The best 2 stroke
#8
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: STOCKHOLM Akersberga, SWEDEN
Hi,
I have the Super tigre 90 and the original carburetor and it is not bad but the OS, Webra or Irvine have better carburetors, so if I only had to buy one engine in that size then I would choose the OS108FSR as it has the 7D carburetor[sm=thumbup.gif]. Good luck /Amir
I have the Super tigre 90 and the original carburetor and it is not bad but the OS, Webra or Irvine have better carburetors, so if I only had to buy one engine in that size then I would choose the OS108FSR as it has the 7D carburetor[sm=thumbup.gif]. Good luck /Amir
#9

My Feedback: (16)
About as many people complain about the 7D asdo the ST carb relative to the number that are out there.
The OS 7D cost you almost $70. It's not a very cost effective option.
Many people will say that the Super Tiger carb is one of the best made for the money.
Enjoy,
Jim
The OS 7D cost you almost $70. It's not a very cost effective option.
Many people will say that the Super Tiger carb is one of the best made for the money.
Enjoy,
Jim
#10
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , UNITED KINGDOM
i do like the look of the os 108fsr
ORIGINAL: Flyer95
Hi,
I have the Super tigre 90 and the original carburetor and it is not bad but the OS, Webra or Irvine have better carburetors, so if I only had to buy one engine in that size then I would choose the OS108FSR as it has the 7D carburetor[sm=thumbup.gif]. Good luck /Amir
Hi,
I have the Super tigre 90 and the original carburetor and it is not bad but the OS, Webra or Irvine have better carburetors, so if I only had to buy one engine in that size then I would choose the OS108FSR as it has the 7D carburetor[sm=thumbup.gif]. Good luck /Amir
#11
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: STOCKHOLM Akersberga, SWEDEN
Jim,
The OS7D carburetor is the stock carburetor that comes with the 108FSR engine, otherwise a very expensive carb. as you mentioned.
Yellow 748,
Yes, it is a beautiful engine
.
The OS7D carburetor is the stock carburetor that comes with the 108FSR engine, otherwise a very expensive carb. as you mentioned.
Yellow 748,
Yes, it is a beautiful engine
.
#12
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Wpg,
MB, CANADA
I wonder what the statistics are, in regards to G-90 engines purchased, and running well ,in stock form, as opposed to G-90 engines ,that needed a carb change, to run "right"...
#14

My Feedback: (6)
I like the Itallian Super Tigre's, do not have any of the Chineese ones yet to make judgement on.
As far as a 120 size engine, Hands down it is the Thunder Tiger. Ultra reliable, very powerful and last forever. Second choice would be the Webra 120, just as strong and reliable as the TT.
For the 90 size, I would choose the older Italian Super Tigre 90 and the MVVS 91. Both great engines and very difficult to wear out. Both have exceptional carburation.
As far as a 120 size engine, Hands down it is the Thunder Tiger. Ultra reliable, very powerful and last forever. Second choice would be the Webra 120, just as strong and reliable as the TT.
For the 90 size, I would choose the older Italian Super Tigre 90 and the MVVS 91. Both great engines and very difficult to wear out. Both have exceptional carburation.
#15
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: STOCKHOLM Akersberga, SWEDEN
The only carb. problem super tigres ever had is the rich midrange. Sometimes to the point the engine would dead stick and that happened only if you fly it in the midrange for a long time. Perfect idle and perfect at full throttle as usual. .
I have however solved most of that problem by running a very hot plug like the OS-F, and that engine has not giving me any deadsticks since 1,5 year ago.
I have however solved most of that problem by running a very hot plug like the OS-F, and that engine has not giving me any deadsticks since 1,5 year ago.
#17
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Wpg,
MB, CANADA
ORIGINAL: hobbsy
I've never bought into the bad carb thing, I have several SuperTigre carbs on other brands of engines. With the ability to rotate the spraybar for midrange tuning they are very tunable for any situation.
I've never bought into the bad carb thing, I have several SuperTigre carbs on other brands of engines. With the ability to rotate the spraybar for midrange tuning they are very tunable for any situation.
.JUST can`t seem to be able to post video in RCU,putfile won`t work for me[
]
#18
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
I think the question should be more like "what is the best engine for the type of flying your going to do on a certain plane?" My favorite sport engine is a G90. I have one of them in a Shoestring and I don't believe i can get better performance from any other engine. I also have some Jetts for which I would not waste in a Shoestring .
Then I have planes that a G90 would not bring out the best in that a Jett would.
Then I have planes that a G90 would not bring out the best in that a Jett would.
#20
Senior Member
My Feedback: (26)
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: New Richmond,
WI
I like the .91FX for a 25oz motor and the 108fsr for a 33oz motor (weights with muffler). Have not had a G90, but I do have a G75. From the reports I have herd I am not sure the G90 will pull quite as hard as the .91FX. This makes no sense and is more likely to do with a stifling stock muffler?
My .91FX turns a 15 x6 apc 10,300 with stock muffler & baffle removed(or pitts) and 11,300 with an Ultra thrust.
My 108FSR & j-tec turns 16 x6 apc 9,600 and a 17 x6 apc 9,250 --only turns a 15 x6apc 10,500 or 200 faster than the .91FX (back to back test same fuel same prop).
My .91FX turns a 15 x6 apc 10,300 with stock muffler & baffle removed(or pitts) and 11,300 with an Ultra thrust.
My 108FSR & j-tec turns 16 x6 apc 9,600 and a 17 x6 apc 9,250 --only turns a 15 x6apc 10,500 or 200 faster than the .91FX (back to back test same fuel same prop).
#21

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: DrumboOntario, CANADA
Hi,
I think one needs to define what is expected from the engine. Once that is defined, you can select "the best engine" for that application.
Do you want:
Most reliable?
Most power?
Highest RPM?
Easiest to maintain?
Best availability of parts (most common)?
Best cost for performance ratio?
Most Power to weight?
etc.
Once the above is defined, I think the answer will be more relevant to what you want. Can you tell us what you are looking for?
Fly4Fun,
Wayne
I think one needs to define what is expected from the engine. Once that is defined, you can select "the best engine" for that application.
Do you want:
Most reliable?
Most power?
Highest RPM?
Easiest to maintain?
Best availability of parts (most common)?
Best cost for performance ratio?
Most Power to weight?
etc.
Once the above is defined, I think the answer will be more relevant to what you want. Can you tell us what you are looking for?
Fly4Fun,
Wayne
#22
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , UNITED KINGDOM
All of the above [sm=wink.gif]
Well the engine is to go into a 60 to 90 size scale plane for fun stunt flying and Unlimited vertical climbing if this is possible
yellow748
Well the engine is to go into a 60 to 90 size scale plane for fun stunt flying and Unlimited vertical climbing if this is possible

yellow748
ORIGINAL: Wayne Miller
Hi,
I think one needs to define what is expected from the engine. Once that is defined, you can select "the best engine" for that application.
Do you want:
Most reliable?
Most power?
Highest RPM?
Easiest to maintain?
Best availability of parts (most common)?
Best cost for performance ratio?
Most Power to weight?
etc.
Once the above is defined, I think the answer will be more relevant to what you want. Can you tell us what you are looking for?
Fly4Fun,
Wayne
Hi,
I think one needs to define what is expected from the engine. Once that is defined, you can select "the best engine" for that application.
Do you want:
Most reliable?
Most power?
Highest RPM?
Easiest to maintain?
Best availability of parts (most common)?
Best cost for performance ratio?
Most Power to weight?
etc.
Once the above is defined, I think the answer will be more relevant to what you want. Can you tell us what you are looking for?
Fly4Fun,
Wayne
#23
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , UNITED KINGDOM
#24
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: lowell,
MA
I have two , st 90 and st 51.the 51 i got in 1982 and it still runs verry well.The 90 igot in 1984 and i flew it all year this year.has tons of flights and allways ran perfect.
#25
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Callahan,
FL
I have 2 ST90's, one Chinese and one Italian. In my opinion the one manufactured in China runs better, is easier to tune and is stronger than the one made in Italy. I also have had two OS91 FX's, still have one, and, again, in my opinion both ST90's are stronger than the OS91's. I will say that the ST90 is a little more difficult to tune and takes much longer to break in. All in all it is an excellent engine and you can't beat the price.
Regards,
doubledee
Regards,
doubledee


