Josey Wales

My Feedback: (61)

After messing with both my DA50's I was able to minimize the crappy midrange and inverted issues so Im looking forward to having one of those outdated old tractor engines that dont need all that attention

boomerik

I wasn't aware we buy engines "to be taken seriously" that in itself was one of the funniest comments I have seen on here to date.

Not the one who buys the people who make them why do they make them side mounted the carb sticks out its more difficult to get a good throttle control cable or rod i just don`t get it


so Im looking forward to having one of those outdated old tractor engines that dont need all that attention

Buy an MVVS they also run great right out the box and are a little bit more updated thats all.


BTW I`m not always right

Balsa Steel

My Feedback: (3)

Scott doesn't put the carbs on the side, they're already there when he gets them and converts them from saw engines to model airplane engines.



I did, and you're right. I love my 26cc!

Zippi

My Feedback: (10)

Don't put a Brillelli engine down until you have tried one. I'm one of those good ole boys that don't have a lot of money to throw around so I look for quality and the best bang for the buck. It's just not feasible to me to pay an extra $100.00 to $200.00 for an extra 5% to 10% in power which is just a click or two on the throttle stick. I can use that extra money else where. In my way of thinking, I don't care what the name of the engine is as long as it performs time and time again. I'm not putting any engines down, it's just I want something that will keep running and good. I guess I'm picky.

Panzlflyer

My Feedback: (15)

The original poster didnt ask about price....he asked about performance, reliability and weight!
1. Goes to Mvvs
2. Goes to Chainsaw...sorry Pe, both my Mvvs/Evolutions have had to go in blew gasket on the 58, now loose bearings
3. Bout the same

Zippi

My Feedback: (10)

Panzlflyer,

There is a lot more going on in this thread besides, "PERFORMENCE , RELIABILITY & WEIGH COMPARISION". Just read.

Panzlflyer

My Feedback: (15)

Yeah i know!!!
Cant get a reliable, unbiased answer anymore, however I have run both and have just finished putting a ZDZ back together again...think ill stick with DA

BaldEagel

Hi all

Interesting bias from lots of people on this thread, for my two penny worth:

Cost aside I have both the MVVS 45 and 58 pro, I had both of the other makes mentioned on here, I say had because after using the MVVS the others did not butter my turnips anymore.

Mike

closetguy

My Feedback: (13)

yep,me to after only 5 gals.of fuel my front bearings are going south in the mvvs 45,they will get replace this winter,its been said they are putting updated bearings in now,but i had to send the da in for updates also but at lease they did the labor and parts for nothing,i'll will be doing the 45 bearings myself,never had problems with gasket blow out.the da is a nice engine and will always win the beauty contest!

BTerry

My Feedback: (8)

For #1, remember the numbers on the MVVS/Evolution were obtained using a cannister, while the "chainsaw" engine used a side dump muffler.
#2, the "chainsaw" engine is designed by Husqvarna and guaranteed to run for 300 hours.
#3, the engines weigh about the same, but to obtain the increased power it requires a cannister setup. Therefore the total weight of the system is about 10 oz higher with the MVVS. [link=http://www.rcaerobats.net/GAS_ENGINE_INFO/GAS_ENGINE_WTS.htm]Find real, totally RTF weights here. [/link]

All that said, the MVVS is a very high-quality engine. All the MVVS engines I have owned have been marvelous, precision-manufactured engines. Sometimes a rear carb is more desirable than a side carb. The MVVS engines are probably ported for more useable torque than the high-revving piston-port chainsaw engine, and can probably turn a bit mroe prop when set up correctly.
At the same displacement, a reed-valve engine will have more power than a piston-port engine, and a rotary vane engine will have more power than a reed-valve engine. This is assuming all porting, bore and stroke, etc, is equivalent.

frieshoo

My Feedback: (20)

Here's my take.

One sunday afternoon, Pilot A unloaded his WH Edge with a somewhat new DA50-pitts muffler-MenzS22x8... Pilot B unloaded his H9 Extra with a brand new (never seen fuel) Evolution 45-pitts muffler-MenzS22x8.......

"Let's see what that things got" shouted Pilot A....

Pilot B fired up the 45, let warm up, leaned the the high end some, didn't touch the low end.... I got out my good ole tach.... and the 45 turned 7000! out of box...

Pilot A fired up the DA (had about a gallon through it) warmed it up.. and it was turning 7250....

The Evolutions are expensive, and some had ring problems, but Horizon stood behind the product.... We have at least 5 45's at our field, and 2 58's... I like the 45's better the 58... If money is not an issue I would by the Evolution 45 every time....

BTW, I have 2 Brillelli's and Love them... (neither is the 46).

outssider

My Feedback: (23)

This is what I suspected !!! Now your comparison is completely unfair....

STG

My Feedback: (26)

Where did you find this info? I am looking for more info on this motor. Bore/stroke ect.

BTerry

My Feedback: (8)

STG,

Brillelli uses the Poulan Pro short block engine as a base, and Poulan Pro engines are made by Husqvarna. My post should have stated "designed to run for 300 hours", not "guaranteed to run for 300 hours", referring to the OEM manufacturer (Husqvarna). Brillelli has a complete 2 year warranty IIRC.

I can't remember where I read the 300 hr design operating minimum, I will look it up later. It was either in RCU or Flyinggiants. Note this is time before any failure (ring, bearing, wristpin, etc), not time before the engine is worn out. That is under the intermittent high-RPM/high-load, poor cooling, bad gas, dirty environment seen by a chainsaw.

I don't think I have ever approached 50 hours of operation time on an engine, let alone 300 hours.

I don't know the bore/stroke or port timing of the engine. I think it has been posted.

I would like to see what the engine can do with a properly tuned exhaust.

Pe Reviers, I want to mention that I think your prop power/thrust spreadsheet is very good and appears to be accurate. It is very easy to use and self-explanatory. I use it all the time!

Brett

pe reivers

The issue is not of fair or unfair comparison.
I cannot run my 45 with the brilelli exhaust system, because it is not available over here (in my shop). Anyone run a Brilelli using the MVVS 3204 canister? I would love to compare those data and continue on even footing.
The question in the thread is one of data, which I provided. Brilelli provides 6600 rpm as target rpm for that prop, not the 6900 I compared with.
I am not shooting down Brilelli. Converted chainsaw engines are famous for their reliability and thus will have scores of pilots opting for them. No doubt about that. Furthermore, Brilelli has succeeded in lowering the weight to such an extent, that it is competitive, even if the power , or rather torque, output will not match the MVVS's. Wanting a foothold for a piece of the cake, he has low prices for the moment which makes the engine even more interesting.
There are however basic differences in side ported engines and rotary or reed ported engines. The 45 mvvs being reed ported gives a huge advantage in low end torque and ease of operation. The Brilelli will never be happy with the large props like 24x10 that the MVVS can handle, even with the right exhaust system. Chainsaw cylinders in general are ported for about 9000 rpm, and will become evermore unhappy if forced to operate down the range.

My honest opinion:
This whole thread concerns a comparison that should not be. The basic differences are too large, and the outcome is obvious from the start. I just try to make the best out of it.

STG

My Feedback: (26)

I think it is a comparison that needs to be made, as I just considered both these motors for my next project.

My guess is that at least 75% of the people comparing these two motors on RCU plan on running it on the lightest pitts muffler that they can find and not the MVVS 3204 canister on the MVVS. For the sake of comparison, then how about comparing the two motors this way as an option?

From the limited #'s I have seen it would give the MVVS45 a bit more weight and about 1/2 H.P. more with a 22x8 prop (high 6’s to low 7’s range).

How does this translate to power on a plane? For 3D flying--My guess is that if you like the way the B46 on pitts pulls a 14-pound plane, then you can expect the MVVS45 on pitts to pull a 15-pound plane that same way.

pe reivers

STG,
I think 3Ddyno started this thread as a troll. Post an obvious question, and then sit back and enjoy the discussion unfold. However, many consider using engines in this range, so are extremely interested in the results.
Now... If someone sends me a comparative muffler that I can bolt to the 45 mvvs without ruining it, I would be most happy to test it and end the apples and pears story.

STG

My Feedback: (26)

There is someone running the MVVS45 in a ~12pound plane with a very light side dump muffler. Sorry, can't remember exactly the specifics--think it was in the 74" E.F. Yak thread. If I remember right, he said that he got the custom muffler from Just Engines.

Do you have a pitts muffler that you can run on the MVVS45 to compare against the canister? I know pitts to pitts is not fair either as a louder free flowing muffler will typically yield significantly better results (like the stock DA 50 pitts).

-------------
I would expect that the MVVS45 would show a significant power advantage if loaded closer to the low 6's power range (23 or 24 in prop) and a semi tuned for that RPM canister. The MVVS45 bore/stroke ratio and porting is much more optimized for this rpm.

If one is running a pitts and wants fast spool up for 3D, then for practical purposes, comparing with smaller props and loading them in the high 6's to low 7's range is a fair test.

pe reivers

The MVVS realy is not designed to operate on a high back pressure low volume muffler, as opposed to garden appliance engines and chainsaws.
If I were to conduct a back-to-back test of both engines, I would design a tuned pipe for each, tune them for the engine's sweet spot, and then compare power curves. That would show the true merit of each engine, and provide a basis for the choice side muffler to be used.
The MVVS side muffler looses about 800 rpm over a well adjusted canister. This engine just hates side mufflers. Thanks to our noise restrictions, they are all but useless so canisters or tuned/muffled pipes is the only way to go.

pe reivers

To continue on the engine sweet spot, I present a good example on Zenoah 62 data. Presented are 6 power curve of which one is the original side muffler, two are pitts mufflers, and three are differently adjusted tuned pipes. It is interesting to see the very flat original power curve, the power loss by the pitts, and also the wide power band of the tuned pipe when adjusted at high rpm. For the Zenoah, this high rpm is the sweet spot, and clearly the design target of that engine.

BTerry

My Feedback: (8)

Pe,
thanks for the great information. Those are the kind of curves I like to see and I wish more manufacturers would or could publish this type of information.

You are exactly correct about the relative torque curves of a reed valve engine compared to a piston port engine. The reed valve engine can have a significant torque advantage and is happy swinging much more prop load at a lower RPM range than the piston port engine.

A properly tuned intake and exhaust system on a piston port engine can produce a tremendous amount of power at high rpm, but cannot always overcome the low-end torque advantage of broader port timing of an engine with reed-porting or rotary vane porting. Higher backpressure exhaust systems on a piston-port engine can enhance operation somewhat by contstraining a bit of fuel/air charge within the cylinder, rather than allowing it to pass through the engine. It is a short, straight shot from the carb to the muffler through the piston. As a result it should respond favorably to a tuned exhaust system.

Also, unless the flying field is in a remote location, most people will eventually choose to (or be forced to) gravitate towards a quieter system. The simple side-dump mufflers on screaming gas engines quite often lead to lost flying fields through complaints from neighbors.

I remember seeing the video of Quique Somenzini flying his small Yak with the Evolution 26cc engine and being less than impressed with the power, but seeing the same engine on Dick Hanson's similar-sized plane with a pipe and being blown away by the power. Proper exhaust makes a tremendous difference and should be considered as part of the engine.

Price difference between the two designs is obvious.

Power is subjective; thrust in the mid-throttle range is certainly more important than a screaming high-end, so in mid-range applications a properly tuned reed-valve engine is desirable.

Weight is similar.

The best thing to do is look at the benefits and shortcomings of each design, decide which type will fit your plane, and weigh these against your wallet and desired type of flying (eg. do I make lots of full-throttle flights, or do I want better midrange torque and acceleration?'), and make an educated guess.

The answer is not always obvious, just as WOT tachometer readings do not always tell the complete story regarding an engine's useability.

Sorry everybody my post is getting too long.

Brett

STG

My Feedback: (26)

If you are comparing both these motors for a 13.5 pound 3D plane and plan to run:
1) Lightest muffler available--not worried about the noise restrictions (most people comparing these motors plan to run light pitts)
2) Fastest spool-up so 21x8 or 20x10 prop

Do you think that with the above criteria that the MVVS will provide a significant better midrange torque and acceleration?

My guess is that both these motors will spool a light wood 21" or 20"prop very fast from idle to full rpm with pitts (high 6's to low 7's)--leaving little room to talk about midrange torque and acceleration.

Put both these motors on a 16.5 pound 3D plane with tuned exhaust and larger 23" prop and then you may see that the MVVS will provide a significant better midrange torque and acceleration.
____________
pe reivers, I do thank you for your great contribution to RCU

Bterry, I enjoy reading your posts.

frieshoo

My Feedback: (20)

The 45 would not last long turning a 20x10, or 21x8...
with the horizon pitts muffler, you would approach 8000rpms with those props...
maybe a MSC 20x10, but you would have a very fast 13.5lb 3D bird...

One consideration would be 3 bladed 21" prop... We tried one on a Evolution 45, and it seemed like a good match. The prop was a wood bolly 3 blade (not sure if they are still available)..

I have thought about trying my Evolution 45 on a UltraRC Giles, but changed my mind.

STG

My Feedback: (26)

You can slow the plane down by backing off on the throttle when the plane is not headed straight up.

MVVS45 with pitts turning a good wood 21x8 close to 8,000 static? [&:] This sounds very optimistic?

BaldEagel

Have a look at this its the difference between a Pitts and Cannister on the MVVS 45 1100rpm inprovement.

http://media.putfile.com/MVVS-45-Mag...-and-Cannister

Mike