Gidday all Im looking at buying 1 of 2 aircraft.
1 Vmar Edge 540T ARF 56in Span .46 -.61 2/stroke
2 ESM Super Chipmunk ARF 63in Span 2 Stroke 40-46 or 4 Stroke 52-72

Now The one i get will be my third plane........(they are both still going and in one piece)

I dont want to throw my money away on an OS .. but i like the sound of the magnum ASP and VMax
Just found this one looks good for both! Magnum XLS 52A MKII 2-Stroke Only $155 AUD

what do you suggest for plane motor combos that wont cost a fortune ?????

Oh has anyone used one of the "evolution Engines" they look good too but i cant buy them here in Australia .

Anthony

Both the Magnum/ASP/SC XLS 52 and the Evolution 46NT are excellent engines. They are very popular in the US. Mufflers designed in the OS 46 size will fit the engines you desire also. These engine both also have the same mounting bolt pattern as the OS 46 FX.

I never seen but one VMAX/Tiger Shark (it was a 46). It ran fine but that's all I know. They are not any at my flying field. Tiger Shark makes a 56 or something close to that size that's been talked about some.

Enjoy,

Jim

was gonna say something clever about your username but i'm too busy barfing...[:'(]



dave

After talking to others at the airfield they say "your chances of making a successful flight with one of thoes two planes are slim! Look at the". So i AM GOING TO BUY a Sportsman Aviation Decathlon ARF 63in Span 1.6m Scale Sports Aircraft

The two motors i have to choose between are:
(Vmax 52 Pro 2-Stroke Aircraft Engine ABC Ball-Raced Aircraft Engine) AUD $160.00 and the
(Magnum XLS 52A MKII 2-Stroke Aircraft ABC Ball-Raced Aircraft Engine) AUD $155.00


Need someone who has or has flown with either of the two motors to give advice on them ?!?!!? Im tending towards the Magnum...

Tah guys
Anthony

TwatsyFroghurst:

If the Vmax engines are the same quality as the Vmar ARF planes I've seen I would not want to be anywhere near one. The planes I've seen are absolute junk.

I have had excellent results with Magnum engines, I've never had a bad one.

Bill/

Ok DONE magnum it is ! thank you

What size prop and is there any difference/advantage between wood versus (whatever the hell a normal prop is ) ???

I would like a wooden blade !

Twatsy:

A 12x6 prop wil be in range for that engine/plane combination. If you prefer wooden props, by all means use them. Do balance them before use, of course.

You might find the composite props, such as Master Airscrew, to be less expensive while you're learning, however.

Bill.

On the other hand, I took Bill's advice, got a nice new Mag 52 and it is sitting on my bench - never got it to reliably transition from low to high throttle. If you search this forum you will find many guys reporting this problem and loads of fixes - some may even work. It may be that more problems have been reported here with the Mag 52 than any other engine. The YS 63 may beat it - I have one of those too and mine is fine. It seems that the problem may go away if I install a different carb, which I plan to do. However no one around here has a decent suitable spare I can try and I am reluctant to spend 30-50% of what the engine cost to get a fix that may not help. I had the local super guru spend hours with me, tweek, fly, tweek, fly. The best we can do is get it so that it will start, idle, taxi, stumble thru transition (rich) , take off and fly stumbling when ever the throttle is opened. Plenty of power but I need a flexible engine with smooth transition.
Lots of people have reported great service from their Mag52's but many others have had problems. I run 5 other engines that work fine, including an OS46 fx that hasn't peeled and transitions like it is electric.

Jack:

I'm very sorry you had problems, as I said I've never had the first problem with a Magnum engine. Perhaps I've been lucky.

In regards to the posted bothers, I really think you'll find far more fussing about the OS 91 FX than about any other engine on RCU.

Bill.

Jack:

I also have an OS 46 FX. I bought it just to see how long it would take to peel the liner. The blasted thing is still running fine. What a disappointment.

Haw.

Bill.

Bill,
It was your praise of the Mag that persuaded me to get the thing in the first place. I could be an engine dufus or just unlucky but it gets me when I read how good the Mags are and mine doesn't work. I really should try to get it fixed under warranty and quit complaining.
I believe you put out a lot of good info and food for thought and look forward to your opinions .
Frog,
I find the question of what 2stroke engine for a 46 size plane complicated. Lets say you like funfly/3d like many today. There are lots of engines that don't cost a bundle, don't weigh a lot and produce good power - eg. TT, ST, Mag,etc. If money is no object it looks like Jett is awfully fine. In between - better than bargain basement (maybe) but under $160. These include OS46ax, Os50 ringed, Irvine 53, Webra50 etc. I would get an Irvine but have to import it which seems too much hassle. One of the smart guys in 3d likes the Webra 50 but bought 3 returned 2 before he got a keeper. Another 3d guy who sounds believable loves the OS 50 which many say is overpriced, not all that strong, etc. Most say the OS46ax is OK but like vanilla ice cream. I am leaning toward the OS50 which costs $60 more than the MAg, may be a little less powerful but is smooth over the whole RPM range, and I want to see how I like a ringed engine.
Ask me tomorrow and I may have a different plan.

Jack:

Another fine alternative to a 46 engine is the K&B ringed 61. It weighs about the same as most 46 engines, can be bought used in excellent condition for less than $50, and really hauls.

Lasts forever too. Chrome plated liner, change the ring and bearings every five or six years.

Bill.

William wheres the heat suposed to distribute on the K&B ??? the fins/head is tiny compared to most of the motors i've seen......
a 61 in plae of a 46 ? are they weak(power wise) or it just that they weigh the same amount as a 46 ?

OH KAAAAY check this ....
Manufacturer: Sportsman Aviation
Web Link: http://www
Wing Span: 63.0in (1600mm)
Engine Recc: 2 Stroke 40-46 or 4 Stroke 52-61
Radio Req: 4 Channel - 5 Servos
Review: 115kb
Normal Price: $275.00
Our Price: $250.00

Now if you read the HSTORE write up it says

Specs:
*Wing Span: 63 inches
*Wing Area: 641 square inches
*Length Overall: 45.5 inches
*Weight: 5.75-6.25 pounds
*Wing Loading: 20-22 ounces per square foot
*Radio Needed: 4 channel with 5 servos
*Engine Needed: 52-61 two stroke, 70-91 four stroke


????????????? What am i suposed to use ? i cant find the Sportsman aviation site to check it!!!
Sould i start a new thread/Poll to find what kind of motor ? ? ?

here is your sportsman aviation.
http://www.hobbypeople.net/mfr/sport01.asp

Froggy:

The cooling on the K&B ringed 61 is not an issue, most two stroke engines we use are over cooled anyway. That's why the 1/2A engines generally don't do well on low nitro, they just don't get hot enough. The K&B 61 is almost totally bullet proof, The Diablo pictured in my earlier post will take off vertically out of my hand. The 61 gives you the great power of the larger engine with the weight on the dinky 46 engines.

Sportsman Aviation is a brand name of Hobby People, [link=http://www.hobbypeople.net/guru/kws_57447057.asp]Here's[/link] a link to the Sportsman Aviation catalog page there.

There are four versions of the K&B 61 you will find most easily. Current production version is the 6550, it has the K&B "Ribbed" carb with the prop drive located by a centering cone. This same engine with the 0.375" bore Perry carb and built in pump is the 6560.

the earlier version had a cast aluminum prop drive located by a flat cut into the crank, this was the 6330 with the K&B "Block" carb, or the 6335 with the large Perry carb and built in pump.

The 6330 and 6550 are equivalent in power, all the parts will interchange except the crank shaft and drive washer.

The 6335 and 6560 are also equivalent, with all the same parts interchangeable. The pumper engines have about a 20% power advantage over the normal engines, if they are propped to take advantage of it.

The ultimate K&B 61 is the Clarence Lee modified engines with his "PDP" port modifications. This makes them even more powerful, but with the penalty of being noisier.

Even the least powerful of these four (or eight, counting Lee's PDP versions) will haul a 40-46 size plane with no problem at all.

There are newer design 60-65 engines that are more powerful than the old K&B, but you also get more weight, and shorter engine life. The only K&B 61 I've ever seen that was not economical to repair was crashed, it had broken the case.

Bill.

I have run the Magnum .52 XLS, The ASP .52 ( New series = same as Magnum), and the Tiger Shark .52 and .56. They are all great engines. The low end needle valve on the Magnum/ASP has to be in a lot more than factory recommendations (approx 1 turn out from fully closed) to get the transition smooth, but once it is set the transition is as smooth as any OS I have dealt with. Reliability has been great for all of these, (except the Tiger Shark .56, which is working great but I have not had it for long so I cannot really comment on long term reliability - I guess it will be fine as well over the long run). The Tiger Shark .56 is a REAL POWERHOUSE, I think it will be one of my favorites for the future. All these mentioned engines comfortably outperform the OS .46 FX, my trusty old benchmark engine. I have also had good luck with GMS engines, and so has my friends, but have read some bad comments about them. Maybe there was a bad batch at one time. I have one in a float plane that has NEVER given me a deadstick.

I have 2 each of the Magnum .52XLS, OS .46AX and GMS .47. All of them have run excellent for me. The OSs were easy to adjust pretty much right from the start. The Magnums took a while for me to be able to get a good idle & transition. The GMS took even longer, maybe a gallon or so.

The Magnum and GMS engines had the front needle valve. I have never had much luck with the rear needle except of the AX. The AXs and Magnums are on twins and the GMSs will be on my next twin project. I would not put an unreliable engine on a twin.

I skipped the FX, by the way. My SF peeled and friends' FXs peeled so that's when I went to Magnum. Now that the liner is supposed to be fixed, I gave the AX a try. I think the later FXs were good, too.