patzane

I have 3 55ax and love them all. I also have to OS 91fx that is a pain. They like to run hot and always need a start to get it going.

ply2win

My Feedback: (3)

I have only owned one O.S. engine (46AX) and it was a good running engine. However I have not been able to bring myself to buy any of them since then because of the price.

I know they are good engines but so are a lot of other brands. If I can have an engine that runs just a strong for less money that just makes more sense to me.

Jetdesign

My Feedback: (8)

Today I found that the engine likes a light prop for break in. Every other manufacturer suggests a lighter prop for breaking the engine in, but OS says to use what you plan on flying with. I did that and had a really tough time keeping my engine running (12x8, 13x6, 13x5) then switched to a light prop (12x5) and the engine ran great.

On my 46AX I used an 11x5 for quite a while before switching to a 12" prop. At first the change seemed to bog down the engine, but after a gallon or so it now screams with the bigger prop. I hope the same happens for the 55.

ChuckW

Try an 11x8 on your .55. I did this on my WM Rambler and it really made a positive difference versus the 12x7. It's funny, the 12x7 is just about perfect on the Revolver though. Go figure.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

I broke in an OS 55 AX this last weekend (for the GP Cherokee review that I'm doing) and had no problems at all. I used the prop that I planned to fly with (according to OS's instructions), which was a 12x7. I also had a Pitts muffler on the engine as well. I didn't have any issues at all with the break-in. The instructions call for alternating between rich (4-stroke) and lean (2-stroke) operation through the first tank. I actually ran 2 tanks through the engine doing this. The best way to sum it up was that it runs like an OS.

Ken

ChuckW

I agree, I have two of these engines and all I could say was "what break in?". Both ran excellent from day one. One of them never even ran through a tank on the ground. I just set the high speed needle and took off. All either have ever needed was to lean the low end slightly after a couple flights.

What do you think about the Cherokee? Did you read any of the posts I made regarding the tail coming off of my first one? My new one is epoxied in place. The first used a .46-AX but I made my second one electric with the recommended Electrifly motor and ESC. It's my first electric plane other than my foamie T-28 and I was skeptical but I'm actually kind of impressed after flying it a few times. The recommended setup flys it just as well as the .46. I miss the noise and smell though. I may end up with the OS .56FS in it one of these days.

Mine also seems to need a ton of elevator when landing with full flaps. In fact, you could run out of elevator if you don't get the approach just right even with the throw as much as it will go. It seems to land a little hot too, even with the flaps so I suspect it might be a little nose-heavy. I made a bracket last night and put my receiver battery behind the servos. This shifted the CG back approximately 1/4 inch. I'm going to fly it Saturday morning and see if that helps.

Jetdesign

My Feedback: (8)

I wish i could say the same, but it will get there. I think the 135 degree inversion is challenging me, less forgiving to low end richness maybe?

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

Chuck,
I didn't have any problems with it, but I will say that I wasn't 100% sold on the bolt on tail feathers. If it wasn't a review I would have done as you did and epoxy it in place. I can also say that the 55 AX is too much engine for this plane. But they sent it to me for the review, so that's what I used. Otherwise it'a a definite keeper. It's a really great flying plane. I only got two quick flights on Sunday with it before I turned it over the guy that did my flying for the review (I was running a video camera and taking still shots of it). I'm looking forward to flying it this weekend and really seeing what it can do.

Ken

ChuckW

I've ran .46-AX completely inverted on a GP Venus-40 and had no trouble at all so I don't see why the .55 would be any different. I know why Phoenix and Seagull do the engine at that angle but I really prefer them upright, inverted or at 90 degrees.


I know this is a little off topic for this thread and I don't want to spoil the details coming up in the review but what do you think about their claim as it being an ideal second plane?

After spending a little time with it, I'm personally not so sure. I don't like the idea of the dual aileron servos since that means you can't just yank all the gear directly from most trainers; you are forced to buy an additional servo and a Y-harness. Then there are the flaps. They are fun but I think they might be a little too tempting for a new pilot and just create unnecessary complexity and a need for two more servos, another Y-harness and possibly a more advanced radio. The cowl looks good and is needed to have a sport-scale plane but for someone still dealing with learning engine tuning, it could just be a hassle. Same goes for the wheel pants, a newer pilot could tear them up pretty easily. In fact, I've even managed to scuff one of mine pretty good on the edge of the runway. Then when it comes to flight, the plane is pretty fast and relatively maneuverable. I was surprised by how quickly it rolls on high rates.

Don't get e wrong, I love the airplane but I just don't know if it the best choice for a #2. I suppose there could be worse choices though. I really wish GP would make a Rapture ARF. The kit version is a great #2 and makes a great little simple sport flyer as well.

Now back to OS engines... I have a brand new .81FS-a sitting on the shelf that needs a home and I can't decide what to put it in. It's driving me nuts.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

Chuck,
I'm sorry that I didn't answer this right away. I've had a pretty hectic week and I really haven' t had much time to be here in the forums. I really disagree with your assesment here on this plane. Let me address some of your concerns with this plane.


While it's true that you can't just "yank" out your gear from your trainer, it's not really any big deal. Servos have become very cheap these days, and it's not outrageous to contemplate buying another servo so that the pilot has enough to run dual aileron servos. In addition, a Y-harness really isn't that expensive. But to condemn this plane for these reasons is a bit unfair. This plane is just like any other that a pilot is going to buy. They will need to buy the materials needed to complete the plane and get it flying. In this case that means buying a servo or two and y-harnesses.

If the flaps are too much then they don't need to be installed and used. Plain and simple. The instructions are included for locking the flaps in the up position. Doing this means the pilot doesn't need servos or y-harness. I really didn't see any need for the flaps on this plane anyway. The plane slows down very well on it's own, so the pilot could easily get by without them. But..... if they do want to put flaps on this plane don't let the servos and y-harnesses needed get in the way, see my comments above about what's needed to complete this plane. And an "advanced" radio isn't needed. Even a "bare bones" non-computer 6 channel radio has the ability to control flaps.

And this is a bad thing?? Too often these days pilots will mess with the low end settings on their engine when they don't need to, causing many problems and headaches. So not having easy access to the low end may not be a bad thing. But tuning the high speed needle on a cowled engine is no big deal. Just put an extension wire on the needle valve and extend it out through the cowl. And if tuning is an issue, simply leave the cowl off until the tuning is dialed in and the engine is running correctly. In fact, on my maidan flights I had to take the cowl off. I was having problems getting the engine to run right, which later on turned out to be debris in the carburetor (a back flush of the carb fixed this right up). But while I was diagnosing the problems I kept the cowl off until I had the problems solved. once the engine was running well it's only a couple of minutes to reinstall the cowl.

Then take the wheel pants off until the pilot gets better at landing the plane.

This gets said over and over in the forums here, throttle control. Just pull the stick back to slow down. If it is rolling too quickly then put it on low rates.

There are many planes out there today that are very quick and nimble that make fantastic "2nd planes". Just to mention a couple would be the Sig 2-star and the Tiger II, the very essence of what is considered a 2nd plane!! These two planes will do jaw dropping acrobatics. But what sets aside a 2nd plane like these and a plane like an Extra 300 or Edge 540 is that when you get in trouble you can level the plane and take a breather to calm down. With aerobatic planes like the Extra or Edge you have to constantly fly the plane and it's hard for a less skilled pilot to get that bit of easy flying where he can relax. The 4-Star, Tiger II, and the Cherokee all will calm down in an instant and let the pilot catch his breath.

I think that Great Planes has done and outstanding job with this plane and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it as a second plane to a pilot that is moving up from his trainer.

Ken

ChuckW

Thanks for the opinion. I was curious if other people would see it the same way I did or if maybe I was missing something so I was prepared for some possible disagreement. Personally, I think a second plane could be simpler but that's just me. I am of course basing that strictly on my own experience a few years ago, not everyone is the same I suppose. Since you've done a heck of a lot more teaching of student pilots than I have (I've only occasionally helped when nobody better qualified is around), perhaps your assessment makes sense. Regardless, one thing that I just about anybody would agree on is that GP did a great job with the airplane. The thing practically assembles itself and is very well built. I'll have mine out tomorrow even though it feels like it's 175 degrees here.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

No doubt that GP did a fantastic job with this plane. I do think that their reported assembly time of 4-6 hours is a bit "optomistic", but nonetheless it's a very easy plane to put together. In fact, that's part of the reason why I stated what I did above. This is the perfect plane to start introducing a pilot to more advanced concepts like dual aileron servos and flaps. This plane is soooooo easy to put together. The only epoxy that is used on it is to glue the servo mounting blocks on the aileron and flap hatches. [X(]

They did a good job on the plane

Ken

ChuckW

I've found that most of the advertised assembly times on ARF's are a little optimistic. Or maybe I'm just a little slow...


As for quality, all of the ARF's these days are getting outstanding, especially from GP, Sig, H-9, etc. It's as if manufacturers keep trying to outdo one another. When I assembled my Revolver I was absolutely amazed at the build quality and attention to detail. Then I got my H-9 Pawnee and it was pre-hinged with the control horns already installed. What's next? Is a guy going to fly out from the manufacturer and do the final assembly for the end user? I'm definitely not complaining. I love building stuff but sometimes it's nice to have something that practically falls together and is ready to go quickly.

ag4ever

my first plane was a SIG LT-40 kit, and my second plane was a Hanger 9 F-22 ARF.

I did not take a single thing out of the LT-40 to get the F-22 in the air.

I even installed the flap servos from the start.

I then got a T-Rex 450 to try my hand at helis. to get that up and running I needed a new radio as my "old" futaba 6 channel computer radio would not do the correct swash mixing. So I got a DX7 that now controls all of my planes.

My next plane will be a SIG Hog Biplane with all new equipment.

So in the end, I don't see having a plane require more servos or a little more advanced radios to run them as most people will buy additional equipment to keep their old planes in the air. This gives people more options at the field.

I personally think a second plane should be more advanced than the firts plane, both in capabilities and setup.

Now on topic, the F-22 has a 55ax in it, and it flies that brick of a plane great. The LT-40 have a super tigre 40, and that thing runs great as well. The super tigre I bought for $25 (clearance at a hobbie shop closing its doors) and the 55ax was well over a hundred. Both engines are very reliable, but the 55 has at least twice the power. There is now way I would put a super tigre on a "performance" plane, but I would think of putting the OS on a slow flier.