I was wondering if the Evolution 26 was a good engine and if it really makes the power that they claim.Also I recently purchased a Skyshark Edge 540 and was thinking of putting an Evolution on it, stupid?, should I just go with a Saito 125?Thanks for any information or opinions.

There is no model airplane gas engine that matches the MVVS line in power.
The claims are dyno figures using a tuned pipe and the largest carb that will still work. They are valid. Your power will be less, depending on muffler system used. Tha carb as fitted is about the largest possible in the practical rpm range.

It really depends on what the weight of that plane will be.

I believe I saw a video with QQ with his 72" Yak and one of these motors.. while hovering was possible it was very apparent that it lacked power. He didnt really climb from a hover he more fell to the side and took off into KE or something less taxing on the engine.

If you are going to go the extra mile and put a pipe on it then great.. if not I would think twice about it.

Why a company advertises a power with a pipe on it is beyond me.. not everyone is going to put a pipe on it. They should put a stock muffler on it and let people judge real numbers knowing if they add a pipe it will increase.

Judging by pe reivers' wording they dont even use the same carb on it as they did for the test to get the specs they advertise.


I have seen one of these run and they run very well.. however it wasnt in an acrobatic plane so I really couldnt see what it could do. Nice looking but it was stock and power didnt seem amazing or anything

Try the Brillelli 26 W/EI, and you wont have to sort out all the wild claims....the power will be bolted to the front of your plane... $305.00 firewall ready..

the MVVS 26/ Evolution 26 is really at the top of the heap-
with the pipe (which by the way is easy to install) -required no adjustments and puts out great reliable power.
Many users have the factory pipe -no one else in that class size has anything to compare powerwise
the ear splitting "mufflers" furnished with some engines are not mufflers .
In my book the review by QQ on the YAK did real dis service to the 26- The engine on the Evolution muffler does do decent 3d and at a decent noise level- on 9.5 lb models .
at 10 lbs the piped engine is still a rocket setup -up here -- at 4350 ft elevation.
Poo poo it all you like but unless you have tried one or flown one on the pipe especially-you can't appreciate what the very compact, little powerhouse can do.
the claims are not wild -

Well let me be the first to say I am not knocking the engine... what I am saying is that their marketing numbers are BS. They give you a false impression of performance... stock it doesnt compare to the numbers.

Now go spend another $80 on the engine for the pipe setup and its a whole differenent engine.

However that being said we are now up to $475 for a 25 cc engine and quite frankly I would rather spend another 100 for a 60cc engine and fly a bigger plane. $475 in engine alone for a 72" plane is a waste of money if you ask me.

I can't comment on the Evo 26GT, but I have the Skyshark Edge. Mine balanced just a touch nose heavy with a YS 1.10, Tru-Turn Spinner and 625MG Servos. Three things concern me using a heavier engine in this plane.
1. The firewall is not strong enough without significant re-inforcing. It is made from very soft ply that crushes easily. I pinned mine, but the rest of the box would also have to be reinforced as well.
2. There is not much room to move gear back. The center mounted wing takes all avail space behind the fuel tank. You could move the elevator and rudder servos back, but as is, there is only light balsa sheeting in front of the tail. You would have to completely re-engineer the tail section to move the servos to the tail. The Electronic module and battery could only be located on the engine box compounding your nose heavy situation.
3. This plane only has 689 sq inches of wing area. Mine came out a tick over 8lbs with the YS 1.10. It flys great, but it's performance would decline quickly with any more weight.

The Saito 125 would be a good choice.

It is all a matter of choice - I have really big plane (42% ) and 33% and 27% etc.. I also love the high performance level and fun of the smaller 9-10 pound planes I fly with the 26--and they are quiet .
also I agree with the marketing - the numbers they provide are realistic.
Why is using and quoting performance from a good exhaust system an unrealistic expectation?

I have one on a Funtana 90 (with pipe) and it works fine. Spool up is a bit slow, but I run a heavy Dynathrust prop. It would spool quicker with a wood prop, but the 18" prop is too close to the ground for me to run woods. I'm real happy with mine - very powerful, never had a problem with it, and starts and runs exremely reliably. But considering the cost, it ought to.

Well I dont agree with their marketing because I dont believe it fair. You dont see a car advertised with 475 horsepower only to buy it and be told well that number includes a supercharger, headers, 3" exhaust, and a bit of Nitrus.

For the most part people dont advertise planes at a certain weight and then when you ask why yours weighs so much they say... oh well that was with lipos, 1 servo in the al not 2, CF everything, PSP axels, and a BME 55.

Sounds to me like they used a different carb as well... so what if the bme 55 isnt out yet

I mean ya I am blowing it up a bit... but the pointi s valid... much like only having to spend $80 more on an exhaust.... that is basically relavant to a 30,000 car... spend 4000 more and she will preform like we say.

The car market -misleading advertising is exactly how they sell/ sold stuff like the Mustang and other power image cars --and pickups
High power image - - but you never saw the small engine till you read the std features on the sticker
In my Evolution owners manual page 7 quote : power output varies with the exhaust used. The value given in the table stands for the maximum available power output. -end quote

I had a MVVS 26cc and it worked very well ON A PIPE but I wanted to be able to use it without the pipe and then it fell very short on power. I had a chance to sell it at a good price. I did and I'm glad I did. I would use one again if I was going to use a pipe but that is not likely to happen.

Many ex pattern flyers like an excuse to utilize a pipe.

The Evolution's alleged low power without a pipe simply typifies all gasoline/oil fueled engines when compared to glow. If you want to pay 1/10th as much for fuel with very little clean up, you should realistically not expect to receive as much power as you do from a glow fueled engine. It is that simple. Stop looking for parity in power between glow and gas/oil fueled engines. It won't ever happen, regardless of what one imagines the ad copy to say.

Ed Cregger

Dick: Well no they offer different models with different engines... this is an engine that requires mods outside of the stock confguration to achieve advertsied power. I would be pretty dissapointed if I read in the manual something other than advertised specs after I had already made my purchase.

We will have to agree to disaggree it looks like

Ed: Wow you really came in from the left field and didnt read the thread or misunderstood it. No one here is comparing glow to gas. I don't even fly engines this small.

Everyone else.. the short version is.. if you want to spend $480 for this engine with the pipe its a hot item... if not prob best to look at something else.

----------------


Quique's plane is intended for a glow engine in the 1.60 - 1.80 cubic inch size. IIRC, you complained about poor performance with a similar sized gas engine (Evolution 26GT). One would not expect a gasoline/petrol fueled 1.6 sized engine to compete heads up with a glow fueled 1.60 engine, unless they lacked knowledge about the difference between the two types of fuels being used. This is all that I said. No left field to it.

well I really wasnt complaining... I was sharing with the original poster what I saw.

I am not the one who is trying to purchase a small gasser. I am well aware you dont get the same performance in similar sized engines from glow to gas. So in fact I don't lack that knowledge. I was just giving an example of the poor performance stock.

Like I said.. I dont even fly engines this small. [sm=75_75.gif]

I should have stayed away - There is obviously an audience for engines - which are simple, piston port unmuffled types -
another audience for small but more powerful engines and noise reduction. Each has their own idea of performance and value The fuel used is yet another audience .
The most power and smoothest running setup I have yet seen in this size --is a ST2300 I did -on a tuned can and using spark ignition and 5% nitro and alky fuel
loafing it pulled the 18x8 APC's at 9000 on the ground.
But it certainly was not for the buy n fly audience---

or you could agree to disagree

I dont think its too hard to imagine that there are people out there that don't want to spend almost $500 on a 26cc engine. It's as common as those who dont want to fly less then an 80" wingspan plane.

I would spend 100000 on teh new vette.. but some are happy with a Dodge Charger. Personally under 80" is like the Charger for me.

Uncle Sigmund told me this was the way things really were--

On the website the numbers with prop and exhaust system are given:
http://www.mvvs.cz/c111.htm

On the 35 I have a wider KS1050 pipe and can honestly say that it makes 500 rpm more than the 7300 given in the list.
Where is the B-S?

Well I cant read your site so it's not much help.

However I have already stated several times my thoughts on this one.... in my opinion you should be giving numbers with a stock configuration and not on pipes... but that is just my opinion.

Either way its a mute point.. you won't see me spending $480 on a 26 size motor.

I can not read this Tsjech language either, but by looking at the numbers I can see what is meant.
If that does not work for you, please have a look at the

Dutch
http://mvvs.nl/

German
http://www.mvvs.net/

Canadian
http://www.mvvs-canada.com/moreinfo.php?pid=3

Distributer.

The number of the exhaust and rpm is mentioned.
Look in the list of exhausts to mach the number given in de rpm list to the number of the exhaust.
The 3270 is a in-cowl muffler if this suits you better.

There is no BS or hocuspocus.

Hans - I just did a review of the 26- piped and on incowl - the Evolution in cowl muffler is quite good at not reducing power - the Evolution pipe is of course excellent and a bargain. On the Skorepa pipe the sound level drops dramatically and power is consistant with the MVVS Evolution setup
propped on pipe for just under 9000 on the ground - this is a terrific engine for up to 5 kilo full aerobatic setups
for the flop n drop flyers (3D) a bit less weight in the airframe ( 4.5 kilo) is very good -my 9.5 pound Funtana was a rocket .
The best part - I cn't get it to kill in any of the violent flop n drop stuff - it always recovers solidly .

--------------


I'm not picking on you (intentionally), Sinergy. I have a bad short term memory. I sometimes confuse personalities and statements, by attributing a statement with the wrong personality. No offense intended.

But my point is still valid in that one should not consider a 1.6 gas engine as being low on power when it won't fly a model that is designed for a 1.6 glow engine as well as the glow engine. For a gas engine, the MVVS/Evolution engines are among the most powerful. I do agree that it was not really acceptable for that particular model if you are a true 3D flyer.

The size of your models has nothing to do with your expertise or flying skills. Only the size of your resources. Having large resources is not a part of modeling and should not be confused with modeling skills and savvy. One is not a better modeler/pilot because his/her models cost more. But you probably knew that.

I agree with you in that it would be more honest if MVVS quoted horsepower figures of the engine without a resonant exhaust system. But the problem arises (and provides Evolution with an out) because the engine does not come with a muffler, IIRC.