Steve, I'm currently using my 1.80 on the new 79" WS Great Planes Cap 232 - part of the same series of your Yak. I've got about 15 flights and couldn't be happier w/ that combo.

I've run both the Meijzlik 18x8 and APC 20X8 (narrow blade) with good results.

An idea regarding the DPM versions might be to ask Dave how compression rate was reduced. If they shimmed the head (instead of machining new ones), then all you'd have to do to run FAI fuel is removed the shims! As a last resort, you could buy a replacement head from Just Engines, but my gut feeling is that the engine will run just fine on 5% nitro.

Moki's are gone for good here in the U.S. Problem is... a friend tried to order a Mark 2.10 from Morris there are outa stock and din't know when they were getting more.

Thanks for all the info. It figures; now that I could use one, they're no longer readily available...[&o]

I'm in the market for a 2.10. If anyone in this thread is still selling one, please let me know. Email is my best contact - [email protected] but I'll keep checking this thread for the next few days.

Thanks guys

-Jason Moorman

Does anyone know if the Moki 2.10 and 1.8 have the same radial mount dimensions? I have a 2.10, and I'm going to use a 1.8 for another plane which I am currently building (don't have the 1.8 yet). I'd use the 2.10 as a pattern for this plane if I knew they have the same mounting circle dimensions...also...are they the same length from mounting surface to prop washer face?

2.10 is just a big bigger in all the mounting dimensions vs the 1.80, by 1 or 2 mm. Check the Moki website, http://www.mokiengine.com/indexang.htm

Tom is right, they are not the same. The 2.10 radial mount is a little bigger. Compared them at a swap meet, not the same.

Dave Patrick models will have their version back in stock in a couple of weeks.

Hi,

what you write about the Moki 180 fuel consumption seems very good but a little bit unbelievable.

I checked out here in Belgium about the MOKI 180 and they all says that Moki are very thristy engines ?

Can I have more info since I am thinking to buy a Moki 180 methanol or the petrol version.

Thanks !

I don't think I can get more specific than what I already said, that I can get two days' flying with a gallon of FAI or 5% nitro, flying 4-5 flights a day, doing a double round of IMAC Basic each flight. I am flying 14-15 lb (6--6.5 kg) quarter scale aerobats on Moki 1.80's, full throttle on uplines, idle on downlines and about half throttle on straight & level, typical IMAC throttling. If you have a warbird or large scale model and fly wide open throttle all the time, that will use a lot of fuel pretty fast. Also, the low-speed needle on a big two-stroke glow will affect fuel consumption well up into the mid-range, so low-speed tuning is important to good fuel economy. I will grant that running rich on the first few gallons for breaking in does suck up a lot of fuel.

As to the petrol version, my understanding is that the glow engine known as Moki/Mark made in Hungary is completely separate from the petrol Moki, which I'm told is made in Germany, no connection to the Hungary operation, apparently just riding on the Moki name because of lack of trademark registration or some such issue. I have not seen a Moki petrol engine other than in pictures, so don't have any practical knowledge of them.

I would expect a glow engine to burn fuel at a higher rate compared to a petrol engine of the same displacement, but it would also deliver more power. I don't know whether there is a Moki petrol engine of 1.8 cu in displacement (30 cc), but if there is, I would expect it to deliver considerably less thrust compared to the glow powered engine. I do own a couple small MVVS petrol engines that I fly with tuned exhaust, but without tuned exhaust you really need to get to 40 cc displacement and larger to get good economy with petrol.

I guess I'm lucky in having an active group of flyers around, so I'm usually not the first to try something new in radio control. I can watch other flyers, talk to them about their equipment, and satisfy myself before I invest time & money in something unfamiliar or unproven in my own experience.

Thanks for feedback !

I purchased the CAP 27% 3D from Great Planes.
I has a wingspan of 2m.

They say that the OS 160 FX is the ideal engine ?
I have no experience with the 160 FX and wanted to go for a Moki engine.

Do you know someone flying with the CAP and on which engine ?
Would a Moki 180 be good for this plane ?

I have not seen the GP CAP 27%, but I have a Hangar 9 Edge of about the same size with a 160FX, which is ample power for aerobatics, plenty of vertical although not unlimited. If you are thinking aerobatics, the 160FX would be a good bet, and is a solid, dependable engine that should give you lots of mileage and happy flying. If you were thinking 3D, the 160FX might lack somewhat, which would lean me more to the Moki--which is also a keeper, so you can't go too far wrong with either one. The Moki likes low nitro fuel, which might be a factor in your area.

I have some questions on the 160 FX:

* which tank size and how many minutes per fligth ?
* do you use Perry pump or cline regulator ?
* how many nitro ?
* do you have rich setting on mid-gas ? A friend of my told me OS160 FX turns rich on mid gaz even when lean setup at full throttle ?

Salto1,

A 20 oz tank is a good size. I fly 5% nitro. I do not use a Regulator or pump. No problem with the midrange.

I use a 16 oz tank for my 160FX. That's more than enough to do a double round of IMAC practice, and helps keep the weight down. A 20 oz or 24 oz tank would work well for general or sport flying. I'm presently working off a stock of 10% nitro, but I'll probably try a gallon of my Moki blend and see how that goes (5% nitro, 14% lube). I use a regulator to enable tank on CG, but I see other installations fly well with tank behind firewall, standard fuel set-up. I had one set-up where the engine ran rich on a full tank, then leaned out as fuel level dropped; I fixed that with a Perry pump.

My sense of the rich mid-range complaint is that people are not willing to take the little extra time to tune the idle needle properly. It's called the idle needle, but really the two needles, low and high, work as a system, and both affect the mid-range. People seem to focus on the high needle for balancing power and reliability, and settle for less than optimal mid-range as long as the engine keeps running and pulls on the verticals. For sport flying, a rich mid-range is no disaster, but for a competition plane you like to hear a sweet note at every throttle setting. I tune my idle needle to the point where it dies or almost dies on quick throttle-up after 30 seconds of idling, then back off just enough that I can punch the throttle and get good response. When I get that setting, I then re-tune the high needle. Once the low needle is set, I leave it set. I don't think rich mid-range is a fault of the engine, I think it's a matter of tuning (which takes in fuel blend, glow plug & prop as well as needle settings... change any of these and you should re-check your tuning). Also keep in mind that as a ringed engine, it will keep getting better over several gallons. This is a honey of an engine.

Thanks,

I live in Belgium and have no idea how long a double round of IMAC practice takes ?
So can you please give me an indication of the fligth time ?

Which kind of silencer do you use on the 160 FX ?
Does the use of a Perry pump reduce the fuel consumption ?

I use a Bisson OS BGX or ST4500 pitts muffler. They have larger volume than a Bisson 160FX muffler and give better power to spin bigger props.

I have a tuned pipe but haven't run it yet.

and what about the fligth time with one tank ?

Flight time is dependent on the prop, average rpm, and what have you. The way I'm flying now I get about 12 minutes on a 20 oz tank with half left using 5% nitro and a APC 19X8 on a 13# GP GS Extra 300S.

hmmm seems pretty good with 1/2 of the tank left.

I thougth the 160 was a more thirsty one ...

So I think I am going to put one on the GP CAP 27%

In my experience this business of 'thirsty engines' comes from a) problems with tuning (needles, prop, fuel, exhaust & plug); and b) underpowering the model--too small engine displacement for too heavy or too draggy a model. If an aerobat or anything other than a racer is powered to cruise straight & level at a satisfying speed at half throttle, fuel consumption will be reasonable. If the model is underpowered to the extent that it spends a lot of time flying at wide open throttle, then fuel consumption will be high. Of course some maintenenance is necessary as well--the occasional bearing change, ring replacement, etc.