mds engines
 

hi im planning to get an mds .68 engine for my carasel plane ore shouldd i buy a powerhouse irvine are mds power houses?reliable?good runners?:D

please help im gonna sell my ps2 to get it so give me good advice:Dplease:D

RE: mds engines
 

Based on my personal experience --- don't bother with the MDS. They make great door-stops.

RE: mds engines
 

why whats rong with mds engines have u ever had one?ive heard there a good engine:DORE ARE PEOPLE LIEING TO ME:DLOL

RE: mds engines
 

Luke,
Britbrat said "Based on my personal experience", this means that he has had one and that is what his opinion is based on. If you are going to ask for advice please don't argue with the answers you get from other RCU members. This is a very quick way to upset people. If you continue doing this then I will close down this thread.

Ken

RE: mds engines
 

Luke, I have had two of the nasty little brutes. The MDS .38 that I had, started & ran well enough -- it was even close to the power of my TT 40 Pro at high rpms, but it broke its crankshaft quite spectacularly -- resulting in a model being lost in the bush (& not found again).

My MDS 78 is just plain crappy. It starts & runs well on the ground, but seldom completes a flight without flaming out --- it has wrecked several models. Additionally, it is heavy & it only makes mediocre power for its displacement -- not much better than my LEO 61.

RE: mds engines
 

rc ken,i wasent arguing with brit brat i was just asking some frendly questions.oh yea and thanks britbrat:D

RE: mds engines
 

No prob Luke.

To be fair, I should say that the MDS 38 was only suspected of having broken its crank -- I didn't actually get to see the bits. There was an almighty bang & debris was observed to fly off the front of the model. About 2 yrs later, a friend had a very similar noisy failure with an identical MDS 38 & in his case it was a broken crank, so I assume that is what happened to mine. What ever it was, it was violent & instantaneous.

RE: mds engines
 

mmmmmm thats bad so im gettin an expensive irvine .61:Datleast its a power house:D

RE: mds engines
 

I had a MDS78 and flew it on a bipe. It had plenty of power and ran very well. I had to adjust the carb but it ran well.I crashed the plane nose down after the radio failed. The case is broken but I'm thinking of rebuilding it because it ran so good.If you read the manual and break it in right I think you will have good luck with it.If it flames out check the high speed adjustment on the carb.I also just got a 40 and am looking forward to putting it in another bipe.It's up to you but I personally have had good luck with all my engines. Mds,os,thundertiger,supertigre&magnum.All required some form of carb adjustment but performed very well afterward.When in doubt E-mail the manufacturer.Good luck and I hope I have helped.

RE: mds engines
 

dave --- thanks, but I know how to tune an engine. This one has chronic problems with air leakage at the remote needle-valve, as well as air leaks past the throttle barrel & at the carb base. I changed out the carb for a front needle GMS 76 carb (of all things) & it ran better, but who needs to buy an engine then change the carb to make it work?

RE: mds engines
 

luke21:

I'm probably gonna get the flame job of a lifetime here for saying this but I've actually had pretty good luck with my mds 40's. One came stock in a extra easy trainer plane I bought and it's been through plenty or harsh treatment.....was riding along in a couple re-kits of trainer planes I had. Was the motor the problem that caused the crash....nope just a bad case of dumb thumbs on my part. The other mds 40 I bought to replace the gp.42 that was getting tired in my other trainer.

I've got a mds .61 on a large spad plane I built and although it does need a bit of needle adjusting from weekend to weekend (mainly cause of temp and humidity changes and it's still breaking in) but it runs like a champ. I think the biggest thing about the mds motors is that they do take quite a bit longer to get broke in before they really start to perform well. The other motors I've had in the past and most still fly are 2-OS.46LA's - 1-TT GP.42 - 2-MDS.40's - 1-MDS.61....then there is the tower hobbies.75 I've got waiting on the next large spad aircraft I'm building to get finished up.

Madd_Maxx

RE: mds engines
 

No flames -- if that is your experience, why would we flame you?

RE: mds engines
 

All i can say is as a past dealer for the MDS I sent back over 20 of them for a refund and they are no longer being sold in this country. Maybe one out of 10 worked. If they price is right try it, but if the engine don't work ????. Dennis

RE: mds engines
 

I have the MDS 48 and have been flying it on a Twist for the past year. I bought it used and it was way out of tune when I got it. Did some carb adjusting and it has been a pleasure ever since. Excellent power, easy hand starts, completely reliable and prefers low nitro fuel. From all the information I have seen about the .68, it is the best of the bunch from MDS; better power than the .78. I am looking for a .68 to buy cheap, because everyone knows MDS are crappy engines and are no good.:eek:

RE: mds engines
 

Ive seen some run but most not. Get a O.S. you'll be glad you did. Mike

RE: mds engines
 

no o.s engines have not got enough power for me i would prefer a powerhouse irvine .61:D

RE: mds engines
 

Luke,
Ok, what do you base your opinion about OS engines on? Using the horsepower numbers put out by each manufacturer the OS 61 FX has more power output than the Irvine (not sure why you keep calling it the "powerhouse") 61 engine. The Irvine engine puts out 1.7 HP while the OS puts out 1.9 HP. You can find these numbers on the following links:

Irvine engines specs: [link]http://www.justengines.unseen.org/irvine.htm[/link]

OS engines specs: [link]http://osengines.com/engines/fx.html[/link]

Ken

RE: mds engines
 

Ooooooh Ken --- bad boy! You, of all people, know that none of the advertised numbers are real -- & OS numbers are every bit as unreal (or more so) than anyone else's.

Luke is just guessing of course, & he has no experience to base his guess on --- but it makes for fun arguments.:D

RE: mds engines
 

Bruce,
Yep, I know that the numbers are just that--- numbers. But at least it's something to base a discussion on instead of "no o.s engines have not got enough power for me". :)

Ken

RE: mds engines
 

Some like blond, some like red. i'll take bald if it works. Dennis

RE: mds engines
 

Actually, his statement "no o.s engines have not got enough power for me", means that all OS engines have enough power for his needs. I don't think that he is saying what he thinks that he is saying, but I think I know what he thinks he is saying. [sm=spinnyeyes.gif]

RE: mds engines
 

arrrgghhhh!!! They're coming to take me away, ha ha. They're coming to take me away, ho ho!!!!! I just don't understand!!!! My head is going to explode!! :D:D:D:D

Ken

RE: mds engines
 

Just to further this entertaining subject -- in my opinion, two of the better choices in the 60 class are two of the low-end price leaders -- the TT 61 GP & the OS 65 LA.

Both make essentially as much real-world power as their in-house "high output" brothers" (TT 61 Pro & OS 61 FX) at quite a bit lower cost. Definately way more bang-for-the-buck. Neither the TT 61 Pro, nor the OS .61 FX are startling performers -- pretty much the same as most 60 size engines.

As a general arguing point, I have never encountered any 60-size engine that I thought was a great powerhouse -- too much bulk & weight, & not enough go for me. I prefer the 75 size engines -- same size & weight & a fair bit more snap, for very close to the price of the 60's (MDS 78 excepted).

RE: mds engines
 

Ok then buy the MDS. Mike

RE: mds engines
 

Yah, buy the MDS -- Mine cost as much as a decent 46, weighs as much as a .90, makes as much power as a .61 & only uses 1/2 as much fuel -- because it only completes 1/2 of its flights. Interesting economics.