RCU Forums

RCU Forums (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)
-   ARF or RTF (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/arf-rtf-75/)
-   -   Engine for H9 (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/arf-rtf-75/5024164-engine-h9.html)

AVGJohn 11-21-2006 06:30 PM

Engine for H9
 
Need some advice---Have a new OS 61FX. Anyone have any experience using a 61 in a Hanger 9 ARF? I know a 91 or 100 FS would probably be beffer, but I scrambled my Magnum 91 in a teriffically bad crash and would like to use the OS in a warbird.

happypappy 11-21-2006 07:48 PM

RE: Engine for H9
 
Hangar 9 makes alot of airplanes....which one would you be talking about? That information may help you recieve answers a little better.

da Rock 11-22-2006 06:55 AM

RE: Engine for H9
 

I know a 91 or 100 FS would probably be beffer,
Better? how?

Heavier
Cost more
Might have prop clearance problems
Require more maintenance
Harder to adjust needle settings
Require higher nitro, higher priced fuel
Require higher priced glowplug

No, actually fourstrokes aren't better. Best case they simply do the job differently. But at a cost in money and effort.

AVGJohn 11-22-2006 07:47 AM

RE: Engine for H9
 
I'm looking at the P40, Hellcat, or any of the 60 size ARF line Hanger 9 offers. I don't need to have verticle capabilities. I have a Giles 202 for that. Only looking for scale-like performance; loops, rolls, split S. Just looking for a home for the OS 61.

aghost 11-22-2006 09:24 AM

RE: Engine for H9
 
I fly the 60 size H9 corsair with a Magnum 91 at 3/4 throttle most of the time. Altitude here is 3500'. An OS 61 would probably be OK for scale flight. The 12" -13" prop might look a little smaller on the plane than you would like.

Brian

MinnFlyer 11-22-2006 09:27 AM

RE: Engine for H9
 

ORIGINAL: darock


I know a 91 or 100 FS would probably be beffer,
Better? how?

Heavier
Cost more
Might have prop clearance problems
Require more maintenance
Harder to adjust needle settings
Require higher nitro, higher priced fuel
Require higher priced glowplug

No, actually fourstrokes aren't better. Best case they simply do the job differently. But at a cost in money and effort.
Simple rock... Because it's a 4-stroke! :D

Heavier? yes

Cost more? Yes, but then, you get what you pay for

Might have prop clearance problems? I've never had it happen yet

Require more maintenance? This is a myth. I have had to adjust valve clearance once in my life (And I've been using 4-strokes for over 15 years)

Harder to adjust needle settings? Why, did you have a stiff one? They are no more difficult to adjust than a 2-stroke.

Require higher nitro, higher fuel price? Yes, but an OS 91 surpass will burn about half of what a 60ish 2-stroke will burn - and it won't slobber goo all over your airplane in the process.

Require Higher priced glowplug? Yes.

So really, only two of the points you made (The first and last) are valid - They are heavier, and the glow plugs cost more

The next 4 points are really irrelevant, and as far as fuel goes, I don't care if I have to use 15% nitro instead of the 10% I used to use, I burn so much less that it is worth every penny.

AND I don't have to wipe half of it off my plane after each flight!

Pit-Viper 1 11-22-2006 11:14 AM

RE: Engine for H9
 
You will be happy with the .61, been using one for awhile along with various four-strokes and it is a nice running motor. It will fly similar to your Magnum .91 as it uses the same size prop and about 5000 more rpm's. Obvioulsly you're aware of the mess factor, no biggie though. I find 4 strokes to be messier than 2 strokes as they usually have a crank pressure nipple and this usually makes a mess as well as the muffler. You don't need to change fuels, I run all my motors on the same percentage and type fuels, RCV, Saito's, O.S., 2 and 4 strokes. Usually Coolpower 25% or 30% heli blend/No CASTOR. Four stroke plugs are only slightly more exspensive.


I say go for it, you won't be disappointed.


Shane

WCB 11-23-2006 09:32 AM

RE: Engine for H9
 
Minnflyer,
You are exactly right!

WCB

Stickbuilder 11-23-2006 11:30 AM

RE: Engine for H9
 


ORIGINAL: MinnFlyer


ORIGINAL: darock


I know a 91 or 100 FS would probably be beffer,
Better? how?

Heavier
Cost more
Might have prop clearance problems
Require more maintenance
Harder to adjust needle settings
Require higher nitro, higher priced fuel
Require higher priced glowplug

No, actually fourstrokes aren't better. Best case they simply do the job differently. But at a cost in money and effort.
Simple rock... Because it's a 4-stroke! :D

Heavier? yes

Cost more? Yes, but then, you get what you pay for

Might have prop clearance problems? I've never had it happen yet

Require more maintenance? This is a myth. I have had to adjust valve clearance once in my life (And I've been using 4-strokes for over 15 years)

Harder to adjust needle settings? Why, did you have a stiff one? They are no more difficult to adjust than a 2-stroke.

Require higher nitro, higher fuel price? Yes, but an OS 91 surpass will burn about half of what a 60ish 2-stroke will burn - and it won't slobber goo all over your airplane in the process.

Require Higher priced glowplug? Yes.

So really, only two of the points you made (The first and last) are valid - They are heavier, and the glow plugs cost more

The next 4 points are really irrelevant, and as far as fuel goes, I don't care if I have to use 15% nitro instead of the 10% I used to use, I burn so much less that it is worth every penny.

AND I don't have to wipe half of it off my plane after each flight!
MinnFlyer,

This will probably come as a shock to you, but all I have to say concerning your post is: AMEN BROTHER!!!

Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:00 AM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.