uf-engineer

I have owned Super Tiger engines in the past and have been reasonably happy with them. The Super Tiger engines I have owned in the past were made in Italy. I just purchased one (made in China) and am questioning my purchase. The quality and metallurgy seems questionable. Does anyone have any experience with the newer Super Tiger engines?

Are they good engines or should I pay a bit more $$ and get something else? What are the fuel requirements? I typically use 15% nitro and 19% synthetic oil.

Thanks
MC

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

MC:

All I've seen on the Red Chinese ST engines says they are actually a bit better than the Italian ones, 'specially the carbs on the 2300 and larger engines.

Bill.

uf-engineer

What about the smaller engines like the g51. It’s a ringed engine.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

MC:

I've heard nothing bad about any of the new production engines. All comments have been positive, except a somewhat rough external finish. Red Chinese engines all seem to share this characteristic.

Bill.

uf-engineer

As long as it runs better than it looks, I'll be happy.

uf-engineer

I'm considering an OS 46ax. How does the OS compare with the g51?

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

I will not buy a current OS two stroke. Just too many other engines available for lower prices with equal or better quality and power.

Many peoiple are already very pleased with the 46AX so it can't be all bad.

Paying $120 for a $60 engine I will not do.

Bill.

AMB

I have to make a comment about engine finish (cosmetics only) and I think Bill will agree with me I am the proud owner of a new FOX 50 ringed engine I was lucky enough to have one made up through the efforts of Bob Davis and his long lasting relationship with fox the case has a dull finish and the backplate has anything but a smooth finish its whats inside that counts I am sure they have looked this way since 1948 this is one of the strongest engines on the market for power Jett first then Rossi than fox the rest follow ) (by the way a pix is on the diesel site) Glitter means nothing so youe ST is fine
they are strong long lastining engine check under the hood of your car and take a look at the block its not smooth and polished either martin

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Martin:

Total agreement on the outer appearance. If our engines were priced on the externals the Fox engines, in most cases, would be free, the new OS 46AX would also be free, and they would pay you to fly one of the EVOs.

Haw.

Bill.

yellerchamp

My Feedback: (42)

I have to comment here I am not a expert but have two of the new st 51 ringed engine's and have had great performance. I actually had a new os 46ax shell its liner after @20 flights. For the money the st 51 would be hard to beat, I run a 11x7 prop and love them both.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Yeller:

That nickel liner is one of the places OS has gone to pot, but yours is the first AX I've heard about doing a liner "Deplating." It was common in the FX engines.

I'll bet OS said it was all your fault, too.

Bill.

AMB

That would make an interesting match run the fox 50 vs st51 both ringed anybody have any numbers?? Hobbsy you should have some on the fox
martin

Prawnik

How 'bout the ST .51 vs. the Fox .50 vs. a Webra GT .50?

I for one am more interested in total horsepower under the useable RPM curve, ease of starting and reliability in all attitudes than I am in peak horsepower numbers.

AMB

Total agreement on that one what are you going to fly at 17000 at say 1.7 peak hp with a usable prop and if you did how long would the engine last?? (except Jett)

AMB

Total agreement on that one what are you going to fly at 17000 at say 1.7 peak hp with a usable prop
I think irvine is guilty of the claim among others my 53s (dieselheads) will crank a 12x6 up to 10,500 and thats a bunch of thrust

uf-engineer

Ok, I'll give the st51 a try. For the price you can't beat it. I'm not looking for the most powerful engine. I want decent power but more important reliability and easy running. This will be the second two stroke engine I own among 4 four strokes and one gasser.

submikester

My Feedback: (6)

I've got an ST51 new in the box too that I just have to mount in an airplane. I'm looking forward to it; I just haven't had the time.

Wait wait wait....did someone say they had a *NEW* FOX 50?

Oh man...I had two of those about 15 years ago and they were fantastic.

AMB

Yes I have a new one see my post on diesel site (it was born about 3 weeks ago) martin

Cyberwolf

My Feedback: (4)

I just purchased a 2300 china made ST and the outside finish isn't any worse than my 2500 from Italy was. Myself com paired to the European engines this looks like a caddy .The 2300 runs like a charm on the bench as soon as the planes done I'll see what it can do in the air .My son has a ST-51 and that hummer screams a 11/7 prop14,200-14,500 on 15 % fuel best I've seen a older fox turn a 10-6 was 13,500 that was a 45 good engine but heavy.

jbloom

I have the ST 51 and love it. One pop with the starter and it's roaring. At times, I fear I'll shear the wings off. I'm flying it on a Wolff Pak Thrush with a 60" wing span. It's a small model, only about 5 lbs, but man that .51 pulls it with plenty of power to spare. I fly mine with an 11X6 APC prop.

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

The Fox .45 would not be heavy since the Fox .50 is the lightest of the .50 sized engines, weighing nearly an ounce less than the Webra .50. Both of my older Fox.50s and my Fox .46 turn a 10x6 at 14,400, the one I rebuilt recently turned a 10x6 at 14,140 with less than an hours time on it. It's now a Diesel. I have owned as high as 3 ST. .51s at the same time and they are stone reliable workhorses. One was roasted so bad by my son-in-law that the early bullet muffler separated at the joint and the engine was forever a dark gray color but soldiered on just the same.

CHIPINWV

No, but I would check the tightness of the head bolts. Mine was finger tight out of the box and would not start. Tightning the head bolts fixed the problem and it runs great.

DarZeelon

Yeller,


There is a recent thread here, suggesting the ST recommendation for the 11x6, as the largest usable prop size for this engine, results from the torque curve having a noticeable dip, resulting in 10,700 RPM on an APC 11x7.


...I see Cyberwolf's post, claiming his son's engine spins an 11x7 at 14,200-14,500 RPM...
Since this is typical of most low-to-mid 80s piped .61 F3A angines (Rossi, YS, Webra Racing, OPS, Picco...).
The calculated actual output is (APC) 1.74-1.85 HP...

I believe Cyberwolf must check his tachometer...

This engine is capable of these number on a 10x6, however.

downunder

I suspect the 11x6 maximum prop size comes from the Tower site because they write their own instructions. The actual Super Tigre pamphlet that comes with the engine gives 11x7 as the largest prop. I've got the pamphlet in front of me. The Rossi 45 instructions give a max size of 11x6. They're only a guide anyway, I use a 12x5 on my G51.

DarZeelon

Brian,


The prop size chart (and the rest of the English language manual) is a direct translation from the Italian language manual.

No prop size larger than the 11x6 is slated for the .51.

I don't know what pamphlet you got with your engine, but it contradicts the original Italian Super Tigre document.

Please look at [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_2204148/anchors_2204148/mpage_1/key_Super%252Ctigre%252Crpm/anchor/tm.htm#2204148]this thread[/link].

This engine obviously has a huge hole in the torque curve, just above 10,000 RPM.
If the prop is light enough to sail over this hole, as would a 10x6, it will go to 14K+, but if not, like the 11x7, you've got a bogged engine...

Some other engines in this size bracket, namely MVVS and Irvine, are happy with larger props, even a 12x7 will not bog them down.