Engine suggestions
03-04-2010 | 09:43 PM
#26
RE: Engine suggestions
Jpmag: I have to disagree with you a little here. Here is why. The engine is not the instructors but the student's engine. It is the job of an instructor to lead the way, give advice but not to dictate what engine the student ultimately decides to purchase. In my humble opinion a reputable instructor will or should be able to dial an engine in and pass that knowledge to the student.
My 2 cents
Glenn
My 2 cents
Glenn
03-04-2010 | 10:02 PM
#27
Member
My Feedback: (27)
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: HICKORY, KY
RE: Engine suggestions
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
Thundertiger is a great engine, I have several. But the service is almost nonexistant. You may never be able to get warranty work, or it will take 8 month's to get it back as I did. So I no longer buy or recommend TT.
ORIGINAL: bigedmustafa
If you can't stomach the price of a new .46 AX, you'll find the Thunder Tiger Pro .46 to be just as easy to tune, just as powerful, just as reliable, and it comes with a better warranty. Long time RCU posters in the Glow Engines forum also report that the Pro .46 will considerably outlast the .46 AX as well, running twice as long before needing a new piston and sleeve. The Thunder Tiger Pro .46 typically sells for around $95.
I also like the Magnum XLS .46A, and think it is a terrific bargain at $59.99. I'm not sure it's quite as powerful as the Pro .46 or .46 AX, but it is very close. It is also easy to tune, easy to break in, and dead solid reliable.
If you can't stomach the price of a new .46 AX, you'll find the Thunder Tiger Pro .46 to be just as easy to tune, just as powerful, just as reliable, and it comes with a better warranty. Long time RCU posters in the Glow Engines forum also report that the Pro .46 will considerably outlast the .46 AX as well, running twice as long before needing a new piston and sleeve. The Thunder Tiger Pro .46 typically sells for around $95.
I also like the Magnum XLS .46A, and think it is a terrific bargain at $59.99. I'm not sure it's quite as powerful as the Pro .46 or .46 AX, but it is very close. It is also easy to tune, easy to break in, and dead solid reliable.
Thundertiger is a great engine, I have several. But the service is almost nonexistant. You may never be able to get warranty work, or it will take 8 month's to get it back as I did. So I no longer buy or recommend TT.
03-04-2010 | 11:07 PM
#28
RE: Engine suggestions
.I'm hesitant to post here, but for the sake of a counter point, information, and risk of being flamed, I have to post...
Over the years, I have had great luck with K&B, Fox, Super Tiger, O.S. and MDS but have had no luck with Thunder Tiger engines. I have owned two Thunder Tiger .39 pro's which broke two connector rods in two separate engines. This happened in my Thunder Tiger Raptor running less than three tanks in each.
I eventually went with an O.S . . 37 and have run over four gallons of fuel through the engine and it still runs like brand new. I have an OS .46 in my Goldberg Cub that is 15 years old and just flew it twice last night, the engine has never been worked on. I have another O.S . . 25 in my Sig Kobra that is 20 years old and still runs great.
As far as customer support, Thunder Tiger would not repair either engine and faulted me for improper tuning, (too lean). When I set the engine up throttle response was good, there was allot of smoke, and cylinder head temp was good 160d. I get it, but I will never waist money on another TT engine, and have since given both engines away.
Pay a little now or pay allot later. Just my experience and I guess it may be just the TT helo engines, but I know from previous posts others have had similar problems with the same engine as well.
Sorry about looking like I'm bashing Thunder Tiger (I love my Rappy) but I'm just speaking of my experience.
Steve
Over the years, I have had great luck with K&B, Fox, Super Tiger, O.S. and MDS but have had no luck with Thunder Tiger engines. I have owned two Thunder Tiger .39 pro's which broke two connector rods in two separate engines. This happened in my Thunder Tiger Raptor running less than three tanks in each.
I eventually went with an O.S . . 37 and have run over four gallons of fuel through the engine and it still runs like brand new. I have an OS .46 in my Goldberg Cub that is 15 years old and just flew it twice last night, the engine has never been worked on. I have another O.S . . 25 in my Sig Kobra that is 20 years old and still runs great.
As far as customer support, Thunder Tiger would not repair either engine and faulted me for improper tuning, (too lean). When I set the engine up throttle response was good, there was allot of smoke, and cylinder head temp was good 160d. I get it, but I will never waist money on another TT engine, and have since given both engines away.
Pay a little now or pay allot later. Just my experience and I guess it may be just the TT helo engines, but I know from previous posts others have had similar problems with the same engine as well.
Sorry about looking like I'm bashing Thunder Tiger (I love my Rappy) but I'm just speaking of my experience.
Steve
03-04-2010 | 11:12 PM
#29
RE: Engine suggestions
ORIGINAL: willig10
Jpmag: I have to disagree with you a little here. Here is why. The engine is not the instructors but the student's engine. It is the job of an instructor to lead the way, give advice but not to dictate what engine the student ultimately decides to purchase. In my humble opinion a reputable instructor will or should be able to dial an engine in and pass that knowledge to the student.
My 2 cents
Glenn
Jpmag: I have to disagree with you a little here. Here is why. The engine is not the instructors but the student's engine. It is the job of an instructor to lead the way, give advice but not to dictate what engine the student ultimately decides to purchase. In my humble opinion a reputable instructor will or should be able to dial an engine in and pass that knowledge to the student.
My 2 cents
Glenn
I understand your point, and I do agree with you to an extent. But some instructors have strong opinions for or against a certain brand. It would be wise for a new student to talk with his instructor before purchasing an engine. If they cannot come to a compromise then either the student will need to find a different instructor or accept the instructors wishes, rational or not. The instructor is donating his time, and typically many hours of his time. It is only considerate to include him in the decision.
Here is an example. Some Enya and Fox engines are iron piston-lapped steel liner engines. They are excellent engines but they require a long break-in period, require fuel with high castor content, and some Fox engines require very low nitro fuel and require a unique needle adjustment procedure. If an instructor did not have experience with these engines in the past then there might be a problem.
Another example: Some of the "bargain" 2-stroke engines manufacturers are known for poor quality control. If a student happens to get a good engine then everything is great. If he is unlucky and gets a dog, then hours of the instructors time may be wasted looking for air leaks and so on. I've been down this path and it was aggrevating. I wasted many days at the field on which I could have been flying myself so that my student could save $30 on the cost of his engine.
There are students who are very good with engines right from the start and don't need help. But this is the exception. Most students are clueless and don't even want or try to read the engine manual. They show up at the field with an engine that has never been run and expect the instructor to do everything. Breaking in one brand of engine may take just one or two tanks. Breaking in another type of engine may take an hour or two. Breaking in / troubleshooting a difficult engine may take many hours.
I'll get off my soapbox now. I apologize for the rant.
Regards
Jon
03-05-2010 | 12:00 AM
#31
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Missoula,
MT
RE: Engine suggestions
This is one of the hardest issues to discuss. I have read other posts on this subject or guys are comparing engines and the problem is this: ask 10 guys what they think about an engine and you will probably get about 7 different answers. Its just the nature of the beast. Some guys have had awesome results with a particular brand of engine where others have had a real tough time getting that same engine to run. So the exact same engine is loved and at the same time it is hated. This arguement runs on with every engine on the market. Makes it very hard for a beginner to know what to do. I have been in the hobby now for three years have met alot of real neat people. Everyone has an opinion. So I guess here is mine, I have to agree with mclina on this. Get yourself a RTF package. Since you are a beginner, I think this is a very good way to get started in this hobby. You get the plane, engine and radio all in one box. This is how I started. My instructor told me what fuel to buy and he let me use all of his flightline equipment. As time went on I was able to purchase my own. For me, it was the Tower Hobies Trainer with the .46 engine. I am still flying it today. Best of luck on whatever decision you make and welcome to RC airplanes. You are going to love it.
Archie
Archie
03-05-2010 | 01:06 AM
#33
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Engine suggestions
ORIGINAL: JPMacG
Glenn,
I understand your point, and I do agree with you to an extent. But some instructors have strong opinions for or against a certain brand. It would be wise for a new student to talk with his instructor before purchasing an engine. If they cannot come to a compromise then either the student will need to find a different instructor or accept the instructors wishes, rational or not. The instructor is donating his time, and typically many hours of his time. It is only considerate to include him in the decision.
Here is an example. Some Enya and Fox engines are iron piston-lapped steel liner engines. They are excellent engines but they require a long break-in period, require fuel with high castor content, and some Fox engines require very low nitro fuel and require a unique needle adjustment procedure. If an instructor did not have experience with these engines in the past then there might be a problem.
Another example: Some of the ''bargain'' 2-stroke engines manufacturers are known for poor quality control. If a student happens to get a good engine then everything is great. If he is unlucky and gets a dog, then hours of the instructors time may be wasted looking for air leaks and so on. I've been down this path and it was aggrevating. I wasted many days at the field on which I could have been flying myself so that my student could save $30 on the cost of his engine.
There are students who are very good with engines right from the start and don't need help. But this is the exception. Most students are clueless and don't even want or try to read the engine manual. They show up at the field with an engine that has never been run and expect the instructor to do everything. Breaking in one brand of engine may take just one or two tanks. Breaking in another type of engine may take an hour or two. Breaking in / troubleshooting a difficult engine may take many hours.
I'll get off my soapbox now. I apologize for the rant.
Regards
Jon
ORIGINAL: willig10
Jpmag: I have to disagree with you a little here. Here is why. The engine is not the instructors but the student's engine. It is the job of an instructor to lead the way, give advice but not to dictate what engine the student ultimately decides to purchase. In my humble opinion a reputable instructor will or should be able to dial an engine in and pass that knowledge to the student.
My 2 cents
Glenn
Jpmag: I have to disagree with you a little here. Here is why. The engine is not the instructors but the student's engine. It is the job of an instructor to lead the way, give advice but not to dictate what engine the student ultimately decides to purchase. In my humble opinion a reputable instructor will or should be able to dial an engine in and pass that knowledge to the student.
My 2 cents
Glenn
I understand your point, and I do agree with you to an extent. But some instructors have strong opinions for or against a certain brand. It would be wise for a new student to talk with his instructor before purchasing an engine. If they cannot come to a compromise then either the student will need to find a different instructor or accept the instructors wishes, rational or not. The instructor is donating his time, and typically many hours of his time. It is only considerate to include him in the decision.
Here is an example. Some Enya and Fox engines are iron piston-lapped steel liner engines. They are excellent engines but they require a long break-in period, require fuel with high castor content, and some Fox engines require very low nitro fuel and require a unique needle adjustment procedure. If an instructor did not have experience with these engines in the past then there might be a problem.
Another example: Some of the ''bargain'' 2-stroke engines manufacturers are known for poor quality control. If a student happens to get a good engine then everything is great. If he is unlucky and gets a dog, then hours of the instructors time may be wasted looking for air leaks and so on. I've been down this path and it was aggrevating. I wasted many days at the field on which I could have been flying myself so that my student could save $30 on the cost of his engine.
There are students who are very good with engines right from the start and don't need help. But this is the exception. Most students are clueless and don't even want or try to read the engine manual. They show up at the field with an engine that has never been run and expect the instructor to do everything. Breaking in one brand of engine may take just one or two tanks. Breaking in another type of engine may take an hour or two. Breaking in / troubleshooting a difficult engine may take many hours.
I'll get off my soapbox now. I apologize for the rant.
Regards
Jon
03-05-2010 | 03:11 AM
#34
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Eagle HeightsQueensland, AUSTRALIA
RE: Engine suggestions
Having your instructor agreeable to what you are flying, in regards to plane, engine and radio is preferable for sure. At our club we've seen plenty of new guys come along with cheap equipment sold to them by various local hobby shops and they wonder why they have trouble or can't upgrade, etc.
Talking to the instructor and other guys at the club is worth doing particularly since you are likely to ask them for help when you have trouble. If you've asked them, and gone against their advice, they may be less able to help you then if you go for their advice.
At the end of the day, however, it is YOUR plane, YOUR equipment, so you have to get something you are comfortable with.
Talking to the instructor and other guys at the club is worth doing particularly since you are likely to ask them for help when you have trouble. If you've asked them, and gone against their advice, they may be less able to help you then if you go for their advice.
At the end of the day, however, it is YOUR plane, YOUR equipment, so you have to get something you are comfortable with.
03-05-2010 | 08:06 AM
#35
RE: Engine suggestions
1. Bar none the best lasting engine and lasting quality is the O.S. series.
03-05-2010 | 08:23 AM
#36
RE: Engine suggestions
But some instructors have strong opinions for or against a certain brand.
03-05-2010 | 09:45 AM
#37
My Feedback: (11)
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Eugene,
OR
RE: Engine suggestions
Sport Pilot,
I am not a huge fan of OS but for the money they are the best running engines out there. Look at rc combat 90% of the engines used are os and they outturn and outlast about anything out there. I have tested many engines (norvel, webra, MDS, magnum) and none come close to the performance of the os.
But for a beginner a TT or Magnum or any other well made engine should do fine. I learned on a MDS and once set did not have many issues. My friend just got into the hobby and we got him an evaluation 46 for a good price and I am impressed with it. so far no issues with it and starts every time.
I suggest you get a used engine and have fun you are not going to set any records with your first plane so just have fun.
I am not a huge fan of OS but for the money they are the best running engines out there. Look at rc combat 90% of the engines used are os and they outturn and outlast about anything out there. I have tested many engines (norvel, webra, MDS, magnum) and none come close to the performance of the os.
But for a beginner a TT or Magnum or any other well made engine should do fine. I learned on a MDS and once set did not have many issues. My friend just got into the hobby and we got him an evaluation 46 for a good price and I am impressed with it. so far no issues with it and starts every time.
I suggest you get a used engine and have fun you are not going to set any records with your first plane so just have fun.
03-05-2010 | 10:27 AM
#38
My Feedback: (4)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Smithville, OH
RE: Engine suggestions
ForktailedDevil38 - Super Tigre engines are terrific, but I haven't found them to be quite as user friendly as O.S. Max or Thunder Tiger. The exhaust gasket shipped with the engine should be thrown away and not used. I also learned to double nut my exhaust manifold bolts in addition to thread locking them.
03-05-2010 | 11:50 AM
#41
RE: Engine suggestions
I am not a huge fan of OS but for the money they are the best running engines out there. Look at rc combat 90% of the engines used are os and they outturn and outlast about anything out there. I have tested many engines (norvel, webra, MDS, magnum) and none come close to the performance of the os.
03-05-2010 | 12:13 PM
#42
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Engine suggestions
ORIGINAL: tonyob
Having your instructor agreeable to what you are flying, in regards to plane, engine and radio is preferable for sure. At our club we've seen plenty of new guys come along with cheap equipment sold to them by various local hobby shops and they wonder why they have trouble or can't upgrade, etc.
Talking to the instructor and other guys at the club is worth doing particularly since you are likely to ask them for help when you have trouble. If you've asked them, and gone against their advice, they may be less able to help you then if you go for their advice.
At the end of the day, however, it is YOUR plane, YOUR equipment, so you have to get something you are comfortable with.
Having your instructor agreeable to what you are flying, in regards to plane, engine and radio is preferable for sure. At our club we've seen plenty of new guys come along with cheap equipment sold to them by various local hobby shops and they wonder why they have trouble or can't upgrade, etc.
Talking to the instructor and other guys at the club is worth doing particularly since you are likely to ask them for help when you have trouble. If you've asked them, and gone against their advice, they may be less able to help you then if you go for their advice.
At the end of the day, however, it is YOUR plane, YOUR equipment, so you have to get something you are comfortable with.
03-05-2010 | 02:05 PM
#43
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: bangalore, , INDIA
RE: Engine suggestions
Thanks you guys, for the sheer number of responses! Amidst all this varied opinion, some kinda clarity is coming up (atleast i think 
)
)
03-05-2010 | 02:37 PM
#44
RE: Engine suggestions
For trainer engines (also for 2nd plane use): 1. OS 46AX, pricy but easy to start and tune and tons of power if you can afford it at all, you won't be sorry! The user friendliness, reliability and extra power when it gets windy will be appreciated on the first flight.
2. Thunder Tiger 46Pro, a less expensive but still very good alternative. As an instructor I found them also to be as easy to start and tune as the OS but not quite the same power, but close enough. Any other brand in this size just doesn't give the reliability needed for nice training flights IMHO. [8D]
2. Thunder Tiger 46Pro, a less expensive but still very good alternative. As an instructor I found them also to be as easy to start and tune as the OS but not quite the same power, but close enough. Any other brand in this size just doesn't give the reliability needed for nice training flights IMHO. [8D]
03-05-2010 | 03:00 PM
#45
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bend,
OR
RE: Engine suggestions
archie05,
The reason that I run strictly OS engines is not my opinion. I have been flying RC since 1980 and after entering the hobby with a RCM trainer and a K&B 40........which by the way was a good combo at that time. I then started purchasing OS engines and have never looked back. The OS engines of course cost more but they fly out of the box..........back then and now. I don't have to work on OS engines, they just fly and fly and fly............quality costs.........and that is not an arguable point. I worked in engineering for over 45 years and there was always an argument about schedule or quality.........schedule always lost because when we cut corners it cost........taking a few extra hours and delivering a quality product costs more but it is worth it to the end user.
Andy
The reason that I run strictly OS engines is not my opinion. I have been flying RC since 1980 and after entering the hobby with a RCM trainer and a K&B 40........which by the way was a good combo at that time. I then started purchasing OS engines and have never looked back. The OS engines of course cost more but they fly out of the box..........back then and now. I don't have to work on OS engines, they just fly and fly and fly............quality costs.........and that is not an arguable point. I worked in engineering for over 45 years and there was always an argument about schedule or quality.........schedule always lost because when we cut corners it cost........taking a few extra hours and delivering a quality product costs more but it is worth it to the end user.
Andy
03-05-2010 | 03:04 PM
#46
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bend,
OR
RE: Engine suggestions
Sport_Pilot,
I don't know where you get that most engines outlast OS. I still have the OS45FSR that I learned to fly with in 1983 and it runs fine. As a matter of fact it was stored for a few years when I moved and recently I dug it out and mounted it on my original Midwest Sweet Stik. I made a comment to one of my buddies that I hoped it would start after all those years.........well the starter didn't even turn over one time and the engine started and away she went. OS goes the distance...........PERIOD!
I don't know where you get that most engines outlast OS. I still have the OS45FSR that I learned to fly with in 1983 and it runs fine. As a matter of fact it was stored for a few years when I moved and recently I dug it out and mounted it on my original Midwest Sweet Stik. I made a comment to one of my buddies that I hoped it would start after all those years.........well the starter didn't even turn over one time and the engine started and away she went. OS goes the distance...........PERIOD!
03-05-2010 | 03:37 PM
#47
RE: Engine suggestions
O.S. Max engine durability varies from model to model. Just because a .45FSR has lasted and lasted doesn't mean that a .46 AX will enjoy the same long life.
The Glow Engines forum here on RCU has extensive posts regarding engine durability testing. The following post by Dr. Nitro was made in a thread concerning the O.S. Max 1.20 AX 2-stroke, and is frequently cited:
This is simply one particular post made by one of the many genuine airplane glow engine experts here at RC Universe.
Frequent posters to the Glow Engines forum include other glow engine experts like Harry Lagman, Dar Zeelon, Ed Moorman, Hobbsy, DownUnder, w8ye, Ed Cregger, and many other regular posters. It's well worth taking the time to wade through the posts in the Glow Engines forum and really read all of the information and knowledge that is accumulated there. Even posters who have run dozens of different engines for hundreds of hours each will disagree from time to time.
The Glow Engines forum here on RCU has extensive posts regarding engine durability testing. The following post by Dr. Nitro was made in a thread concerning the O.S. Max 1.20 AX 2-stroke, and is frequently cited:
ORIGINAL: DR NITRO
For the past few years I have been paid to test run engines for a model fuel company. Since I have my own private flying field and am out in the middle of nowhere and retired, I can do this till my heart's content and not bother anybody. Mostly I run them on the several engine test fixtures, then a few of them I will actually fly on one of my planes or heli's. I even have a set of load beams to mount on car engines and a ducting system to cool the head when I test run them. I have gone through lots of engines, some were good , some were junk.
I use as a baseline, the average 40 size two stroke will run 15 minutes (at varying throttle positions) on 8 ounces of fuel. My goal is to get 400 hours on an engine or 100 gallons, whichever comes first. I have had numerous engines make it past this mark and a few that did not. To be be fair, I do a few things that the less experienced modeler does like shut them down for the day and do nothing to them until they are run the next day, I also run them a bit lean but only to the point where the rpm's are peaked, not past peak and generally use a prop that is on the small end of the scale for the given engine. I do run them on a fuel type that is intended for that design or recommended in the instructions. and always two identical engines are run identically at the same time, one with a competitors brand fuel and one with the company I'm contraced by, just for comparison.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I have run the engines you mention above and a bunch more of the OS line, this is what I got before the engines just simply wore out:
25FX- got to about 6 gallons
32SX- got to about 20 gallons after the first set of sleeves
40FX- got to about 20 gallons
46FX- (early ones) about 6 tanks
46FX- (later ones) about 40 gallons
OS 50- (airplaneversion and heli versions)- could not get past 10 gallons without it puking the bearings, longevity testing suspended on the modern OS 50
61FX- got to about 65 gallons
OS70 Heli-got to about 3 tanks on both engines, rods gave out. replacement engines made it to about 15 gallons
91FX- got to about 35 gallons
160FX- (after several tries and replacement motors, testing was abandoned)
OS 120 Surpass III- bearings failed around the 15 gallon mark, heads warped around the 50 gallon mark
OS 91 Surpass- got about 80 gallons before it was just plain worn out
OS 70 FL- after about two gallons of frustration, testing was abandoned.
As a comparison, heres some of my test engines that are in either the 400 hour club or 100 gallon club
Fox 35 CL, 40 bushing, 40BB, 45, 46, 50 and 74
Enya- 25, 40's (all the 40's), 50SS, 50CX, 60 (all versions) and 4-strokes: 46, 53, 90, 120 (old and new) and the 155 (everything tested)
Irvine- 46, 53
Super Tigre (italian)- 34, 40, 45, 51, 75, 90, 2300, 4500 (no chineese ones tested yet)
K&B (Pre Mecoa)- 40 (4011), 48, 61
Thunder Tiger- 25, 40, 42 bushing, 46, 61, 65 bushing, 120 and 4 strokes: 91 and 120 (everything tested)
Magnum- 46 (the only model tested)
Webra- 50
YS- 45, 53, 91AC
Saito- 56, 65, 72, 80, 91, 100, 120, 180 (everything tested)
Moki 135, 180 (everything tested)
MVVS 40, 49, 77, 91 (everything tested)
Rossi 45, 53 (everything tested)
Now heres some that did not make it to the club:
Anything Mecoa
Anything Leo
Anything MDS
Anything OS (modern)
Don't flame me guys, these are just the results experienced. In all cases, fuel should not have been an issue since failures in the OS line on one fuel were very soon repeated on the other, which indicates design problems.
Dr Nitro
For the past few years I have been paid to test run engines for a model fuel company. Since I have my own private flying field and am out in the middle of nowhere and retired, I can do this till my heart's content and not bother anybody. Mostly I run them on the several engine test fixtures, then a few of them I will actually fly on one of my planes or heli's. I even have a set of load beams to mount on car engines and a ducting system to cool the head when I test run them. I have gone through lots of engines, some were good , some were junk.
I use as a baseline, the average 40 size two stroke will run 15 minutes (at varying throttle positions) on 8 ounces of fuel. My goal is to get 400 hours on an engine or 100 gallons, whichever comes first. I have had numerous engines make it past this mark and a few that did not. To be be fair, I do a few things that the less experienced modeler does like shut them down for the day and do nothing to them until they are run the next day, I also run them a bit lean but only to the point where the rpm's are peaked, not past peak and generally use a prop that is on the small end of the scale for the given engine. I do run them on a fuel type that is intended for that design or recommended in the instructions. and always two identical engines are run identically at the same time, one with a competitors brand fuel and one with the company I'm contraced by, just for comparison.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I have run the engines you mention above and a bunch more of the OS line, this is what I got before the engines just simply wore out:
25FX- got to about 6 gallons
32SX- got to about 20 gallons after the first set of sleeves
40FX- got to about 20 gallons
46FX- (early ones) about 6 tanks
46FX- (later ones) about 40 gallons
OS 50- (airplaneversion and heli versions)- could not get past 10 gallons without it puking the bearings, longevity testing suspended on the modern OS 50
61FX- got to about 65 gallons
OS70 Heli-got to about 3 tanks on both engines, rods gave out. replacement engines made it to about 15 gallons
91FX- got to about 35 gallons
160FX- (after several tries and replacement motors, testing was abandoned)
OS 120 Surpass III- bearings failed around the 15 gallon mark, heads warped around the 50 gallon mark
OS 91 Surpass- got about 80 gallons before it was just plain worn out
OS 70 FL- after about two gallons of frustration, testing was abandoned.
As a comparison, heres some of my test engines that are in either the 400 hour club or 100 gallon club
Fox 35 CL, 40 bushing, 40BB, 45, 46, 50 and 74
Enya- 25, 40's (all the 40's), 50SS, 50CX, 60 (all versions) and 4-strokes: 46, 53, 90, 120 (old and new) and the 155 (everything tested)
Irvine- 46, 53
Super Tigre (italian)- 34, 40, 45, 51, 75, 90, 2300, 4500 (no chineese ones tested yet)
K&B (Pre Mecoa)- 40 (4011), 48, 61
Thunder Tiger- 25, 40, 42 bushing, 46, 61, 65 bushing, 120 and 4 strokes: 91 and 120 (everything tested)
Magnum- 46 (the only model tested)
Webra- 50
YS- 45, 53, 91AC
Saito- 56, 65, 72, 80, 91, 100, 120, 180 (everything tested)
Moki 135, 180 (everything tested)
MVVS 40, 49, 77, 91 (everything tested)
Rossi 45, 53 (everything tested)
Now heres some that did not make it to the club:
Anything Mecoa
Anything Leo
Anything MDS
Anything OS (modern)
Don't flame me guys, these are just the results experienced. In all cases, fuel should not have been an issue since failures in the OS line on one fuel were very soon repeated on the other, which indicates design problems.
Dr Nitro
Frequent posters to the Glow Engines forum include other glow engine experts like Harry Lagman, Dar Zeelon, Ed Moorman, Hobbsy, DownUnder, w8ye, Ed Cregger, and many other regular posters. It's well worth taking the time to wade through the posts in the Glow Engines forum and really read all of the information and knowledge that is accumulated there. Even posters who have run dozens of different engines for hundreds of hours each will disagree from time to time.
03-05-2010 | 05:11 PM
#48
RE: Engine suggestions
As an instructor I found them also to be as easy to start and tune as the OS but not quite the same power, but close enough.
03-05-2010 | 05:12 PM
#49
RE: Engine suggestions
I don't know where you get that most engines outlast OS. I still have the OS45FSR
03-05-2010 | 07:11 PM
#50
Senior Member
My Feedback: (494)
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Palm Bay, FL
RE: Engine suggestions
ORIGINAL: willig10
Jpmag: I have to disagree with you a little here. Here is why. The engine is not the instructors but the student's engine. It is the job of an instructor to lead the way, give advice but not to dictate what engine the student ultimately decides to purchase. In my humble opinion a reputable instructor will or should be able to dial an engine in and pass that knowledge to the student.
My 2 cents
Glenn
Jpmag: I have to disagree with you a little here. Here is why. The engine is not the instructors but the student's engine. It is the job of an instructor to lead the way, give advice but not to dictate what engine the student ultimately decides to purchase. In my humble opinion a reputable instructor will or should be able to dial an engine in and pass that knowledge to the student.
My 2 cents
Glenn
You're going to be slamming that trainer into the dirt with a deadstick landing at least once, snapping off props and needle valves, bouncing it on landings, or worse. A $140 engine is an expensive way to go if you crack the carb neck off, break off mufflers, bend crankshafts, etc. OS parts are ridiculously expensive. I usually disassemble my old OS engines and keep the parts for the next engine to have it's own supply.
I'd avoid used engines starting out, unless it's local and you can hear it run or you know the reputation of the seller is well established. Make OS a certainty in the near future, but smack around a cheap engine from China first. Your instructor should be very proficient in engine tuning and handle that for you starting out. Your focus is flying, orientation, and learning flying safety. The product knowledge comes with experience. Everyone has gone in some direction with a brand and stuck with it from what I've read here.
I used Super Tigre decades ago without any issues, however, that was control line flying. RC was a bit different with a carb but I learned how to tune them as easily as OS. As you can see my avatar says what I still like most, and I own and fly many Super Tigre engines on my planes today. I got out of the hobby for a long time (1982) and when I got back into it in 2002, I had to learn to fly again. The local crowd mostly flew OS and they suggested I switch. I was picking up engines used from EBay, and all of them generally were out of tune on the low end adjustment, as it's common beginners just move the high speed needle thinking it will cure idle problems. Some needed Teflon wrapped on a leaking needle valve, or a new backplate gasket, carb O ring, something had to be done to these mystery engines to get them running properly. Thankfully I had an engine guru first hand teach me how to tune just about any engine. I'd presume the seller on the auction site thought he had a bad brand, and wanted to get rid of it when in fact the engine had a minor problem, and it was a user end issue, not the product.
One thing you can gather from this post is someone has enjoyed about every engine out there, and the most user friendly engine is certainly OS.
I learned that from my "instructor" who flies OS exclusively. I show him Rossi is faster, I show him Super Tigre is half price, and he doesn't care.
The fact of the matter is he's got the most fly time out of any weekend compared to my variety of powerplants I bring out. My OS engines are flawless, but they do not last as long as Super Tigre, Rossi, and other well made engines with a true chrome liner. Nickel plating process has it's problems, the case is paper thin on OS too so it was never intended to meet the ground and survive. I've seen some pretty interesting crashes and those engines separate so badly its comical. (No one at our field gets up tight about that by the way.)
