Hi friends,

I'm from Spain, I want buy a 1.40 or 1.50 gas engine I looked for the rcs 1.40 and the mvvs 1.50 what do you think about this engines?

Where can I buy the rcs engine online, a shop with a good online page, and the same for the mvvs.

Thanks

Luis

http://www.rcshowcase.com/

RCS 140 very good engine. I don't know about the other one.

As far as I am concerned there is nothing in the RCS 140 class.
The one I have is idling at 1800rpm's with at top rpm of 8600 with an APC 16x8.
This motor has less the 1/2 gallon of fuel through it, no where near broke in yet.
Best place to get one on line is RCS showcase at the below link.
Mike and the other people there are GREAT to work with, no question goes unanswered.

Link to RCS showcase:
http://www.rcshowcase.com/

sea157,

Just wait until you get that engine broken in.
I am running an 18X8 scimitar prop on mine. This engine just kept getting better and better, a dramatic difference between new and broken in.

sea157 & Jemo

The 3W-24 is significantly more powerful than the RCS 140. The 3W24 will turn the same prop as the rcs 140 at least 500 rpms faster.

Elson

Depends on the plane too. A 3W-24 is a whole lot heavier than the RCS 140. The RCS is a good choice for a plane in the 9-10 lb range for aerobatics. It would be difficult to find an aerobatic plane to match up to the weight and power of the 3W.

"A 3W-24 is a whole lot heavier than the RCS 140."

The difference in wt is 10.4 ozs with the 3w-24 being heavier. With a 10 lb plane, a 24 powered plane would be 6.5% heavier and the engine produces 11% more power. I would choose the 3W-24 on these numbers alone. In addition, the RCS-140 is fragile with poor mounting flanges prone to easy cracking and breaking (personal experience). The extra wt of the 3W comes from more robust cooling fins and larger engine components like crank, bearings and engine mounting flange. If you add the weight of the required engine mount for the RCS-140, the "perceived weight penality" of the 3W almost disappears leaving the flier with 11% more power!!

Sometimes it is better to look at the whole weight/power picture than just weight alone.

Just my opinion

Elson

I agree about the 3W-24, but try to find a suitable airframe, using an engine that is over 10oz heavier is the problem. Even with the much lighter engine it is a problem.

An example is My H9 edge/RCS 140.. 12-1/2 lbs.
Stock airframe. If I stripped it and lightened it, I don't know for sure if I could get it in the 10 lb range. An extra 10 oz. is a lot on this size plane, with only 1010 sq. in. wing.

Don't get me wrong, I think 3W engines are great.

Luis
for the MVVS engines 1.50 size you can try looking at Pe Reivers website. they are in Holland.
The 1.50 is the old version ... now they have the 1.60 in both gas and glow versions.

www.mvvs-nl.com

Jemo,

The difference in wt between the RCS 140 and the 3w-24 is less than 10 oz because the 140 requires a motor mount which adds weight that you are not figuring in. The differences is closer to 5 ozs. Personally, the 11% increase of power more than makes up for the small wt penality.

Elson

I was looking at the 3w-24 but it seams to have allot of negative reports when I did my research.

I'm not familiar with the 3W-24 but I have both the MVVS 160 and the RCS 140. The RCS does EVERYTHING better than the MVVS. It spins an 18/6 Pro Zinger 200 RPM more, has better throttle response, and burns less fuel. Plus the MVVS is very difficult to hand start, in fact its so bad it's now sitting on a shelf, Oh and the ignition unit fails about every 3 hours of run time, I'm on my 3rd and its bad.
I suggest you choose between the 3W-24 and the RCS 140

As I have said many times on RCU, I use the 3W-24 as the main engine in my university research project on aerial sampling. I have 15 of them and each one will turn a 18 x 8 at 8000 rpms. The best prop for the sport flyer is an 18 x 10 because max rpms of 7400 is at the peak of the torque curve. I tested the RCS 140 and its performance was not even close plus it is a very fragile engine.

A good running 3w-24 will take a 12+ lb plane vertical and unlimited.

Elson

Just curious.
Were the 3w-24's donated to your university research project ?
And I am not trying to start any flame, I am just curious.
Maybe I need to be reeducated to them.
Like I said before in my investigation on them I found allot of people not satisfied with them.

What is the price dif between the 24 and the 140 ???

sea 157

It would be nice if the engines were had been donated, then scarce grant funds would have extended further. But, each and every one were purchased from Aircraft International. I decided on this engine after seeing a writeup in MAN on what a power house this engine is. After purchasing one and trying it out, I found the engine to be the most powerful in its class. It has as much power as a G-38. I have also tested a RCS-140 so the number i quote come from personal knowledge and a 0ne-on-one comparison with the 3W-24.

Tim,

Prices can be found on the RCS and AI web pages. In the case of this engine, you get the value you pay for.

Elson

the MVVS 1.60 ... the newer version has a better ignition unit(vlach ignition ) compared to the previous one. The carb also has been updated with a larger intake.
A friend has this and it runs a apc 18*10 @ 8000 rpm , with a bisson muffler.

Whats the all up weight of the 3W24 with all its support gear? including Muffler, ignition, battery, switch harness, anything else needed to make it run. The RCS 140 is just shy of 3 lbs including a large Great Planes engine mount. It wont turn the bigger props like the 24, but it may have a higher rpm with the smaller props. So it may come down to what prop size you can apply to the plane in question.

You might want to check out the new Zenoah G26 also. First reports are looking very promising. I dont have one yet, but claims of around 9000 rpms on a 18-6 sound good to me. Here again though, it won't turn the higher pitch props like the 3W 24 is reported to do.

Kevin

It has to be better, it's not possible to make it worse!

i have the RCS 1.4 its a outstanding gas motor, its not a power house by no means but its still sweet for what it woth. I would say its a gas engine of a satio 120 power. Its not unlimted verticle on something in the 13 lbs range. I will know in a few weeks if its unlimted on a 10 lbs aircraft plus mine is still breaking in 2. 8600 on an APC 16 x 8 right now. All my gasser get stronger as time is put on those babies so i expect this one to do the same,,,,

rc bugman


Elson,
I think I have a way to see just how good the 3W is against the RCS 140.
As you know I have the 140 on a Hanger 9 edge @ 12-1/2 lbs. I know exactly what it will do.

So, if you send me one of your 3W-24 engines, I will install it on my edge and get a good comparison, hows that.

here is the stick built deal that will see my RCS 1.4 its thing......

Looks like a katana. Is it a kit or scratch built ?

Jemo,

I see no need for your comparision. I have had a RC-140 and I compared it directly to a 3W-24 using exactly the same prop. I ran the prop on one engine, tach it, took off the prop and ran it on the other engine. Depending on the day, the RCS 140 was 500-800 rpms weaker than the 3W-24. I also flew the RCS 140 on a H9 cub 100" ws which weighted 18 lbs. The performance was less than a 3W-24 on a 22 lb modified telemaster.

The numbers I quote are real and I have no vested interest in the 3W-24 except it is the best performing engine in this dispalcement class. If there was a better one, I would be using it.

As I stated in a different post, engine wts need to be compared by adding an engine mount to the RCS-140 since the 3W-24 comes with one. The 3W-24 has at least 10% more power while the weight penality is in the 5 oz range.

Elson

can you run the 3W 24 up around 9000rpms with 16" props, or will that damage it? Some 1/4 scale planes cant handle a 18" prop well.

Kevin