firstplaceaviator

My Feedback: (27)

I had a Supertigre 2000 and a 2500. Both of them ran flawlessly! Never had to dead stick, unless I ran out of fuel I wish the rest of my engines were so good.

jeffk464

besides which 2 gallons of fuel in a super tiger 2300 doesnt take very many runs.

I'm a glutton for punishment so lately I've been thinking of trying it again. I'm going to put an os F plug in it and got some threaded rod that I will use hopefully keep the muffler together because the stock muffler bolt is way inadequate.

Anyways there is a whole thread, many pages long, on people trying to get their 2300's to run.

firstplaceaviator

My Feedback: (27)

I'm glad I never bought a 2300

Flypaper 2

Cameron 19 too. Mine lasted about a yr. Buddy bought one at the same time. Never did get it to run. Another bummer was the Merco 49. Did put a lot of miles on it but kept having to put rods in it. Wouldn't break, just wore out the bottom end. Got so loose on the bottom, it would lose compression so bad it didn't have enough power to pull your hat off. Think it was in a Mighty Mambo on reeds if I remember right.

rcdude7

My Feedback: (264)

23CC of pure power.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

-


You have missed enjoying a very good engine. Like a cat, it insists upon doing things its own way. Follow its lead and you will be very satisfied. Try to treat it like an OS and you will be very disappointed, until it breaks-in and is adjusted properly. Then you will love it.

Super Tigres are "old world" engines. They are made from good quality metal (long break-in) and are designed to run well and last a long time. They were designed long before 3D became popular and, being two-strokes, they do not run like four-strokes. If one insists upon four-stroke performance, buy a four-stroke.

These behemoths are gentle, easy starters and are not difficult to tune, once broken-in. They are fairly tolerant of different types of fuels. Adjusting the compression (lessening) to burn higher nitro fuels is a normal procedure for two-stroke glow engines and has been for sixty years. Unlike previous large Super Tigre engines, the G2300 requires the oil in the fuel to be of normal ratios, not lessened. For my G2300 engines, I use Fireball hot, or OS Type-F glow plugs and burn 5% nitro. I generally run an 17 or 18x6 or 8 propeller.


Ed Cregger

Telemaster Sales UK

Agreed the HP 21 four-stroke lacks power but put it in a 4-5 foot vintage/old timer model with a short nose and the weight beomes an advantage. I flew one for years in a 1946 design called a Junior 60, a popular model here and ideal for greybeards to learn to fly on, mind you it did strugle to get off the ground in calm weather. I replaced it with it's 25 elder brother and the model flew better.

Worst engines ever, without a doubt the Russian MDS and the Chinese Leo. Both totally unreliable, but you get what you pay for. Glad I never bought one.

Happy Landings

David Davis

Telemaster Sales UK

I've got two HPVT 21s, a 25 and a 49. I'm looking out for a 61 at a good price so I can have a full set!

I currently have the 49 installed in a very semi-scale Morane which you can see on my club's website, www.smfcinfo.org.ok

Happy Landings

Telemaster Sales UK

Try MECOA, (Model Engine Corporation of America) they might be able to help you with a ring for your Merco.

Telemaster Sales UK

The 40's were awful though.

I know what you mean about the bike, I rode my Triumph to the flying field yesterday. Should have taken my transmitter with me and given the club's trainer an airing.

Happy Landings.

WhiteRook

My Feedback: (38)

well, everybody has their own opinion , but i think fox engines are tougher than most, i bought
one used that had been sitting for 10 years , and it fired right up on three spins of the prop, their tollerances are some of the best there are, BUT , as with many engines the carbs are
trouble, they did make a perry sub , but i haven't seen one arround

firstplaceaviator

My Feedback: (27)

With the exception of the Fox .74 that I owned, I agree with you. I have had a bunch of Fox engines. All of them (except that damn .74) were great engines!

Telemaster Sales UK

Hi Hobbsy

I rode my Triumph to the flying field yesterday.

Next time I think I'll take my transmitter and receiver crystal and have a go with the club's trainer! I'm sure someone would give me some fuel and let me use their starting equipment.

It's the nearest way of combining both interests that I can think of!

Happy Landings and Safe Riding

DD

Telemaster Sales UK

Hi White Rook

I was referring to the Russian MDS 40 engines in my post. Some people think they're alright but for everyone I've seen that went well, I've seen ten that were totally unreliable or which wore out in no time.

I've only one Fox engine, a Combat 36 which has flown about ten times in forty years and which doesn't have a throttle, so I can't really comment on them.

If you need a two-stroke glow, you can't go wrong with an Irvine or OS engine. On the other hand, the recent batch of Chinese SC and ASP engines seem to be very good.

Happy Landings


DD

tgeorge

Several years ago (2-5) I found a very good - and well written "page" about the FOX .74 and methods to correct the so-called "faults on the address that you have given.
For the last few days I have tried the fliteline solutions address but have not found the needed Fox information.

GravityTester

My Feedback: (25)

I know this is a post about the worst engines but I have come to love the evolution engines. Fair amount of power but ultra reliable.
gt

alfredbmor

Jezmo thanks for your valuable info I will do the search. I really appreciate your concern. Thanks again.

Sport_Pilot

The Flightline Solutions page is no longer. However someone has archived it.

http://web.archive.org/web/200612050...solutions.com/

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

I truly miss my RJL/MECOA HP.49VT plain head engine. If you want ultra high performance and the lightest weight, look elsewhere. But if you have a biplane that needs some nose weight and the utmost in easy starting and reliability, it is a good choice.


Ed Cregger

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

Most of the "carb trouble" with Fox engines turns out to be folks trying to run the wrong kind of lubricant in them. Gotta use castor oil based fuels. Also, the older slanted glow plug versions of the engine were set up to run on Missile Mist fuel right out of the box, according to the instructions. I finally was able to talk Duke into making some higher compression heads for the Eagle .60 (baffle piston) back in the early Eighties. It can be recognized by the vertical glow plug position in the cylinder head. If anyone has one of these heads (or entire engines with this head) that they want to part with, please contact me via PM.

Also, the old style carbs (flat blade carb rotor) adjusted backwards from conventional carbs. You had to adjust the low speed circuit first and then the high speed circuit. Doing it conventionally, high speed first, led to lots of frustration and unhappiness.

I have a dozen or so Fox Eagle two-ringed engines that I've bought used recently. I used to fly one of these in the late Seventies and loved the dickens out of it, once I got used to how it ran and adjusted. My K&B and fiberglassed Kaos (60) turned out so heavy that my Eagle .60 couldn't get it off the ground while turning anything less than an 11x8 prop. I didn't experiment with higher pitch back then, but I'm certain that the undersquare Fox Eagle could have pulled another inch or two of pitch without a problem.


Ed Cregger

XJet

That is *very* true.

I had a Fox .15 that would run fine on the ground but just sagged badly once in the air no matter how rich the needle was set.

At the time, I was using fuel with synthetic oil (20% Castrol MSSR) and that worked fine on my OS engines.

When I switched to fuel with 20% castor, the old Fox became a whole different engine and would run all day long even with a cowl.

RCPAUL

My Feedback: (1)

Sport Pilot

That link to Flightline Solutions does not work.

Paul

Sport_Pilot

I just tested it and it works. A few icons and pics don't show up but the text reads fine.

Stripes

My Feedback: (19)

Worst engine is the MDS 40. I bought several. It just won't run. I have two in the junk box and another in parts. I also have two NIB which I will sell shortly to any smarty that thinks he can do better than I ($40 each).

Most irritating point is Hobbsy saying the engine is just misunderstood. [:@]

I tried every plug and every fuel I had but still no reliable results. ( I didn't have any FAI fuel the local shop doesn't carry it. )

(I have and had several MDS 25s which were and are a real delight.)

Incidentally, I have model engine experience going back to 1954 so with the hundreds of engines I have run I don't really think it is me.

Dan Vincent

Wow, when I think of crappy engines I go back to the days of the slag type engines such as the Buzz line which included a .19, .29, .35 and .60.

The biggest disappointment I've had in the past 30 years was the HGK .15 that was supposed to be the killer for Quarter Midget racing. In pictures it looked great. A thing of beauty but it had no compression and never did anything.

I have one in my collection just because it is so beautiful but forget about running it.