O.S .65 LA engine
 

Does anyone have any opinions on the O.S .65LA engine. Good, bad or just an OK engine.

Thanks.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

They are good engines, but not a power house. I have not had any problems with mine. It will pull around any 60 size plane, but as I said, they are not power house's. Good Luck, Dave

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I was recently looking for an engine for a SIG Senior. The specs called for anywhere from a .45 to a .53. I wanted a .60 or higher. For some reason hobby retailers advertise their planes using and under powered engine. I found out the hard way. Anyway, I saw an OS 60 LA a believe it was for $109.00. I thought that was cheap. When talking to my fellow club members they told me that the LA is advertised as a .60 but has the power of a .45. That explained the price. I paid an extra $50.00 dollars and bought the OS .61 FX. Don't get me wrong. I love OS engines, you just have to be careful with the LA models.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I seem to recall reading that the .65 LA was a pretty powerful engine for the money. If I remember correctly, it has the ability to swing a pretty big prop and will do so quite happily. Heck, I might be crazy, but I think I read somewhere that it compares favorably to the .61 FX on some props. Perhaps someone with some direct experience will chime in and provide some more info.

Erik

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

The problem with the LA's is they have no bearings just bushings........So i have been told....Have to really take care of them to make them last very long.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

One of the magazines did a comparison test on 60 size engines a few years back and the 65 LA was toward the top of the pack as far as power. My experience running a 65LA and a 61FX was that the LA gave up nothing in power. Both are very user friendly-easy to adjust-plenty of power-easy to start. The LA did develop a rattle/knock type noise but that was only at part throttle and did not seem to hurt it's performance. A lot of LA's seem to sound odd after they have a little run time on them.
Fred

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I just bought my first plane. Hobbistar 60 with a Futaba SkySport 6 using this OS 65LA. I can't seem to keep this thing started. Bought it used for $225 for everything but I don't think it was broken in properly or at all. Looks too new. It starts hard and doesn't like lower RPM. It's almost like it doesn't get enough fuel but runs very strong for the first couple minutes or so. Any ideas or is this a fluke?

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

Could be several things. Muffler pressure, low-speed needle setting, prop selection, even to an extent, the high speed needle. Could be that the fuel line is to small, or partiall clogged, or maybe even fuel flow problems from the tank to the carb. Dirty needle valve, and do on.

But the low end sounds like it may be a tad lean. Turn it out about 1/8 of a turn and try it again. Do this after you check other stuff like making sure that you have sufficient muffler pressure, and that fuel flows easily from the tank.

Let us know what you find once you've done some of this stuff.

DS.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

Keep in mind that bushed engines such as the O.S. LA-series and the Thunder Tiger GP-series engines require a significant amount of castor oil as part of the lubrication content of the fuel. The ideal fuel for an O.S. Max .65 LA would be 10% Nitro and 20% to 25% oil content that is 100% castor oil. The castor oil actually helps "float" some of the engine components at speed to prevent excessive wear.

These engines offer adequate power for their size, they can be very reliable and very long lasting. Running these engines with 100% synthetic lubrication or 80/20 synth/castor fuel will chew them to pieces.

I believe the primary reason that bushing engines have fallen so far out of favor in recent years is that the fuel commonly available at most hobby stores simply isn't designed for these engines and getting good running results is almost impossible for novice pilots who aren't familiar with the fuel requirements for these engines.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

LevellOrd,

My OS 46 LA would not run on 10% nitro.
Went to 15% and she became a dream.

To richen the low end on my LAs you screw the needle in.
It is an air bleed so the needle is opposite what you would expect.

Good Luck,
KW_Counter

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I have to agree (and disagree) with Bigedmustafa. Some castor is good for the bushed engines, but 10% nitro, 20% oil (half synthetic, half castor) is ideal for an LA engine.

I'm running a 12-4 master airscrew on my LA .46, on Sig Champion 10% nitro, and it runs like a dream. Nice low idle, good torque. It surely doesn't scream, but it pulls my Pete'n'poke aound like a 4-stroke.

Phil

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I have a .65 LA engine. I recently purchased a bottle of fuel from a local hobby store and it contained numbers on the bottle indicating the percentage of lubricants, nitro, etc. (the salesperson said it would work with the .65 LA engine) I don't recall which number corresponds to which ingredient. What is the method to the order? I'd hate to harm the engine with the wrong fuel.

Thanks.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

Foos,

Nitro is generally the smallest number....in the range of 5% to maybe 25%, but typical sport fuel is 10 or 15. The next largest number is usually oil content, usually between 17% and 22%, but sometimes much lower for R/C car use. The balance is methanol and the percentage of that is not usually mentioned on the label. As has been stated, a minimum of 20% oil for that LA would be best, and if at least half of that is castor, it's even better.

Erik

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I have 2 .65LA engines, one in WM Super Chipmunk, and the other in a 4*60, both are great running engines. Easy starting and dependable. Have been using Cool Power 10% and have had no trouble yet. At an advertised 1.7 hp it only makes as much as a .46 AX, but swings a larger prop. Mine does fine in the Chipmunk, not a powerhouse but gets the job done. I see now that World Models has the Super Chipmunk rated for a .91. Might have to save up my pennies.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I've had a 65 LA for years with no problems at all. Extremely dependable and power seems the same as my 61FX, or at least if it's any different it's very close. I'd say the 61FX might have a very slight power advantage if I had to pick. Been running castor/synthetic blended fuel for all the years I've had it and still runs like it did out of the box.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

Like said above the big difference between the LA series and the AX, or the FX series engines is that the LA does not have bearings..power is ok..but the sound is terrible..I'd buy another one

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

Not a big fan of LA motors, I'd rather spend a little more and get an engine with a better output for it's weight and size.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I have a .25FX and was told it has the power of a .40LA,, makes sense but I havent flown it yet (the .25) but the few runs in the front yard for break in show it to be a thirsty beast...the .40LA I have was on a trainer,, I love that engine, I hope to get another trainer at an upcoming swapmeet to get it back in the air...also have a stick with a .65 Saito on it, that I would like to replace with a go .60+ size 2 stroke,,,dont care much for 4 strokes...just dont sound right...have to wait and see what I find at the swap meet here in Jan..Rog

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

The OS 25FX and the Saito 65 are both fine engines

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

You can't go wrong with the LA motors. Very dependable and inexpensive. they'er not cheap at all.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

Do you drive a car or SUV? Pretty sure that your automobile engine uses plain bearings on the crankshaft and cam(s) shaft.

The typical beginner would be better off not buying engines with ball bearings. Ball bearings require gentle treatment, while most beginners tend to land nose down or off field too often. Dirt is very hard on ball bearings, while bushings tend to flush it out the front.

OS engines tend toward milder timing, which makes them easy to tune and run. The LA series is even milder, which means they produce slightly lower power but are very user friendly. If you don't like the power they make, you should experiment with props a bit more.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

The later LA40's with the separate needle valves were getting pretty good. The LA 46 has always been good. A sport engine doesn't come any nicer than the LA65

But with a bushing engine you need a little more oil in the fuel

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

Someone here posted that the LA65 was one of the most reliable .46 engines he's ever owned. Heh.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

Don't know if it was too little to be big or too big to be little?

The LA series caught a lot of grief back in the late 90's when they first came out. You never heard such whining.

A few years ago I had a gaggle of old 30 year old control line models I wanted to sell. So I sold them all to one guy. Among other planes, there were two Magician profile models with OS MAX 35 engines.

He recovered the two planes and put a OS 40LA C/L engine on one. He flew them both at the field a few days later. The one with the LA 40 flew circles around the one with the OS MAX 35 engine. So the LA's were more powerful than some of the older engines
http://image2-6.rcuniverse.com/e1/ga...4/lg-38503.jpg
http://image2-6.rcuniverse.com/e1/ga...4/lg-38502.jpg

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I haven't had a 65 LA engine, but yrs ago had a 60 FP which was the predecessor and also had plain bushing type bearing in the crankcase.  It was annemic at something like 1.4 hp (compared to the 65 LA with 1.7 hp).  I had it installed in a E-Z P-51 Dallas Doll from Hobby Shack (People).  

Since it wouldn't make much power, I decided to check the port timing.  It was very much lower than the ball bearing 61 O.S. engines and other normal to high output engines.  I decided to port the sleeve to change the timing to match my Rossi 40.  I changed both the intake and exhaust timing to the same as the Rossi using a degree wheel (protractor) to measure it.  Then I installed a Mac tuned pipe w/muffler and header.  I tuned the headpipe length for max output.  The engine really came alive.  Albeit the carburetor and bore of the crankshaft were smaller than the 61 Max, that engine put out almost as much as a 61 with a tuned pipe.  That engine also gave many many reliable hrs of flying.

I relate the story above because I'm a believer in plain bearing (bushing) airplane engines for sport flying.  I've had so many ball bearing engines rust up the bearings even after care flushing and lubing with after run oils etc.</p>

I think the 65 LA should be a real powerhouse with some port timing changes and a tuned pipe.  I think I'll get one for my next p-51.  </p>

Chuck</p>

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

Chuck,

Welcome to RC Universe and may you have many more posts

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I had an LA 65 on a Hanger 9 ultra stick 60. it was a very light set up and a ball to fly. It would do anything I could ask it to do and fly slower do to the low weight. Backwards in a moderate breaze was easy. I got it WELL used out of a plane recovered from a tree. Flew it ALOT for three years. I would by another without hesitation.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

Hello everybody,

Brand new to the hobby... First post here and am getting close to my first flight ever/maiden flight on Hobbistar 60 with the .65LA. As I am a bit of a motor head I have been looking for a tuned pipe for the .65LA, I see Macs makes a pipe for that "size" engine but I have yet to find a header specifically for this engine. Anybody have any knowledge on a solution for this? Looking forward to getting airborne.

Thanks in advance,

Mike

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

My first plane was a Hobbistar 60 with a .65LA. I thought it was a great plane.

Do what you'd like, but the .65 is plently of power. I snapped the middle of the wing three times (had to apply new epoxy each time) and didn't realize it until I landed and only the rubber-bands were holding her together.

Not sure abou the tuned pipe for a .65, but with or without, the plane is fun for a first plane.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I do not have alot of experiance with many engines.  But I bought a 65LA back in 02 and ran it for the summer.  I left it in my garage sitting until last summer.  It took a bit to get it started and running well but it purrs like a kitten again.  Lets see, it sat unused for 7 years.  But you cant tell it now. 

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I am going to install my LA 65 in a U Can Do 60 and try props like 13x5  13x4 and see what it can do.<div>
</div><div>Fuel - 15% made it come alive in my other plane.</div><div>
</div><div> Needle valve - Its hard to tell lean from rich.</div><div>
</div><div> Another thing.-  No engine can be rated without trying a hand full of props first.       For example - A real twin engine plane dead stick will fall out the sky if the props did not feather. And my U Can Do will not hover if I try a 8 pitch prop. I need to find a low gear for this plane .</div><div>   A prop in a dive will brake. ( Half throttle or Idle same speed in a dive.) A lot of guys do not even think about this.</div><div>
</div><div>Also a 13" prop is as long as you can go with this engine . Because the tips of your prop can not brake the speed of sound. </div><div>
</div>

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I had an OS65LA that I had on a Texan II.......forget the manufacturer's name but it was a pretty big airplane. The 65LA moved it around smartly and was easy to start and maintain. Way back when, about all you could get was bushed engines........and they flew and lasted a long time. I have 2 OS25LA's on my Twinstar and they fly really great. I've never had a flame out and rarely have to adjust them......that's a thing with twins.......keeping them sync'd but I have not had a problem with my LA's. Had two OS40LA's for another twin but ended up giving the whole package to my son. I'd give two thumbs up to the motor you asked about.

Andy

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

OK everyone,

Thanks for your replies and insights, I have read in other threads that some think that the OS .65LA will not respond to a header/tuned pipe due to it's timing characteristics. I can now say with assurance that it responds quite well. Please see this video that was taken yesterday.

Thanks, Mike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmIVi9G5_EE

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

Watch out for air leaks at the plastic back plate.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I have had the 65la on my pt60 since 2002.  I didnt fly it or run it at all for 7 years.  Left it in the garage.   It runs today just fine and all I did when getting it ready to run again was remove tearit down and lube it well.  Put it back together and I would love to say it started right up, but it ook some work.  But eventually it started and I basically went through the breakin again.  Now, after flying it last season, it pulls the 8pd pt60 around with authority.  Take off roll is maybe 20 ft on grass.  It still takes several flips to get it started.  But it runs ok once it does start. 

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I have an OS 65 LA in an kangke su 26 profile weight is 5.25 pounds with a heavy metal gear servo in the tail for the rudder and a 6 volt pack. Kept the standard 6 ounce tank. The engine spins a 14x 4 Xoar wood prop at 10,000 rpms with a great idle and a nice transition. The xoar transits better than a heavier APC 14x 4 wide. Fuel economy is great with 10 to 12 minutes on average.

I would not compare this to a 45 power wise because it obviously should and does have a lot more torque. I chose it so I would not have to spring another 100 bucks for a 4 stroke of similar weight/power (it’s a bit heavy but the short nose makes it a great balancing tool!).

It certainly does not have the broad power range of a 4 stroke but it spins the big props on a small 3 d profile with no problems.
Contrary to what has been written in this thread I have not found bushed engines to require a lot of care- quite the opposite. I have some old FP 40’s that still run flawlessly after 20 years.

The only thing is you can't “re bush” the engines cheaply so once they are done they are done. I run mine between 18 and 20% oil 10% nitro. I do agree they are not powerhouses and would keep them in lighter planes that need big props to perform or trainer types. That is the perfect application for them. And of course its nice to spin a big prop with good fuel economy.
I love this combo for a 40 to 50 size profile and am building another one exactly the same!
I am also going to try a 65 AX which is lighter and more powerful and fits the “super muffler” as well in a 3rd kangke su 26.

Have fun!

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

I read once that the power gained from ball bearings is just about enough to carry the extra weight of the bigger crankcase. Don't know if that is true but it sounds good.!!! For glow flying a bushing is probably better and easier to maintain. Bearings will rust. I had a TT bushing 40 that would scream.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

6 to 8 years ago, Model Airplanes News did a .61-sized engine shootout. As I recall, the OS .65LA out turned the OS .61FX on every prop except the 11-7. They were close, as were all the engines, but the .65LA was surprising.

I bought 2 of them and have never regretted it. They are fine running and reliable engines despite the air bleed carb. They tune up easily, run strong, never quit and rarely, if ever, need tweaking. They run so well, my flying buddy, who is 89, snagged both of them for use in scale planes.

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

Anyone else tried the 12 ounce aluminum beer bottle moose can mufler style? My VERY old LA 65 was starting to wear out and I put one on and got a goodly boost until the motor tanked. It was really loose in the front bushing area before the pipe went on, seriously close to shot. I had good verticle out of it for a couple days of flying [>:]

RE: O.S .65 LA engine
 

LA 65 is perfect in a Supersportster 60   (unlimited vertical with a 12x6 prop. including full 6oz. smoke tank)