OS 46 ax or fx?
04-05-2008, 07:05 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Surprise,
AZ
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OS 46 ax or fx?
So which is better? I know the ax is the newer version of the fx but I thought I remember hearing that it wasn't as good as the fx. Something about it being detuned or less powerful. I have the opportunity to purchase either new and the fx is a little cheaper. Which one should i get?
04-05-2008, 07:38 PM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Surprise,
AZ
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: OS 46 ax or fx?
This will be going on my second plane which is a pulse. Have an evolution on my trainer now and havent had to mess with it much. Would the ax be more user friendly to me then?
04-05-2008, 07:47 PM
#4
RE: OS 46 ax or fx?
I have owned several 46FX's and they are wonderful engines. But helping newbie's get started at the field, the AX is much more user friendly but is tuned for a lower rpm for to help in sound suppression. Unless you need all out speed, the AX would be a good choice for you.
04-05-2008, 09:12 PM
#5
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Olympia,
WA
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: OS 46 ax or fx?
The Juice,I have 3 OS46FX's and Sold My 4th OS46FX to My Best Flying Buddy who Needed it practice Pylon Racing. Otherwise I Would have Never let one MY OS 46FX Engines go. I have 13 OS Engines and I'd Buy OS 46FX for Pulse XT. I Fly the Pulse XT and have OS 50SX on Mine. You'll enjoy having extra RPM's and Power on the Pulse XT. If I had New one Build now I'd be Mounting Engine Sideway to get Exhaust to go "Straight out Bottom" like I did on this Phoenix Funstar 40 with a OS 46FX on it. Now that's a really FUN Plane to Fly. I'm adding a Hobbico Exhaust Deflector!!! Then almost No Clean Up after flying to the Bird since it reduces Exhaust Oil that gets on your airplane by mounting Engine Sideways with Exhaust pointing down and add this DEFLECTOR. http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXL378&P=M I'd BUY The OS 46FX that's New[:-][:-]. If Your Not going Buy it send Me info on it IF IT IS NEW and NEVER Ran!!!! Read Model Airplane News Complete Engine Book or Write Me I'll send Detailed Break In for None Ringed Engine. 46FX is a None Ringed Engine so don't let run 4 Cycle at all during Break In. Write My direct E-mail and I'll send Detailed Break In. [email protected] richgrow
04-06-2008, 03:28 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: , ,
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: OS 46 ax or fx?
but if its bad for it to 4-cycle a little,, why does os say so in the break-in in the manuals?
I have never had any problems following them!
I know this has been discussed up and down here on this forum, but I have never seen any good and final explanation on why os write it inthere manuals if it hurt the engine.
I have never had any problems following them!
I know this has been discussed up and down here on this forum, but I have never seen any good and final explanation on why os write it inthere manuals if it hurt the engine.
04-06-2008, 03:58 AM
#7
Senior Member
RE: OS 46 ax or fx?
It`s because a little fourstroking is less likely to cause catastrophic failure than if every newbe out there should run it in at high rpm just a tad on the rich side because he doesn`t know to much about tuning the needles just right. A newbe will have a running engine, but not get the most power out of it by the fourstroke run-in. However it will be less chance of destroying his new engine during the first couple of tankfulls.
It is just a compromise as a precaution.
A more experienced user who knows how the ABC/ABL engines are designed will by logic understand why it is best to run in a new tight engine at high rpm at normal operating tems to avoid unneccessary wear during break-in.
There will be no fourstroking of my new ABC engines, thats for sure
It is just a compromise as a precaution.
A more experienced user who knows how the ABC/ABL engines are designed will by logic understand why it is best to run in a new tight engine at high rpm at normal operating tems to avoid unneccessary wear during break-in.
There will be no fourstroking of my new ABC engines, thats for sure
04-06-2008, 11:01 AM
#8
RE: OS 46 ax or fx?
I received an Email from a fellow moderator who is heavily involved with the Q500 scene. He said the following:
So here is some real life experience
Jim
"We locally race Q500 type planes with the OS motor. When the AX came out, several of us tested them, and at least in a Q500 it made for a faster airplane which was tested on a course with timers and radar. Both engines are allowed for our racing, and I'm not aware of anyone still running an FX motor.
Whats odd about the two, is that the FX seems to develop its best power/speed at a higher rpm (in the 16.5 rpm range), while the AX seems to like bigger props turning at slower rpms (14-14.5rpm).
So while I agree that the FX is capable of turning a similar prop at higher rpm, it does not offer a speed advantage over the AX.
These engines are pulling planes in the 125mph range and have been tested to death locally."
Whats odd about the two, is that the FX seems to develop its best power/speed at a higher rpm (in the 16.5 rpm range), while the AX seems to like bigger props turning at slower rpms (14-14.5rpm).
So while I agree that the FX is capable of turning a similar prop at higher rpm, it does not offer a speed advantage over the AX.
These engines are pulling planes in the 125mph range and have been tested to death locally."
Jim
