Hi Guys just wondering how a OS 55 AX would work in a 60 size plane?. Have a spare engine and was interested in a 60 size plane.Thanks for all the help.

Which 60 size plane are you interested in? That might influence the replies.

Hanger 9 pulse xt 60

They advertise it as a 7-8 lb model. If that is true, there is a good probability the 55AX will do ok pulling it.

The Pulse is not a biplane and not a draggy scale either so that's also a positive. I'd bet the combination would make a very good weekend warrior.

Hangar 9 calls for a .60 to .75 two stroke. Do you already have the 55AX? If so then I would say try it, but I wouldn't buy a 55AX for this plane. I imagine it will fly the plane, but I can't say I've ever heard anyone be thankful they have a smaller engine than what's recommended. Usually people want something even bigger. And there's that saying, "There is no replacement for displacement" which I believe is true.

I'm going to be using the 55AX on the 40 size model of the same plane.

I was flying a Pulse 60 this past weekend with a Tower Hobbies 75. It has a 13x6 prop and was running 15% nitro. The plane has 1.5oz in the tail to balance with that engine. It lept off the ground and would go vertical forever. Based on the balance issue and the fact that the 55ax can swing a decent size prop, I say go for it. Prop for thrust, not speed, and this would be a real nice low wing trainer.

The plane weighed 7.5 lbs with no fuel. Drop in a lighter engine and remove the tail weight and you have a real floater.

The fuel tank is pretty big so you might even get a weight savings with a new tank. The ARF came with most of the control surfaces attached and was really a quick build. Let us know if you decide to do it, i'm curious how it would do.

Will it fly it? I'm sure it will fly the plane just fine and you'd probably be happy with it for a while. You'll likely finding yourself wanting a little more power at some point though.

I really agree with this. If you're going to spend $150 on an engine that's really designed as a monster powerhouse for a .40 size plane (hence the same mounting as the 46AX) why not spend a few extra $$$ and get an engine that's made for a 60 size plane? 61FX is $155, 75AX is $199. (75AX is the monster powerhouse for the .60 size planes, hence the same mounting as the .61FX). I'm sure you'd be happy you did when it's all said and done.

Is there a good reason to go with the 55AX over the 61FX? Even with the improvements in power, etc. the 61 still is rated to put out over 10% more power than the 55AX.

If you read reviews on planes in the 'user reviews' section of this web site, you will see so many reviews where the poster wished he had a more powerful engine. I'd hate for you to spend $150 and be wishing you had more.

I agree with the statements that, "yes, it will fly it. Later you will want more power" At the point where you want more power you by a .75ax for it and you are right back where you are now with a .55ax and no plane for it. It's a vicious cycle and it has caused more than one divorce in this hobby. If you have a pulse 40 and a pulse 60 both powered by an OS .55ax... which one do you think would be more fun to fly?

HI Guys thanks for all the advice. Think ye are right and might go with a OS75AX which can be used in any 60 size model in the future. Thanks again

Great Choice! You will be really glad, I'm sure!

Yes, you hit on another plus of the larger engine. Your choices of what to get down the road will be much broader with the 75.

Before you run out and buy the two-stroke, you might think about going four-stroke. They use FAR less fuel. A buddy just maidened a 60 Size Pulse XT with an OS 91 Fourstroke this weekend, and its a match made in heaven. He also mounted it inverted, and it looks terrific.

Brad

Is there advantages of 2 stroke over 4 stroke or the other way round. Would not have much knowledge on 4 strokes.

More RPM's out of a 2 stroke, more low end power out of a 4 stroke. So higher speed with 2 stroke, more 'get up and go' with 4 stroke. 4 stroke uses less fuel, sounds a little more realistic.

Pulse is not a 3D plane; it's a sport plane that can do some good aerobatics. Personally I like the 2 stroke setup because you can do things fast. If you want to get into 3D in the future, maybe a 4 stroke is the way to go. At least for the 40 size Pulse, people recommend the larger end of the recommended 2 strokes.

Heck!I was going to say dont bother with the .91 and get the 1.00 or even the 1.25 Saito

We're finding at our field that 4 strokes have a significant noise advantage over the two strokes. You can fly a four stroke fast, you just have to prop it differently.

Brad

Minnflyer did a review of the Goldberg Protege which is about the same size as the one you are planning on for the OS 55 AX engine. He used and recommends the OS 55 AX on the Protege and it pulls that plane around pretty well. Here is a link to the review. Take a look for yourself.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/a...article_id=901

I have a saito 100 on my pulse 60 and <3 it, has great power and runs like a top. It balanced perfect and didn't need any extra weight. Saito 100 is actualy the recomended 4 stroke in the manual although im sure any .91 or the saito 125 would both work fine. I realy like the 4 stoke over the 2 stroke I had in my trainer and dont see my self ever having a 2 stroke again. If you go 2 stroke I agree with the others. 55 = 40 size, 75 = 60 size. The pulse is a great flying second plane and it will do great with a 2 or 4 stroke, its up to what you prefer.

always always remember this when selecting an engine for an aircraft...tis better to have the power and not need it...than to need the power and not have it...I will always go with the largest engine recommended...if not one size larger..after all I can always retard the throttle