I have a nib OS 40 VR-P engine and I was wondering if they used this engine in pylon racing and is it worth anything?

Thanks

Yes, it was used in pylon racing. It's 30 years old (1981). All new in box engines have value, whatever the market will pay. You can try listing it for $175 and see what bites you get, or auction it and highest bidder takes it.
http://www.osengines.com/engines/eng...continued.html
http://www.osengines.com/history/ostimeline08.html

I tried it and the better 40PS in FAI F3D Pylon competition racing. The best that could be said was that is was an also ran.

Now I did have some luck with FAI F2A and AMA CL precision aerobatics by changing the P&L and adding a venturi insert. I would think its value more in the $50 range. I was getting ST40X for less than $100 when the Nelson came out.

All the best,


Konrad

The VR-M marine version(.45) was a bit better than a K&B .45 but not as strong as a Picco .45 in the mid to late 80's. Then OS started that "New and improved" ABN thing and all OS's went down the drain,just one lean run could destroy the sleeve and getting parts for OS has never been an easy task........Not mentioning the cost! If its new (NIB) some collector might want it for nostalgia.

The value in this engine is with those who collect OS engines. If you list it on 3bay, I'll bet it will bring a good price.

This was 6.5cc class engine. The Picco of that day was a tank in weight, strength and power as I remember. The weight was rather crippling in the air, I don't know about the marine application. The K&B 6.5 was dated by the time the OS came yet could still out run it even with its rather restrictive inlet (the K&B had true ABC P&L). Did OS ever start on the road with ABC? As I recall they tried to ride the coat tails of Super Tiger with the term "ABC type" to masquerade their ABN liners from the very start of the aluminum ringless piston craze. In the end it was the Super Tiger 40X that was dominate.

As for nostalgia the good old days really weren't so good for this OS engine or the follow up OS40PS. Now the ringed FSR is an engine even I still like and have in my mouth balled collection. I don't know how many OS 40 VR-P I have in the bottom of my junk drawers even with the PS ABC liners as a testament to my ignorance.

I know this is RC Universe but I think it is best to use the engine in a class of competition that is NOT engine dominate, like CL aerobatics.

All the best,

Konrad

P.S.
Note the one I show is the last of its kind with the rear rotor drum.

I believe you mean the OS VF .40/.46 engines. They have won several World Championships. Paul Walkers "Impact" fitted with a OS VF 40 comes to mind.

I don't think I would want to use a VR-Pylon engine in a control line stunt model.

Why wouldn't you want a rear inlet engine in a C/L ship. True I'd rather have the OPS but this OS would work admirably in a low power set up.
This is the rear rotor disk model rather that the rear drum I show.

All the best,

konrad

Why would you want a rear inlet engine in a control line ship?

Here is a list of the Walker Cup winners since 1946. Sorry no OPS engines...

http://www.control-line.org/DesktopD....aspx?tabid=58

Scroll down the page.

Thanks BW,
But I wasn't looking for a history but rather a reason why the rear configuration of the Pylon engine wouldn't be suitable for C/L. As I recall that was the primary difference between the VF and VR. Now true I'd be tempted to lower the sleeve for a C/L application but this is getting a bit off topic.

Konrad

Try it and let us know how you like it....

The trophy will look real nice in your living room.

Now as the OP asked if it was used in Pylon racing the answer is yes. I now have to ask what class of racing was it aimed at. It wasn't FAI F3D as the head volume and sleeve timing are not conducive to full wave pipe operation. I t wasn't aimed at the AMA Formula one class as it did not have a dual domed high nitro head and that nickel precluded the engine from making more than one run on nitro and synthetic oil fuel, also the timing is off.

So the OP is asking a good question what class of racing was this engine aimed at. I for the life of me don't know.

All the best,

Konrad

Been there tried that.

Again as always thanks for your help!

Could you count them? Five, Ten, ?

I'd like to know why you kept buying them if you didn't like them...

Just trying to make sense of the post(s)

Like I said before "I'm a slow learner". But I did eventually learn.
for the engine I posted. At the time I could not get an MVVS!

Thanks for your concern.

There's nothing actually wrong with using a rear induction engine for CL stunt so long as the port timings are suitable which would generally make most RI engines unsuitable because they're usually set up for high power at high revs. That said, MVVS had a rear induction stunt engine (a 56 IIRC) which one of our better flyers here in Australia swears by. The only real disadvantage I can see is that they'd be more difficult to prime unless there was an opening in the side of the cowl to get at the intake. A slight advantage is that it would put the intake much closer to the tank.

The 40 VF's gathered a wide following in CL stunt for two reasons. The first was that they gave a lot more power when piped (about the same power as a muffled ST 60) which allowed the the use of thinner, less draggy, lines because of a loophole in the AMA rules which based line diameter on engine size, the cut off being over a 40 size engine. The second reason was that the VF's have very mild timing (actually identical to some well known CL specific engines) so they didn't need to be revved hard and could turn large props for high thrust. Interestingly, although VF's have been used for many years now, I haven't heard of a single case of liner peeling but I'd put that down to the fact that most CL flyers use a generous amount of oil in the fuel and the lowish (~10,000) revs they're run at.

Thanks DU.

As I suspected there is no reason not to use the VR as a C/L nor the VR-P. While the VR-P does have a little longer blow down period than what I'd look for in a C/L engine it should be easy enough to rework by lowering the sleeve. Also the inlet timing as I recall really wasn't suitable to pylon racing as delivered. So it should work fine for C/L work.

Now to be clear I don't, nor do I think anybody here is, advocating that the VR-P be considered as one's first choice for a C/L engine.
It is that on the face of it C/L might be its best application. Not that it is the best for C/L.

Friends don't let friends.........

Konrad

Thanks rambler53