archer_456

Hello all, I am having a hard time deciding on which .61 engine to get. I am looking at the Super Tiger G-61, Thunder Tiger Pro .61, or the O.S .61 FX. I am putting this engine on a Hobbistar 60 Trainer. From what I have gathered, all three engines are good and produce about the same amount of power. The biggest differences are the prices. I had originally decided to get the O.S. 61FX, but after reviewing the others, I just can't justify the $60 price difference. Between the three, what would you recommend? Also, what attributes should I look for in a good motor?

Thanks in advanced.

Gizmo-RCU

My Feedback: (27)

They all produce good power and it may boil down to cost.......The ST will take a little more time to break-in as it's ringed. As I recall the other two are ringless (ABC types) and will take less time to break-in.
I am running a ST 90 on my UCD 46, about a Gallon down and it's becoming a real nice strong engine (bored out 60).
The fun thing about this Hobby is the choices presented

Flyboy Dave

My Feedback: (21)

Take a peek at the Tower offerings....they are the same quality....same price
range....but have much better parts availability, and support.

I'm not being facetious, but my answer to the .61 question ....is the Tower .75.
What a fantastic engine for under a hundred dollars.

Of the three engines you are choosing from, I'd go with the S.T.

FBD.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

I had a Hobbistar 60 with a MDS 68 init for a few years. It wasn't over powered or anything. Beautfiful smooth flying plane.

The super Tiger G61 has excellent power. I have one and did have many more at one time.

The Thunder Tiger 61 is not the engine that their Pro 46 is. It's not noted for its power and is rather heavy.

People don't buy 61's anymore. Magnum even quit making them.

The Super Tiger 75, Tower Hobbies 75 and the Super Tiger G90's are the hot sellers. These engines will offer you more flexibility in the future with your new planes.

The OS 91FX became real popular 3 or 4 years ago and everyone had so much trouble with them that they dropped by the wayside. Meanwhile OS has fixed the problems with the engine.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Archer:

If you just want a 61, consider the K&B ringed 61 engine. No powerhouse, but it flies the Hobbistar 60 very nicely.

And unless you break it on purpose it will outlive you.

Bill.

Ed_Moorman

My Feedback: (1)

Your best .61 is a .75 or .91 in the same case. Try a Tower .75. It has more power and weighs the same. Very well supported by the distributor.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

The OS.61FX is too expensive, if this is really going to serve as a trainer for you. No need to mangle
expensive iron while learning.

I have heard of difficulties in obtaining TT parts over the last couple of years. I would ask around and see if this is
still true. Otherwise, it is a good engine. Although, over the last while, the price of Thunder Tiger engines has gone
up disproportionately to their worth. The same with Magnum engines. I would buy a Super Tigre engine, preferably
ABC, for your minimum break-in requirement. You might even want to consider the G90. Same physical size as the
.61 and will swing a large enough (pitch) prop during blubbery rich break-in to fly the model with ease.

If you haven't bought the Hobbistar 60 yet, don't. It handles like a B-36 with hydraulic failure. While having a model
that is too responsive can be a negative for some beginners, having one that barely responds at all is even worse.

If you already purchased the model, replacing the ailerons with aileron stock that is twice as large from the leading
edge to the trailing edge will be a prudent move. Yes, I owned one of these models, some years ago.

I am a staunch advocate for .40-.50 size models during learning to fly. A good ball bearing .45-.53 is going to be
strong enough to get the trainer off the ground in less than ideal circumstances (tall grass). Smaller models suffer
less damage during minor crashes (beginner landing attempts) than larger models, so it is easier to remain flying.

Once the .40 and .61 size models are airborne, there is no significant difference in seeing one better than the other.
That only occurs on the ground when you are close to the models.

I know that this is a lot more than you asked for, and if you are already a seasoned flyer, I apologize for over
answering your question.

Ed Cregger

d_bodary

My Feedback: (85)

Generally i prefer the O.S. engines. but for a hobbico type trainer i think either one of the three engines will fly it with authority. I can't remember which is which but super tiger makes two 61's one is abc the other is ringed. As far as the Tower 61 and 75 engines i have seen them make good power also. although bolting on the muffler is a big pain. can't understand why they did'nt make the muffler design like the 46 if they did i would probably own one or two. It's a great hobby when there are so many choices. as for an earlier post a K&B 61 would also work well.
Dennis

archer_456

Thanks everyone for the input. I have looked at the Tower Hobbies 75, but the reason I was worried about it was because I read several posts about the remote needle leaking. Is this a common problem with this motor? This motor weighs close to the O.S 61FX, which is is what Hobbico Recommends, but it is slightly bigger in size, will it fit in the Plane? Also, How much would I have to worry about it overpowering the plane. I would hate to rip off a wing or anything, LOL

The ST G-61 I was looking at was the ABC version, it is also the motor my LHS was pushing towards me @ $99. It is heavier than the other 3 engines w/muffler, this shouldn't be that much of a problem, right?

The more I read about the TT pro 61, the more I am swaying away from it. A lot of people are saying that it is nothing like it's little brother, pro 46.

The O.S. is out of the question now because of the price. It is a good motor, but for the price, it not worth it IMO.

Ed Cregger: Ya, I have already bought the model. Should be fine though, I have several hours of time in the air w/ a H9 40 trainer and on flight sims, so It should be ok with a little help from an instrustor. The reason I went with a 60 size plane was beacuase had a hard time seeing the 40 size in the air, LOL.

FrancisPerson

I have a K&B Sportster .65 that turns a APC 13x7 at 10,200 RPM. My 7.5 Lb Tiger 60 moves out nicely with this combo. I will probably try a 13x8 next. The idle adjustment disk is very sensitive. This engine only weighs 20.6 oz!!!


Francis

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

Believe it or not I'm going to say that if you get an OS LA .65 you won't be disappointed either. Mine ran spot on perfect out of the box and on 5% nitro. I bought it for express purpose of converting it to Diesel but was impressed with it as a glow.

vlizard

The Tower .75 is the way to go. Huge power! Weighs less than the .61's, same size. LESS MONEY! I still have the remote on mine no leaks so far. It is removeable also. I don't care for remote needle so Im going to take mine off but after probably 30 or so flights no problems so far.

Sport_Pilot

I suspect the Hobbico will be nose heavy with any of these engines. If so and if straight up verticle performance is not the priority, then I would suggest the screw head K&B .61. Weighs about the same as many .50 engines but almost as much power as many .75's. Fox .74 wouldn't be bad either.

archer_456

Vlizard: I am starting to lean towards the TH .75 because it is close to the OS 61 fx weight but more power. I am stilll wondering if a .75 size motor will over power the plane.

Sport_Pilot: the weight of the motor making the plane be nose heavy is one of my concerns, thats why I was worried about the Super Tiger, it's like 4oz heavier than the recommended OS 61FX. Some of the other guys have also recommended the K&B .61, where can you get these motors from? For some reason I can't find very much information on these motors.

One more contender, what about the Tower Hobbies .61, would that still be a good choice? The Tower Hobbies .61 has just about the same specs as the OS 61 FX, power, RPM, and wieght.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Archer:

[link=http://www.mecoa.com/kb/index.htm]K&B Manufacturing[/link].

Bill.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

From my experience, the Hobbistar will not be over powered nor nose heavy with a Tower 75.

Mine had a MDS 68 wich is no light weight. I had to have the battery all the way to the front of the radio compartment.

The plane would do a 100 ft up line but was actually powered about right for a trainer.

nickj

I'm a huge Super Tigre fan, after years of flying mostly O.S. Takes a gallon of fuel to break in the ABC, before you can really dial in the mixture, but it starts on the first flip 9 times out of 10. When it comes to glo engines, small differences in weight, power, tuning, and even cost don't compare to ease of starting, IMO.

vlizard

Will Robinson is far smarter that I am in this subject. He is reccomending the KB. I know they used to be good engines I don't know about nowadays. I know the Tower .75 is tight and rips!!! Like i said though Will is far smarter than I am as far as I can tell engine wise. As for overpowered thats what the throttle is for.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

As I said before, the K&B ringed 61 flies the Hobbistar 60 very nicely. It will not be a screamer, but do you really want a trainer to run 90 mph?

In spite of a statement in an earlier post I found the stock ailerons to be more than adequate, they can always be enlarged if desired.

When I bashed my old Hobbistar 60 into the C-3/10 I didn't enlarge the ailerons, still fine with two engines.

Any of he larger engines, the ST, TH, TT, Magnum, all will work fine, but I'm sure they will wear out long before the K&B ringed 61.

Another great thing about the K&B ringed 61 - it weighs less than most 40-46 engines, it's an excellent selection for a "40 class" plane of any type.

Bill.

PS: Edward (vlizard): STOP!! Sir, you make me blush. wr.

tIANci

The TT61 is a very good engine, not as good as an OS I am sure but nonetheless its really good. She is easy to tune and will start on every flip for me even when inverted. I had it for a few planes and latest was on my Harrier 90, it will haul the H90 with an APC 16x4W but forget trying to prop hang unless you have 110% throttle! She will hang the H90 on full throttle but that gives you nothing to play with for a nice prop hang. Still it will happily fly my H90. Also, I put in my G90 on the H90 and the performance was not that much better, I am not keen on another G90, dunno why but not that good.

Stripes

My Feedback: (19)

The 61 is an underbore of the 75. Side by side you couldn't tell 'em apart. May as well get the additional power of the 75.

Jack Hyde

My Feedback: (1)

Bill,
You make the K&B .61 ringed sound great. I went to the site you showed and the model 6550 .61 ringed listed for $165. The sport model is about half the price and is listed at 50% more power in the K&B specs. Will the ringed .61 produce enough thrust to 3d a 6 lb plane?

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

I don't think so on the 3D.

I had four of those ringed K&B's at one time. I never paid more than $50 for one. They were all second hand but unused.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Jack:

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Jack Hyde
You make the K&B .61 ringed sound great... The sport model is about half the price and is listed at 50% more power in the K&B specs. Will the ringed .61 produce enough thrust to 3d a 6 lb plane?

The current K&B ringed 61, model #6550, is, in my opinion, the world's best sport engine in it's size class. Please note the word "Sport."

The oldest version is the 6330, which differs from the 6550 only in the carb and the cast aluminum prop drive washer, it keys to a flat on the front of the crank shaft. The 6550 uses a machined drive washer with a centering cone. The late style can be installed on the earlier model if desired. Ignoring some minor detail changes the base engine is the same as the Veco 61 of some 50 years ago. The parts will interchange.

On the K&B labeled engines three different carbs were used for muffler pressure, and a fourth came with the engine when the back plate was replaced with a built-in Perry VP-30 pump.

The early engines had a Perry carb, this was replaced with what most call the "Block" carb, a rectangular plain body with "K/B" engraved on the front. The latest have the "K&B Ribbed: carb, an upgrade on the Perry design. The ribbed carb has been supplied in a front needle version, and the current remote needle version. All of these carbs were around 0.225" throttle bore, similar power from the engine.

The 6535 and 6560 models, with the Perry pump, had a large bore (0.375") Perry carb, and significantly more power with the less restrictive intake. Other than the carb and pump all parts interchange with the "Normal" engines.

Enough history. How does it perform?

I've never weighed the plane, but my Hobbico Diablo 40 ARF will take off vertically with the 6550 K&B engine spinning a MAS 12x6 three blade prop. I have thought of replacing the 46 on my Modeltech "Magic" with one of the K&B 61s just to try it, but as I'm not a "3D" person, I'll probably not do it.

W8YE Jim is correct about the prices - buy all you want on "That" suction site for much less than new price. I've gotten several there, all have been excellent, and some were NIB.

A highly recommended engine, but 3D? I just don't know.

The "Sportster 65" is a different engine entirely. Again, for its intended purpose it is an excellent choice. Lighter than the ringed 61, larger displacement, and more low rpm power. It's a stump puller, not at all good if you try to run it at high rpm. With a big prop on a moderate speed plane it shines. A plain bearing crank, it REQUIRES castor oil for long life.

Hope I've covered all the questions, probably I've raised more. Feel free to ask them.

Bill.

Flyboy Dave

My Feedback: (21)

I am a big fan of the K&B .61's too, I have several. Like Bill says, they are great
engines....especially for replacing the .46's for some extra power, at about the
same weight. I don't think they would be good for 3D use. I use 11'' props on
mine, and let them turn into the 12 K range. They are not torquey stump pullers,
although for sport flying they are great. I also use different carbs on mine, none
of the early K&B carbs were much good....they later ones are better. That's why
alot of Guys will turn there nose up at K&B's.....the carbs sucked. (literally) [X(]

These are two different planes.

FBD.