Irvine .53. WOW! -- Questions  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> Glow Engines, Gas Engines, Fuel & Mfg Support Forums >> Glow Engines >> Irvine .53. WOW! -- Questions
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Irvine .53. WOW! -- Questions - 10/14/2002 4:58:05 PM   
ajcoholic



Posts: 4042
Joined: 6/22/2002
From: Kirkland Lake, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		For the record,

Untill you knock a company (or praise on highly for that matter) I think you should have some experience (more than one product) with what they sell.

That being said, and after owning and running more OS enignes that I remember (Well over a dozen) OS is, and probably will be one of the nicest running, easiest to handle engines. In a heli I wouldnt use anything else. In a plane, well, there are a lot of good motors out there that can give OS competition and then some!

My Jett .46 for instance. Now THERE is one hell of a motor...

AJC

(in reply to gtalbot)
       Post #: 26

Irvine .53. WOW! -- Questions - 10/14/2002 8:01:44 PM   
ramcharger


 

Posts: 572
Joined: 1/25/2002
From: St Louis, MO, USA
Status: offline 		I fly the Webra 50/Kougar II, MVVS 49/Midwest Aero Sport, Enya 50CX/Belair 40 bipe, ST 40/4*40, Rossi 45 RE/ Morris Fun Design, OS46FX/Dazzler, OS 46SF/Dazzler, ST 61 Ring/P-51B Mustang, Zenoah G23/PICA WACO, OS 91Surpass/Ultra Sport 60, so I do fly other engines. Two (2) of our club members perform at least 3 or4 product test for RCM magazine per year. Our field was featured in a Model Aviation Article last month and has many many guest flyers. So, I never said Irvine 53 are bad. What I did say is, I have never seen one, they are never involved in any test, many have never heard of them, and of all the engines I fly - I would take a OS 46FX over a Irvine every time, based on their unpopularity and the fact that many many good flyers I know do not even consider them, so why should I. I have only had one OS 46FX, its at least 5 yrs old, has well over 300 flights, turns a 11x6 prop at 12,800 to 13,000 rpm on 10% Cool Power, and I consider it the best engine I have ever owned. I have no problem with any of the engines above but the OS46FX is my benchmark. So, eat your heart out.

(in reply to gtalbot)
       Post #: 27

Never involved in any test?? - 10/14/2002 9:07:22 PM   
ChuckAuger



Posts: 5134
Joined: 12/5/2001
From: Pampa, TX, USA
Status: offline 		I guess the guys who do tests for RCM don't have access to past engine reviews..Clarence Lee did a review of the Irvine 53 last year, the RCM server appears to be down or I'd post a copy of it.

The botton line was it was pretty much neck and neck with the Webra 50 (anybody got one of those??), with the Webra edging it out slightly on smaller props, and the 53 doing slightly better on larger props.

So it has been involved in at least one test (other than mine ) and was keeping company with the Webra 50..not bad company IMHO.

But then you guys are missing all the fun!


_____________________________

Breaking the Speed of Sound, Straight Down!

(in reply to gtalbot)
       Post #: 28

Irvine .53. WOW! -- Questions - 10/14/2002 9:37:44 PM   
ajcoholic



Posts: 4042
Joined: 6/22/2002
From: Kirkland Lake, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by ramcharger
So, I never said Irvine 53 are bad. What I did say is, I have never seen one, they are never involved in any test, many have never heard of them, and of all the engines I fly - I would take a OS 46FX over a Irvine every time, based on their unpopularity and the fact that many many good flyers I know do not even consider them, so why should I. [/QUOTE]

ramcharger,
That is a pretty close minded opinion, in my opinion. Some of the better motors available at any price are some of the fewer seem ones. Take Jett's for instance. I could have bought allmost three OS 46 FX's for the price I paid for my Jett .46, but man, that is one unbelievable engine. It turns a 10-6 prop at allmost 17,000 on 15% fuel. My 11-4 prop (its in a fun fly) is turning 16,200 rpm static. The throttle response is the best of any motor, and I would put any amount of money up against that!

The point is, they are one of the lest seen engines, and least written about and NONE of the guys I know at many clubs have one. Based on that, you would conclude they must be crap. But they are just expensive, and not carried at hobby shops (deal direct only).

Sometimes if you are open to trying a new brand you will discover a winner. But if you dont try new stuff, you'll never know? You have to talk to more peopel than just in your club.

AJC

(in reply to gtalbot)
       Post #: 29

Irvine .53. WOW! -- Questions - 10/14/2002 10:31:20 PM   
Ernie Misner


 

Posts: 3160
Joined: 7/5/2002
From: Tacoma, WA, USA
Status: offline 		A Jett is no good??? Wana go racing???

Ernie

(in reply to gtalbot)
       Post #: 30

Irvine .53. WOW! -- Questions - 10/15/2002 12:05:45 AM   
ramcharger


 

Posts: 572
Joined: 1/25/2002
From: St Louis, MO, USA
Status: offline 		Our club will host 4*40/ST GS 40 races this Sat (10/19) at our field. Earlier this year we also had warbird races with the 4*40 races. There are a few warbirds with Jett engines. They are very good and more popular than toy think. Guess what, no one uses a Irvine in their warbird. There is a Tower bought Irvine 40 or 46 at our field and it has the same reliability as a Magnum.

(in reply to gtalbot)
       Post #: 31

Tower Irvine.. - 10/15/2002 12:45:47 AM   
ChuckAuger



Posts: 5134
Joined: 12/5/2001
From: Pampa, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Back when Tower carried Irvines they were like Mark I or II..and they didn't make 53's back then. Not quite in the same league as todays engines. This was about the time when OS was making the FSR series. Both OS and Irvine have made modifications to their product lines since then. Irvines's was for the better. I think the FSR was a better engine than the FX.

Funny that everybody who sees my Irvine perform is smitten and inquires about getting one. They are hugely popular in threads here. I've hardly read a disparaging word about them. Everybody who gets one loves it. But yet you are steadfast against them...very strange.

But hey, you belong to a large club, and nobody uses them, so that's that. Great Planes loves you guys!


_____________________________

Breaking the Speed of Sound, Straight Down!

(in reply to gtalbot)
       Post #: 32

Irvine .53. WOW! -- Questions - 10/15/2002 1:57:26 AM   
ajcoholic



Posts: 4042
Joined: 6/22/2002
From: Kirkland Lake, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		Ernie,
You misunderstand my post, I LOVE my Jett 46 and would recommend that engine to ANYONE. I meant that becuase they are not nearly sold in the numbers of OS, TT, etc they arent seen as much (not including the racing crowd, were talking sport RC flying here) as the highly advertised engines. Also, most guys I know buy whatever is on sale, and balk at the thought of paying $300 for a 40 size engine.

I really thing that none of us here are wrong or right, we all have our personal preferences and even if one engine WILL outperform another, some guys will continue to buy brand "X" just becuase they have for a long time and that makes them feel comfortable, they know what they are going to get. Nothing wrong with that,but I prefer to look for newer, better engines than what I have used before.

AJC

(in reply to gtalbot)
       Post #: 33

Irvine .53. WOW! -- Questions - 10/15/2002 8:10:51 AM   
Ed Cregger



Posts: 7744
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Ringgold, GA, USA
Status: offline 		I've never used/owned an Irvine engine, but I'm certainly not against an engine that has developed such a steadfast following. If I need another engine in that size soon, I'll definitely consider purchasing an Irvine.

I kid around about OS engines being for beginners. You do have to admit that they are an excellent choice for beginners. Of course, they are also an excellent choice for experienced modelers too. I bought a few OS engines this year myself.

I find it amazing that Webra and YS engines remained at the top of the power heap in their price range for so long. The Webra .50 GT is at least ten years old. The YS .45 two-stroke is older than the Webra. It is nice that Irvine developed a .53 that is in the running. Competition is good.


_____________________________

Artisan

"Flying models since the Fifties - I'll get the hang of this yet!!!"

(in reply to gtalbot)
       Post #: 34

Irvine .53. WOW! -- Questions - 10/15/2002 6:16:45 PM   
IronCross



Posts: 2409
Joined: 8/18/2002
From: NearBy, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		ramcharger
If I remember Clarencs Lee's review of the .53 it came out best in it's class. We do a lot of racing around here (pylon) with the OS 46 fx being used in the T-34's etc. The OS really winds up and are great engines for this. However for everything else the Irvine's dominate in this size... The .53 had a longer stroke then the .46 and is a sweet running stump puller. Not really a speed engine.

(in reply to gtalbot)
       Post #: 35

got it - 10/16/2002 3:38:21 AM   
ajcoholic



Posts: 4042
Joined: 6/22/2002
From: Kirkland Lake, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		Got my Irvine 53 today. After work, I put it on the test stand. Fuel, Omega 10%, plug was what it came with. Prop, apc 12.25-3.75.

OK, heres the hinest truth. Set the HS needle 2 turns open, idle at factory setting.

Choked it, put on the glow ignitor, and STARTED UP ON THE FIRST FLIP. Continued running, opened the carb and immediatley leaned it to peak and backed it off 300 rpm. Ran one tank. Next tank, I started it and ran it, then stopped it. EVERY start one flip. Never started in reverse (these are all hand starts by the way) once. I started to play with the LS needle, ended up leaning it 1/2 turn untill transitions were as fast as they are going to get with that big prop.

End result, still a bit rich and only a few tanks run time, turning the prop 13,200 rpm. Idles great, transitions great, starts and restarts are great. WHat more could you ask for?

I cant wait to get it in a plane, hopefully before the snow flies!

Andrew

(in reply to gtalbot)
       Post #: 36

Irvine .53. WOW! -- Questions - 10/16/2002 4:06:24 AM   
Billy Hell


 

Posts: 2926
Joined: 1/23/2002
From: Nashville, TN, USA
Status: offline 		I run a 13'x5' Zinger on my .53. It's on a Morris profile so speed is bad (5.3 lbs). It will drag that plane around in a knife edge all day long and I can idle down to nothing. I trust it enough to do a roll right after I take off. It leaves the deck and I do the roll. I wouldn't do that with any of my other engines.

(in reply to gtalbot)
       Post #: 37

Irvine Motors - 10/16/2002 6:22:03 AM   
fiery


 

Posts: 1010
Joined: 2/2/2002
From: Hervey Bay Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Status: offline 		Billy,

You're a true Irvine soulbrother. Welcome to the club.

Irvine 2 stroke motors (and Laser 4 strokes) are proof that the Brits can still engineer good stuff when they put their minds to it.

As someone else observed, a .91 sized Irvine would be nice.

(in reply to gtalbot)
       Post #: 38

Irvine .53. WOW! -- Questions - 10/16/2002 8:03:51 PM   
Volfy



Posts: 3227
Joined: 1/4/2002
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline 		For some reason, both Irvine and TT, my two faviorite brands for 2stroke, leave huge holes in their line up. For TT, nothing between 61 and 120. At least Irvine has a 72, but they've just dropped the 120 (reason being 150 is almost the same weight). Kinda sucks for me, since I no longer fly anything smaller than a .75.

TT and Irvine, wake up and smell the big boar!

_____________________________

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to gtalbot)