Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

I bought one of the 48's the first year they came out. Ran about 8k and spit fuel out of the carb. Check the crankshaft timing and it was mis-timed. Wrote the factory but they never wrote back. It was the end of my relationship with K&B. I'm certain that they have corrected all problems by now.

tony0707

HI
K&B 60 IS An OK ENGINE FOR A 40 SIZE plane only because it is a light engine for its size-very average power
as a rule i would go with an OS or an EVO -.-especially if you are not use to operating glo engines for a long time
i know from my own time at the field the EVO engines are exceptional performers but that seems to not be well known
the EVO 46 on an 11/5 APC is one of the most powerful 46's out there and it has a ball bearing crank shaft the K&b is a bushing crank
the OS AX series of engines puts out amazing power for there size
building and flying RC for 20 years MORE THAN MOST-less than few
ENJOY BEST REGARDS TONY LENTINI

hsukaria

I have both and are both great engines. The OS 55AX has more power and easier to get going out of the box. But it is also considerably more expensive ($160 vs. $100 or less). The Super Tigre 51 has the unique muffler that is a love-or-hate design. I used them for a while and are very quiet and can be rotated. But they are also very heavy, ended up replacing with Macs one-piece-mufflers.

hsukaria

Another thing, the Super Tigre 51 is a ring engine. So it will be easier/cheaper to change out when it wears out. The carb tuning is harder for me than the OS, but once you get the hang of it, it is easy to tune and start.

hsukaria

You like MDS? You're the first person ever that I heard to like them. I have seen a couple at the field and they ended up in the trash can.

You are also the first I ever heard to have bad luck with Thunder Tiger.

I guess your luck is different.

sandyrod

My Feedback: (3)

K&B 61 is a ball bearing engine.

bruce88123

I've run a K&B 61 in many planes of various sizes from fun fliers to older pattern planes. It had plenty of power and not all planes need to be missiles. They hate to run lean but many are like that. Anyone who can't get good power from one isn't doing something right. Good 10% fuel with an average amount of oil will do the job, 15% is better of course.

Sport_Pilot

Perhaps, but you were claiming them to be poor engines. IMO marketing was the problem. Wasn't it a death of the owner that resulted in selling to RJL? Not sure if that is true.

Sport_Pilot

The older engines other than a few exceptions such as the Hawk were ugly, mostly because of their finish. But look at these and tell me if they are ugly to you?

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Sir do not presume to speak for me. That is an outright distortion and lie. Read what you just Quoted.

John

Steve Landron

Hsukaria,

I've had pretty good luck with quite a few engines over the years, including MDS (AKA, More Dead Sticks). I have the 1.48 in the World Models giant scale P-51 and it flys the plane with authority, I don't want to jinx myself but both engines (.45, and 1.48) have run great with no Dead sticks and smooth power. I had heard there were problems with MDS carbs amoung other things but I never seemed to have any problems other people seemed to have, just lucky I guess. Thunder Tiger on the other hand is another story, two broken connecting rods in two separate TT .39 Pros and I will never buy another TT engine product. The helos (Raptor) are great, but the engines, well, lets just say I gave them away right after I rebuilt them. I know there have been others with similiar problems with the TT engines, I'm just too lazy to dig up the thread, (Check the reviews)! To each his own, regarding engine preferances.. Again I digress, this is a discussion about K&B's which I have had pretty good luck with as well.

Steve

Sport_Pilot

You said these engines caused the company to fail. That in itself is saying that they are poor engines.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

Looks like he said they failed to save the company. Not at all the same as causing the failure. In many cases great products fail to save doomed companies, and I don't see anywhere in his statement saying they were bad engines.

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

cfircav8r, thank you.


Sport_Pilot
There you go agine changing my words to mean something entirely different and trying to attribute this new meaning to me.

Well sir I say agine I stated nothing of the sort and its getting repitious, you continually changing my words, Quoteing the same phrase, what everyday for three days now or is it four. Speak for yourself not me, I am sorry you are incapable of reading and comprehending my simple statement.

However that is your problem not mine and I,ve no interest in immature 'Basic Combat Posting 101'.


John

kcc

I agree with your comment about the pics you posted. I was remembering the Hawk, for one, and the 25 that powered the plane I learned to fly on. That engine's low speed adjustment was the fuel inlet nipple that you had to adjust after REMOVING the fuel line!
The engines you showed were/are much better looking than my (early) experience. Like I said, I wasn't looking to start a fight, I was just trying to be humorous.....

kcc

I meant to say "Eagle" not Hawk. Sorry.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

I think after reading this thread that not too many people know very much about K&B. I forgot who the K was, but the B was John Brodbeck who ran the company from the 50's until John Jr. took over the operation in the later years, so it was a family business for over 50 years.

Most of the modern engines were designed by either Clarence Lee or Bill Winiewski. Most of you should know who Lee is from all his articles, but Winiewski may be unknown to you. He was very well known for high performance speed engines, as he was the first to use high performance fuels, use tuned pipes on a model engine or build the first Schnurle ported model engine.

In the later years of K&B, the dollar was pretty strong, and imported engines fairly cheap compared to building engines in the states. Brodbeck made the decision to compete on price and go for the beginner market, so the Perry carb was dumped and later the plain bushing engines and screw on head engines were designed by Winiewski. Bill still did a few high performance designs for boats and ducted fans, but that was a limited market.

Bill Winiewski competed in control line speed, though by the time I met him in the 80's his sons were doing most of the flying. His last D speed engine (.65 displacement), built from the ducted fan engine case was so strong that it had problems with breaking props while running. Bill discovered the exact nature of the problem by using a strobe light to watch the shock waves traveling down the length of the prop blade.

buzzard bait

Very interesting HP, thank you.

Jim

Sport_Pilot

I am not twisting your words that was an exact quote, In your first post you said.

So you said they were failures. This did not say why but you said the screwhead broke, which is possible, but from all reports is rare. You said they failed to save the company and did not mean to say they wer poor engines and I believe you. I doubt any one or two engines could save a company. The issue was a poor reputation from earlier sportsters and cheap imports.

Sport_Pilot

No harm. I just wanted to show that things have changed. Though in truth these photo's look a bit betterthan in real life. Most of the past Fox engines were either ugly or plain looking. At best they had an industrial look to them. Many of the gas engines have an industrial look, but for some reason that doesn't seem to bother the gassers.

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Once agine Sport Pilot another vicious attack by you. They most certainly were failures in the marketplace and contributed to the companys demise.

My posts were never whether or not they were good engines, it always about the companys demise.

You are not the opinion police. This is not the 'AMA Forum' where vicious attacks seem to be celebrated perhaps you have spent to much time there.

Good day Sir

John

Sport_Pilot

I don't see why you are so indignant. You said these engines are failures. I said that to me means you think they are poor engines. you say that is not what you mean't and I say I believe you. I am just trying to show I did not twist your words, but that I have made exact quotes.
To me to say the engines are failures is to say they are poor engines. So what does it matter if that is not what you mean't by that? That makes me a liar?

sandyrod

My Feedback: (3)

John Buckner I don't know much about you but you are sure ichtin' for a fight. Viscous attack, are you serious? I don't see where you have been insulted at all. You drove this thread so far off course that it should be brought to a timely demise. Take the chip off you will feel better.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

Ok guys, that's enough. This is getting way off topic and this is not the place for discussion of this sort. If you wish to discuss this I would suggest taking it to the Engines Forum. But as far as the Beginner's Forum is concerned we are finished here. Let's drop the subject.

Ken

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

Lud (Ludwig ) Kading was the "K" in K&B...

https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/Kading-Lud.pdf


Edit:BTW, Bob...you left out an s in Bill Wisniewski's name

https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/WisniewskiBill.pdf