Reson7

My Feedback: (4)

that is what I am really lookin for, I had another Evo 61nx on a plane, unfortunately at that time i wasn't much of a tuner, so I left the tuning to the "engine expert" at our field, he messed it up so bad, I didn't know this on all my 77 flights I had with it, after the flying season was over I sent it to HH for an inspection, this is what happened:

Evolution 61 engine: The bearings and crankshaft are corroded. This is making the engine difficult to turn over. The cylinder is scored, due to

a lean run at some point. The needle valve is slightly damaged at the tip. Both the needle and spray bar will need to be replaced. The low end

mixture came to us set too lean.

I am looking for something really user-friendly so I don't have to rely on someone from my field, as you can see what he did ot the old one.[:@]
I am also looking for more power, on the site it says Evo can go 17000 rpm, I called HH, they said you never want to put on that small of a prop on a plane to get that much, the most I could get is 14-15000 rpm with a 11x7, for the O.S. it says 16000rpm, not sure about that though, plus for O.s. they list the output, evo doesn't, I am looking for more power as well as something user-friendly

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

They would have made me much happier had they made the displacement 10cc, instead of some oddball number that I can't use in SPA flying. Jerks.


Ed Cregger

toolmaker7341

It looks like all your problems were caused but you. Corroded bearing and crank are caused by no after run oil (maintaince is always required for any engine). Scored piston and sleeve caused by lean run? You can't tell if an engine is running lean (sagging power and engine pitch) you should throttle back land and richen the mixture. I believe these point are all covered in the operating manual that comes with every engine.

carrellh

You have not mentioned the plane, or how you like to fly. Are you looking for all out speed? Or, lots of thrust for strong vertical pull?

The OS 65AX claims 2.0 horsepower at 16000. Using ThrustHP (which is not perfect), a 10x7 prop needs approximately 2 horsepower to spin that fast. The smallest "recommended" prop for the engine is 12x6. You'll need 3.6 horsepower to spin a 12x6 at 16000. It takes 2 horsepower to spin a 11x7 at 14000 and 2.4 to spin it at 15000. You may or may not get that from the EVO or the OS.

Even though I would probably use the Evo, maybe you really need a 75AX or 95AX?

I'll definitely agree that the OS engines I've owned are more user friendly than any of my Magnum, ASP, or Thunder Tiger.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

I'm kind of wondering about the set it and forget it idea myself.

I'll disagree about the quality statement between the two engines.

I'll also bet I could tune any of those engines in about a half minute if they had good fuel, the right glow plug, and weren't crash damaged.

Broken Wings

My Feedback: (20)

O.S. .61 FX

When all else fails, buy OS.

I flew several brands of engines in the last 9 years, having more success with some better than others. The OS is the benchmark to rate other engines by. Thunder Tiger is adequate, but the FX61 did outlast it. Super Tigre has as much power, but break in took a long time. I had bad experienced with GMS, Evo, Tower, Magnum, and ASP in this size. That's a lot of wasted money to try it and see. What I like about the FX61 is the variety of fuels and props run well on it, you can mount ANY aftermarket muffler on it and easily tune it again in seconds, and other engines just for some reason, refuse to be that user friendly. It's no NovaRossi, but it never was intended to be one. It's a very forgiving engine for any sport plane you can throw at it. You can concentrate on your plane, not worrying about the engine transitioning bad one day, it just is a consistent engine every day. For in cowl planes, pitts muffler, I wouldn't use anything else.

scott17

I agree, either engine would be fine and if you already have the Evo, I would not hesitate to use it! If you have no idea how to tune an engine, spend the time to learn or you will trash ANY engine you abuse. I would hate to buy an expensive new OS and mistreat it to an early death. Learn to tune engines and you can make most anything perform as intended...

SWMPAR15

My Feedback: (53)

deleted

Reson7

My Feedback: (4)

Ok, I am going to use it on a 60 sized plane, 8lbs, and its 70 inch wingspan, When I had the Evo on it, it was great, it was the stock recommended engine to use, enough power to be basic, now I want to go advanced, more power, not so much speed, I could go up to use a 95AX, but I need opinions

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

If you want significantly more power than the Evolution 61NX you are going to need to go to a 91 or a 95

blw

My Feedback: (3)

I think the 91 four stroke class will be next with something like a 95 or 98. Just enough to create voids in the other SPA engine requirement. Just looking at product lineups, Saito is ripe to drop something in the 91-125 range. Not that there are many Saitos flying SPA.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

I've been thinking for 3 or 4 years that the next Saito is going to be a "92".

It has the bore of the 125 and the stroke of the 72.

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

....

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

I still don't know what 60 plane this thead is referencing.

Not Tower spec sheets that mean absolutely nothing in the real world are quoted all the time like it's possible.

Jett, Rossi, Novarossi, Picco if you can find it, Webra speed, all tune very well, all truly "kick".
Can't wait to clean up Perry GA swap meet this year with all the Turnigy buyers running to Hobby City to replace their glow engines.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

"Can't wait to clean up Perry GA swap meet this year with all the Turnigy buyers running to Hobby City to replace their glow engines."


I don't understand this comment. Please explain.

I've bought a few Turnigy ignition engines and an ASP or two from Hobby City. So far all is okay.


Ed Cregger

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

Many in the hobby started out with glow, and shifted power choice to electric, using Hobby City as the same source you found your ignition engine and ASP engines. Many are praising how much easier it is now that they made the switch, no clean up, no tuning, no fuel costs, yadda yadda. Purchasing glow engines are my target at the swap meet, along with discontinued kits. Whatever my truck can carry, comes home with me as prices have never been better in the privately owned market that I regularly deal in, and use for almost all my hobby needs.

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

For the 12' Telemaster, or Phoenix 5, or another one?

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

What fuel, plug, and prop did you use and why? Readers will appreciate your formula for success.

DarZeelon

RCPL,


The manufacturers' HP and RPM claims are utter lies, in most cases, with most engines manufacturers...

Trusting them is at least turning a blind eye to the truth; and in most cases, simply bare stupidity.
Those are exactly what most manufacturers want for customers - people who are not smart enough to know better and just trust their 'claims'...


Ask the manufacturers' PR and advertising departments, how you can actually see these rated figures, as the engines come to you from the factory; and they start talking funny, or better yet; say that you are not running the engine as intended, or are not talented enough to see these numbers...


Manufacturers that state RPM with a certain prop and conditions (which they guarantee!), are much more trustworthy.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

As has already been expressed by pthers, the best position for the Evolution 61NX is in a 46 size plane that you want to be a hot rod.

The Evolution 61NX is in a smaller crankcase.

Sort of like the newer 91's that are in a 61 size crankcase.

Iflyglow

My Feedback: (79)

w8ye,
The Evolution .60NX is the engine useing a .40 size crankcase with a REAL ABC sleeve and Piston. Here's a few pics of the little .60NX combined with a Jett Muffler which make a very potent combo. The .61 is much heavier and larger.

Product Specifications
Type:2-stroke

Displacement:.60 cu in (9.73cc)

Bore:.95 in (24mm)

Stroke:.85 in (21.5mm)

Cylinders:Single

Total Weight:17.13 oz (487 g)

Engine (Only) Weight:13.93 oz (395 g )

Muffler Weight:3.2 oz (92 g)

Crankshaft Threads:1/4 x 28

Prop Range:10 x 7 to 13 x 6

RPM Range:2000 to 17000

Fuel:10% to 30% Nitro

Mounting Dimensions:44mm x 17.5mm

Muffler Type:Cast

Cylinder Type:ABC

Carb Type:Barrel, with two needles

Crank Type:Ball Bearing


Product Specifications
Type:2-stroke

Displacement:.61 cu in (10.0cc)

Bore:.94 in (23.9 g)

Stroke:.86 in (21.8 g)

Cylinders:Single

Total Weight:25.44 oz (721 g)

Engine (Only) Weight:20.32 oz

Muffler Weight:5.12 oz (145 g)

Crankshaft Threads:5/16x24

Benchmark Prop:12x6 @ 12,000 rpm

Prop Range:11x7–13x7

RPM Range:2000 to 17,000

Fuel:10–30% Nitro

Mounting Dimensions:100 x 52 x 102mm (H X W X L)

Muffler Type:Cast

Cylinder Type:ABC

Carb Type:Barrel, with two needles

Crank Type:Ball Bearing

Iflyglow

My Feedback: (79)

delete please

Broken Wings

My Feedback: (20)

FX .61

Out of 46 RCU users (read real people) that rated that engine it has a solid 4 star rating. Not too bad in my book. If working full time, buying/flying an ARF or flying on a nice day after Church makes one an inaccurate reviewer,

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

AX65 was designed with two objectives that I can identify, and neither feature is something I want in an engine.
1. Lower cost in manufacturing.
2. Reduce sound by changing the stroke, giving it ability to run larger props, plus throwing on a more restrictive muffler.

Revising is actually a feature on this forum. Why take everything so negatively, Broken? OS mades a lot of good engines for many years, and I own several. http://www.rcuniverse.com/community/...s&memid=107422
I see a pretty even distribution. What are you using on your Astro Hog?

Konrad

BW,
I think what Rambler53 is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if you want to know about engines ask an engine man. These review that are not vetted by a technical review board or jury leave a false impression about the true nature of the engine.
It is also good to ask this engine man the whys to his opinion. Rambler53 has said the he was not impressed by the cost saving efforts (machine time reduction) nor was he happy with the new bore to stroke relationship and that he found the noise reduction with a more restrictive muffler lacking in merit.. These are all things you aren't like to find in the popularity contest that often disguise them selves as user reviews.

Now if somebody were to ask me about the engine I'd have to say it was great! Now a smart persons would ask great for what? We know Rambler likes higher rpm engines. So why would he and I have a difference of opinion? Not that ether one of us is wrong!

I'd like to ask the OP if he has ever had an engine that wasn't user friendly! I have noticed that most issues can be traced back to the installation (tank, line and vibration reduction techniques or lack there of). As an example even my fire breathing ducted fans would bump start just fine and idle fine (OK at a higher rpm than standard low rpm torque engine) The only real issue I had with any quality high powered/high performance or competition engine was the glow plug element. Most competition engine need to rock solid in reliability.

So guys help me and the OP out what are some none user friendly engine out there? Please give us the reason for the claim.

All the best,
Konrad
Not a Sunday Flier, whatever that is