I have used both and much prefer the OS. I am flying a 106 on a 120 Stinger now and it is great.

Im wondering if the os is better that a bigger size moki. like the 2.1. The guys in my club seem to think that bigger is always better, but id rather have a better engine.

Any reply would be appreciated.

IMHO I believe if the 160 isn't big enough it's time to go to gas. I found that to be the best solution an an glad I did.

They are both quality engines. For the people who are using the 2.1 or 1.8 where the OS isn't big enough, the results speak for themselves.

The only problem I have seen with Moki is that it takes so darn long to break in.

Is One company any better relatively than another. ive only been flying for about 8 months and would appreciate your expertise.
I fly O.S. and Y.S. Exclusively right now until I can find out which companies produce quality engines. Id rather save up for a good engine than buy a cheaper Magnum or similar.

Thamks.
Joey

I have a Moki 1.8 and love the quality of it! the only reason it takes longer to break in is the parts they use are of very high quality and wont wear and tear as much as other engines.

these engines are rated to have as much and even more power than a G-62cc gas engine...

the moki 1.8 will pull the pants off an os 1.60 in power

VERY WELL SAID SHORTMAN!

Also consider post-purchase support. I have had very good experience dealing with Jim Gerard of Gerard Enterprises (the Moki importer) when I had a problem with my engine and needed new o-rings. He understood my position as a modeler and was very prompt in sending me the o-rings (free of charge, I might add).

Well, If I had a choice, id use the 1.6 . But The 2.1 sounds tasty, If O.S. made a 2.0 or higher, it would be a dream come true. But Moki sounds like an excellent alternative if I need more power

ShortMan is right.... Moki rules when it comes to power.
The 1.8 has proven it's self for many years. I own the 2.1.... It too is a very strong engine. The only reason you don't see more of them in use is their fuel consumption. The 2.1 will eat a gallon of fuel in 4 to 5 flights.
But bud you got power!!
The OS BGX and the Super Tigre 3000 cant and never have matched the Moki in power or reliabilty.
The OS 1.60 isn't in the same class with these engines

Southerngent

Why do Moki require you to use low nitro fuel, some body was telling me in an email that they wont last with 15% or higher fuel.
If this is true then why are they so good, ive never heard this of O.S. . Im learning as i go

Why do Moki require you to use low nitro fuel, some body was telling me in an email that they wont last with 15% or higher fuel.
If this is true then why are they so good, ive never heard this of O.S. . Im learning as i go

I don't know; I run 10 and 12.5 percent in mine and it has lasted quite a while (I bought it used, and that guy was using the same stuff). They are so good because they produce monster power. I'm certainly not complaining about burning cheaper fuel than the other guy and still producing gobs more power.

thanks for responding, Im learning to sift through what is true and what isnt. Ill have to try one soon, What would you campare the power of a Saito 1.8 to in two stroke. I want one but do not want to under power the model. It is a H9 Edge

I know what you mean by sorting out the BS from real life. I've seen a plane powered by a Saito 180 and get an engine swap to an OS 160. The 160 pulled a little harder and burned about the same amount of fuel as the 180. For your Edge you're looking at the 160 or Moki 1.8. Mecam here is running the Moki on his edge, and you can see some video of it on www.3dbatix.com and it looks like he is not lacking in power. On the full 3D video you can see him do what I think is the best method for starting the engine too.

Why is it a bad thing to use low nitro - or no nitro - fuel? I would rather pay less for the fuel and end up have it costing less per flight on a Moki 2.1 than an OS 1.6 running higher nitro. To me low nitro capability for that power output = good.

Dale

I Agree, why pay more, i was just wondering why.
Thanks flyfalcon , for the advice

They were designed to use FAI fuel(no nitro) in Europe. I run no more than 5% in mine. Same way in my MVVS. When I bought it they said no more than 10% or the piston would self destruct. More is not always better. Power-Yes Nitro- No It would be like putting racing gas in your lawnmower, wasting money, creating a little more power but shorting life span. If you need to run a large amount of nitro to make engine do what you want it to, Buy a larger engine. These engines will last forever almost, if we don't abuse them. The way I look at it- Running high rates of nitro is almost like getting that last 3-400 rpm when we tweak our motors. We think we need the extra power till we get in the air, turns lean, gets hot, hurts motor. So much for extra power. All motors run on a simple formula- more fuel- more rpm- more heat-more money. I've raced alots of things, I thing I've found out- Speed and power cost money. Looks like I gave more than my 2 cents worth.

Im learning that high nitro isnt always better., im using 10% now in my O.S. engines, but i dont notice a difference in 15% from 10%. The guys arent having alot of luck with MVVS. they are harder to start, have any of you guys used them for any amount of time. i want a 2 stroke 77, but im kind of apprehensive about the company, since they have just all of a sudden shown up around here. The price is certainly right.

My experience was with the MVVS 40. Best engine I've ever owned. I rebuilt it after I wore it out ran for it for quiet awhile, sold it and it's still running strong. I myself wouldn't be afraid to try one. The trick to make run right was setting low side while motor was running. The only brawback was motor was a little heavy.

Flyfalcons, this ones for you, we just had a local Doctor at my flight school go down in a 172 when he lost his engine about 3 miles off the coast over here in Brownsville. He made a "moist" landing and his passenger coudnt swim so they waited for the coast guard to get them to shore. When they asked him why his engine quit he stated that he put the throttle to idle , and the engine started to lose rpm's, and quit. When asked if he applied carb heat (conditions called for it!!), he didnt know what it was and stated that he never used it. This guy was trained on an aircraft with a fuel injected engine and his "instructor" never taught him what carb ice was. Can you believe that??

Yeah I can believe it. With the average experience of today's instructors going down, things like this can happen. His checkout in the 172 was probably just long enough to satisfy insurance requirements, and the instructor most likely assumed that the doc had some experience with carburated engines.

RC related: Moki engines are thirsty but great engines! Same goes with the OS, another great one!