of the older OS engines, the only issue with the older engines is weight. But have not been fond of some ofthe newer engines.,

Isaid it is a bit of a dog based on performance. But also said it was designed that way because they wanted a quite engine that would work well with the muffler backpressure. To that end they did well.

The LA actually outperforms the FX, especiallywith the larger props, not a lie, not a troll,it was about the third rated engine in the oldMAN shoot out. But I would prefer the FX over the LA because of the bushed bearings and air bleed carb. I think the later FX's solved the peeled liner probles as well. The 65 AX seems more powerful than the FX or LA but not more than some of the high priced powerhouse's of the day. Perhaps the newer Rossi, Novi Rossi, and Jetts would do this but comparing these engines is not really fair.

ChiefK

I thought I was ready too... until I noticed that my throttle arm was rubbing on the cowl.

Is that a house across the street..... ? Must be your driveway, not your flying field.

See how sharp I am!!!

ChiefK