Ed_Moorman

My Feedback: (1)

As I understand, there are 3 main engine manufacturers in China. There may be more.

Sanye makes Magnum, ASP, Evolution, SC and parts for RCV. I understand the RCV is assembled in Britain. Magnum is the trade name for Hobby People's engines. Evolution is the name for Horizon's engines.

GMS makes the GMS engines, Tower and Super Tigre engines. I understand the tooling was shipped from Italy to China by Hobbico.

Jiangnan makes Tiger Shark, SK and JBA (for Jiangnan Blue Arrow) engines.

For the most part, the manufacturers don't sell engines under their own name. GMS is one who does. Their usual practice is to make engines to a customer's specifications for him to sell. It's the same thing as a small manufacturer making electronics that is sold by one of the big names. Each of those engine names can be very different in terms of quality and design. The customer, Horizon, for example, would come in and say they wanted and engine like this. Their engineers may have designed the upswept fins. They may require tighter tolerances, etc. They pay for the design and quality they want. They test prototypes, order production of so many, and later test the first ones off the line, First Article Inspection, it's called.

Another customer may want a copy of a well known engine from another country. This, too, can be done. A third customer may bring his own tooling, like Hobbico/Tower for the Super Tigre. The large Tower engines are very similar to early Super Tigre engines. They have very little in common with the GMS engines that are made in the same plant.

Kangke engineers from the US were in China for the design of the SK engines. They specified an engine tuned for torque, as opposed to the Tower engines that are tuned for high rpm.

The customer/distributor gets what he wants so he can sell us a choice. As a general rule, these large distributors stand behind their engines very well. Great Planes distributes OS, Super Tigre and GMS engines. Tower, also owned by Hobbico, sells all those engines as well as the Tower house brand. I would bet they make a bundle on Tower engines, even at the great price. There is no middle man.

captinjohn

hobbsy: I noticed you have a Supertiger 2300. How smooth running are they? I may try one. Capt,n

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

Cap, it runs pretty smoothly, the carb was a no brainer to set. I converted it to Diesel but converted it back to give the ring some more break in time. I'll Dieselize it again after another half hour of running. ABC engines can be converted soon after a little glow time but ringed engines aren't always ready as quickly. They're a little optimistic about the recommended break in prop, an 18x8, but an 18x6 is much better.

Trollmaster

What kills me is why it's "forbidden" to even think about installing a different brand of carb on a "glow" engine to make it run better. The common excuse is it should run right without this.

However it is perfectly acceptable to do this on gas, car engines and nearly any other area. Super Tigers have a history of mid range problems. I really don't experience much of this because i can tune an engine. But if people don't like the performance, change the darn carb.

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

I change carbs on engines all the time, but a lot of times I use a SuperTigre carb as the replacement carb. Here is an Irvine JetStream carb for example on my PAW .60, it completely changed the characteristics of this engine, for the better of course.

boex

I know very little about engines but most experienced modelers here on this forum are saying that ST carbs are basically junk and need to be replaced.

I personally own and operate a stock Chinese ST 2300, mine does have transition and rich midrange problems.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

Look up Pe Reivers "fix" for the G2300 carb here on RCU. He shows how to modify the dog leg (milled slot) shape to change how the midrange mixture. You can have it your way, but you have to lose the fear of sacrificing a $15 part if you slip up with the grinding set up. It is easy to do with a regular Moto Tool and you can customize the midrange to work precisely as you want. How many other engines offer you this much flexibility? None that I know of.

Ed Cregger

PlaneKrazee

My Feedback: (14)

Those Irvine carbs were very nice. Kind of a refined modern ST. The early ST carbs with the low speed needle that had the tang and the high speed needle with the packing were great.

XJet

Ed, you crack me up, honestly :-)

You could turn a sow's ear into a silk purse!

How can you claim that having to re-engineer an engine component in order to get satisfactory throttle response is a good thing?

I think a more honest assesment of the situation might be:

How many other engines require you to take to them with a Moto Tool in order to get the kind of throttle response you thought you'd be getting in the first case?

And, for the record, you can change the barrel groove on almost *all* twin-needle engines to adjust the mid-range metering so ST is just like everyone else -- except that on the vast majority of other brands, you don't *have* to mess around like this go get decent mid-range and transition.

I admire your brand-loyalty though :-)

downunder

I adapted an early ST carb (the one with a proper needle for the idle mix) onto an OS 61VF and I've never seen an engine react so well or so quickly to slamming the throttle open manually as fast as possible.

Kweasel

My Feedback: (29)

Why is it so outrageous to buy an extra carburetor that matches your needs. Those junk Supertigre carbs are some of the best for tuned pipes and some of the worst for mufflers. How many of these same people cry when they have to buy $100 servos to get the performance that they want? It seems modelers expect these engines to work as easily in all conditions as their cars and lawn equipment. Those people should go electric or find a less technical hobby. There has been a huge "technical" brain-drain in this hobby over the last decade. Its clearly become too easy to get into.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

I'm not defending Super Tigre. The engine is what it is.

I grew up using Fox and McCoy engines, once I got away from the .049 sized mills. Mostly Fox.

I'm used to retapering needle valves, etc. If you want it to run your way, you have to make it run your way. Fiddling with engines was a major part of my hobby. I didn't have any choice and I wouldn't have had it any other way. I feel sorry for the folks today that are completely helpless and whose only skill is using a credit card. Sure I do. <G>

When I was a youngster, if I wanted something to happen, it was up to me to make it happen. No one else was involved. No money from Mom and Dad, no skilled father in the garage/shop to help me learn to use tools (what tools?) or to make something for me. It was up to me and me alone.

Now I see a bunch of whining teenagers and young adults complaining when things do not go as they had dreamed or supposed and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? No, not hardly.

Personally, I enjoyed the hobby much more when you had to build your own models, understand your engines and fiddle with your radio. The hobby was much more cerebral as were those with the moxy to stick with it. Ditto ham radio and hotrodding. Consumerism/progress has nearly spoiled all of these hobbies to the point where I can barely retain interest in them. They have been dumb-downed to the point of being boring.

For those of you too young to have experienced things similarly to those near my age and older, it isn't your fault. You are not stupid because the hobby has changed. But it might help you some if you understood where the older flyers are coming from. It isn't their fault that they were born before you. And it isn't their fault that the hobby was much more demanding in those days.


Ed Cregger

boex

The hobby has changed dramatically, I guess. Now we have simulators, computer radios, lipos, 3d flying, the internet, etc. etc.

I hope Ed, you rediscover the passion for this wonderful hobby.

PlaneKrazee

My Feedback: (14)

Ed,

What was your first r/c plane?

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

---------------


My very first R/C model airplane was an Ambroid Charger in 1966. Remember that one?


Ed Cregger

PlaneKrazee

My Feedback: (14)

Hi Ed,

That would be before my r/c time. My first was an H-Ray with a new OS 30s r/c that the hobby shop owner fitted with a Super Tigre carb for me. I still have the engine and it throttles very nicely but needs lots of castor to be really happy (mehanite piston). An 80/20 oil blend really doesn't work as well as a 50/50 or 100% castor fuel.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

---------------


I'm very passionate about the hobby. Never the less, thank you for the well wishes.


Ed Cregger

XJet

Not always true Ed.

I have a hangar filled with Thunder Tiger and Saito engines. I don't have to do a damned thing to those engines to get them to run sweetly. Perfect idle, flawless mid-range, great transition, strong power.

This kind of proves that it *is* possible to build an engine that works "as advertised" straight out of the box and without the need to fart around reprofiling needles, grinding slots in the barrel or making other mods.

That some brands (SuperTigre for instance) either can't be bothered or don't know how to make engines that work "out of the box" in the same way, simply drops them down the "value for money" scale in my book.

Some might say "what do you expect for a budget engine?" and pass off ST's foibles as being an acceptable trade-off for the low price. I point at TT, ASP/Magnum and a raft of other "budget" engines that even the most neophyte modeller can simply take out of the box, bolt onto a plane and fly. If these companies can do it, why can't ST?

The last engine I had to spend a lot of time modifying was an OS20 back in the late 1970s. I ported and polished this engine, made up a new ultra-large venturi, fitted crankcase pressure and raised the compression ratio. That was one very powerful engine and ran well at around 18,000 RPMs.

These days I have a very well equipped workshop filled with lathes, mills, TIG, MIG, plasma cutter, ECM, balancing, plating facilities, etc.

I *could* turn almost any sow's ear into a silk purse if I wanted to -- but I want to spend my leisure time *flying* and not rebuilding badly designed engines. So I just buy engines that work "out of the box".

Sure, I've got a few ST90s here that I've been froced to re-engineer in order to get them running as well as my TTs and ASPs, but I doubt I'll bother buying any more -- life's too short.

If you enjoy re-engineering then STs are a good bet. If you'd rather be flying then there are alternatives that may be more rewarding in terms of the lower levels of frustration they represent.

It depends on whether you want to be a model engineer or a model-flyer. My own inclinations have changed over the years.

There was a time when I'd spend many hours scratch-building aircraft of my own design (most of which flew very well) but these days I get more kick out of flying (especially 3D where you *never* finish honing your skills) so I find building a necessary evil and (for that reason) have a lot of ARFs too.

Oh Ed, your age is showing :-)
Sure, the attention span of today's youth appears to be much shorter than ours was when we were young, but by the same token, the whole nature of society has changed. We live in a world where short attention spans and instant gratification have become the accepted norm. Soundbytes instead of real news stories, quickly keyed emails or txt messages instead of hand-written letters, an unlimited choice of leisure-time activities, etc.

Change may not always be a good thing but it is inevitable.

I'm sure that our parents said similar things about the way we behaved when young -- it's a repetitive cycle based on something called the generation gap :-)

Well I enjoy the hobby every bit as much today as I did 20-30 years ago when I built my own RC gear, converted plain old sport motors to hi-performance ones, designed and built all my own planes from scratch, etc.

But now I enjoy the flying, the social aspects and the chance to pass on some of my experience and knowledge to others. I've got a couple of kits sitting here waiting to be built but I just can't raise enough enthusiasm -- I'd rather be out flying. Most of my models get built as the result of a crash and the fact that if I don't put a new one together then I won't be able to fly.

I could still build my own RC gear (and in fact I'm currently working on a 16-channel spread-spectrum set as part of my job designing UAV control systems) but I'd rather buy a set off the shelf. I could build my own engines from scratch (I build design and build jet engines for a living too) but I'd rather just buy one that's "ready to go".

The hobby is just as much (if not more) fun, just that my priorities and preferences have changed.

The hobby is still demanding, just different.
Back in the 1960's-1980's, you did need a greater understanding of RC gear, engines, building techniques, etc -- but the vast majority of folks would just fly round and round and round and round.

A few guys took an interest in aerobatics and there was a whole sub-culture of guys that would train every second they could in an attempt to become ace-fliers but the vast majority of folks built relatively stable high-wing models that were a breeze to fly.

These days there are a whole lot of new flying discplines that require *much* more skill (and dedication to learning). Have you flown a helicopter? Even hovering is a major learning curve and once you get into 3D stuff -- well you *have* to admire the skills, dedication and understanding that some of those young 3D heli-fliers exhibit. There's no way on earth I could ever hope to replicate their abilities even if I were to live *another* 55 years.

Then there's fixed-wing 3D (my own love). We're doing things with models today (hovering, rolling harriers, high-alpha knife-edge) that was just not possible thirty years ago. Once again, it takes a lot of time, practice and dedication to get good at this kind of flying and a lot of the "top guns" are young guys -- the kind you've been complaining about as whiners :-)

Then there's jets. The average turbine-powered model is a maze of plumbing and electronics. You can't properly build and fly a jet without gathering at least a modest understanding of what you're doing. What's more, these models require yet another unique skill-set when it comes to flying.

Come on Ed, just recognize that the hobby is changing. It's no worse or better than it was 30 years ago, just different.

JCINTEXAS

[XJET quote: "These days there are a whole lot of new flying discplines that require *much* more skill (and dedication to learning). Have you flown a helicopter? Even hovering is a major learning curve and once you get into 3D stuff -- well you *have* to admire the skills, dedication and understanding that some of those young 3D heli-fliers exhibit. There's no way on earth I could ever hope to replicate their abilities even if I were to live *another* 55 years."]

More skill?
I'm sure the "3D" is challenging does require skill and practice. But it reminds me of a circus I saw when I was 8. They had a bear that road a bicycle. That is aberrant behavior. (Pun intended). It's unnatural. Yes, it can be done.....but bears don't ride bikes. You could take 100 bicycles to Yellowstone Park and put them out in the woods. Come back a year later or 5 years later....and the bears wouldn't be riding those bikes.

Model airplanes can be made to do all sorts of antics and maneuvers which full-size airplanes don't do (normally). I'm not criticizing those who enjoy 3D flying, but it's not for me. Call me "old-fashioned" or whatever.....I like to fly models that perform realistically....more like full-scale airplanes.

Pattern flying offers an unending challenge. The challenge is seeking graceful perfection, which can never be achieved. But every once in a while, you may really do a perfect 10...and then you can enjoy what an artist must feel when with a flick of the brush they get exactly the desired effect on their canvas.
The sky is the most challenging canvas.
Best Regards
JC

PS: My first RC airplane - Mayfly with an OS .15
My 2nd RC airplane - VK Cherokee with an OS "Goldhead" 60

summerwind

very well said ED, and i am 51 years young now and have seen many changes throughout the years. remember when you had to actually figure out how to set up control linkages so you didn't have throws that were way over?
computer radios (god bless them) make it so much easier, but god forbid if a new modeler should have to figure a linkage out these days.............not much written about it anymore, and understanding the gearing affect of the holes in the servo arms.
with todays engines, and mainly Super Tigre, i miss the break-in time on the bench and the great powerhouse you ended up with, and that was because the outcome was usually from how well you managed the break-in. todays engines are basically made better, but when one is a lemon, man it's L E M O N.................don't remember ever having a lemon back in the 60's, 70's or even the 80's.
last Tigres i ran were the updated ones from the early 90's................2 identical .60's, and 2 completely different running engines.

Kweasel

My Feedback: (29)

I must be more of a model engineer than a model flyer. I would never bring out an aircraft that I did not design, or could not get to run the way I wanted. For me flying is just icing on a multi layered cake. I wish people would try to understand and correct problems before they start spewing poo about something that did not give them satisfaction. It makes them look stupid in my eyes.

PlaneKrazee

My Feedback: (14)

Xjet,

Saito has had a few lemons during production but they are cured quickly.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

-----------------


The last really good Super Tigre I've owned and ran was the Italian made G2300. I have a Chinese G2300 NIB that feels just as good. We shall see, but I expect it to be the same as my last one.

Before that, it was the G20/15, G21/35 and the Supertigre G60 Bluehead with the flat top piston. Everything else in between has been a disappointment. I stopped relying on them a long time ago.

I have no idea why Xjet thinks that I am the defender of the Super Tigre flame. I am not. Enya, now that is a different story altogether. <G>


Ed Cregger

summerwind

then again ED, i always say, "who cares".....................
nice thing about having been through the ages is, experience eh?

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

--------------


Even I don't care. If someone doesn't like a particular brand of engine, it only makes sense that they would avoid them.

I'm trying to think of a brand that I have avoided, but there are always circumstances that make me change my mind - eventually.

I have a friend that still hates OS engines to this day, and he has felt that way for a long, long time. He can't explain it to me and I have tried to get it out of him. I have a feeling that it could partly be that my friend takes pride in being different from most folks. OS represents the status quo, so, naturally, he rejects OS. But that is just my theory.

I wouldn't touch a YS for a long time. But that has disappeared and now I can't remember why I didn't like them in the first place. Ditto Rossi, Picco and OPS. No, I don't think that it had anything to do with them being Italian. After all, I owned Super Tigres. I'm not an elitist by nature. Maybe that was it. If I beat someone in competition, I wanted to do it because of my skill and not my wallet.

As far as you not caring, I knew that! <G>


Ed Cregger