Zok

Hi, I have opportunity to buy only MVVS and Zenoah engines. I have to ask which engines are better, have less failures and so on. Please write your opinion.
Thanks in advance

Bob Laine

My Feedback: (91)

They are both good engines. However, The reliability, and user friendly reputation of The Zenoah engine is recognized throughout the world. For me....I'd choose the Zenoah engine. Bob

Antique

My Feedback: (4)

What Bob said. Zenoah, no question about it.

til

as standard i would say that the zenoah is the most powerful, if you go the mvvs route ditch the dustbin silencer it will kill the engine, if you fit a tuned pipe to the mvvs you will have an engine which is far superior to the zenoah in evey way ie more power and less weight plus very easy starting.

til

JettPilot

My Feedback: (6)

The Zenoah is a far better engine. It will run forever and never wear out or break... Its also a set and forget engine, once its set up, you never have to touch the needles or anything else again. If you like to fly, get the zenoah.

If you like to repair engines frequently, and tinker with an engine all day instead of flying, then get the MVVS.

Check out this thread:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_45...tm.htm#4550006

JettPilot

Zok

Thanks for your answers, guys. I will take Zenoah.
Very nice video, JettPilot. I'm amazed with technology you used. Can you please explain how it works? Is this ordinary transmitter or special one? Because i know that transmitters ussualy have range of apx. 2 km, how do you fly when you are out of range? What is the range of camera?

the Wasp

My Feedback: (1)

"Zok",, you didn't say what size motors,, if your talking MVVS 35 and Zenoah 38 there is no way the Zenoah 38 is as powerful as the MVVS 35, the Zenoah just wont pull as big of prop,,, and I'm betting the MVVS is built as good if not better and I would bet it's just as reliable ,,,

yet if the Zenoah is the one you want then that is the one you should buy, it's reliability is on the books..

Jim

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Both are good engines, but I can almost guarantee you that the zenoah has had fewer problems over the last several years. Heck, it is almost impossible to kill a zenoah and I have tried.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

A better time frame for a lack of Zenoah problems would be over the last 20 years. They're bulletproof and have been for a very long time.

From time to time there will be an engine make it's arrival on the market and for a little while it will out rev a Zenoah by a hundred rpm or so and be the toast of the town. As a rule they break relatively quickly, start or become touchy, and go back and forth for repairs. The guy with the Zenoah was out flying all those days the other engine was down...

BaldEagel

How anyone can give an opinion on this beats me, the MVVS large gas engines have only been out a relativly short time its too early for comparisons on reliability, take into account that the Zeno has been converted from an industrial engine for model use, the MVVS is purpose made for model use, it has a fully self adjusting ignition advance retard so no kick back on starting it does not have that horrible carb sitting stuck out the side, purpose made mounts including soft mounts, but only time will tell on its reliability.

MIke

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

BaldEagel-lets put it this way, I have read of more problems with MVVS than with Zenoah.

the Wasp

My Feedback: (1)

"" I have read of more problems with MVVS than with Zenoah.""

yes, but most of those problems are with the carb or ignition not the motor it's self..

Jim

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

But will it run without either one? Lest we forget that in an earlier post the virtues of those same carbs and ignitions were well touted to the lament of those on the Zenoah.

BaldEagel

All of you are talking about third party expenience, not your own, I have three MVVS's and they all work fine, start easily idle at amazingly low revs and pick up clean, I would not give an opinion about Zenoha as I do not have one and have no first person experience with them, asthetically the MVVS will fit in a cowl better and looks nice, which is how I also buy my cars, I would not have an ugly one.

MIke

Panzlflyer

My Feedback: (15)

Well I for one have owned both the 58 and G62.
The 58 will outurn a G62 any day as it easily turns a 24/10.
Both are good motors but I have to say the 58 is more fragile partly because it is purpose made as opposed to a Red Max chain saw with a hub bolted on.

You cant really compare the 2 as they are quite different

BaldEagel

andyt

What problems have you had with the 58? is it the Pro with the latest ignition?

MIke

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

I know that the mvvs is a more purpose built RC engine, but I just looked at the weights and my RCIGN1 converted G62 weighs the same amount as MVVS 58 It is not as compact and as mike says not as purdy.

Panzlflyer

My Feedback: (15)

Like a few others here, gasket blew out, starts backwards way to easy.
Runs smooth and has amazing power, ignition has been replaced as well as the gasket and initial run seems that the ignition has cured the running backwards ( maybe timing was wrong )
Its not the pro version although the newer ignition on the Mvvs has some interesting features.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

I've only held one MVVS 58 in my hand. It was a sad moment to know that it had blown out the front bearing before the end of it's first flight.

BaldEagel

andyt

The new ignition has two magnets on the prop driver and switches off the power if the engine trys to start backwards, it also controls the choke electronically from the ignition box, it has become quite sophisticated in its new quise.

Angus Balfor is using one in a QQ Yak with no troubles that he has notified the forum of, I have one of the new pro58's not installed as yet but will report any faults that I find.

Mike

BaldEagel

Silversurfer

You will love this:

MVVS have recalled the 58 as a batch have a cank fault, this is in addition to the incorrect postioning of the ignition magnets on the latest batch of engines.

Mike

Ih82crash

I have both engines so I feel I am qualified to give an educated response. The G-62 was converted from Ralph. If my plane was for sport flying I would NEVER take the engine off my plane!! I live at 5300 ft MSL and density altitude usually runs about 7000-8000 during the summer. The Zenoah spins a Menz 23-8 at about 6200 RPM. Even with 8000 density altitude it will do any Imac maneuver. At sea level I'm sure it would be unlimited. However, after 3 gallons It will not Hover my 18 pound Aeroworks Yak even at full throttle. I will give you that it is not fully broken in, but from no hover at full throttle to hovering at half throttle is a long way to go.

A friend has an Evolution 58 with 2.5 gallons through it and it is turning a 24-8 NX prop at 6500. Will it hover the plane? That remains to be seen, but it definately has more power up here where the air it thin.

Both Planes start well and idle reliably. The weight on both of them is nearly identical, So the issue really is power. If I lived at sea level I would keep the Zenoah no questions. $450 for the converted Zenoah vs $750 for the Evolution.

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Ih82crash-- Try a different prop, maybe a 22x10 mejz.
You are to low on the torque curve and will never see the full power at 6200 static. You need to be around 7000 static at least, try for over 7000. The G62 needs to run at higher rpm's than most others to realize there full potential.

Ih82crash

I had a 22 10 on there an it turned the same RPM. In order to get over 7000 I would have to drop to say a 20 10

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Then that is what I would try. A mejz 22x10 will spin a lot faster than a menzs 22x10