wildthing7037

Hi everyone,

I just had to post something about these range of engines.

The OS LA series have been blasted for having low power, hard starting and a general mistake from OS. Yes it is true the LA series do not have as much power as some other BB engines, but they make up for it by their low weight.

Think about it, these engines are not designed to be powerhouses but rather good performace at a low cost. This is true from my experience with the exception of the OS LA 15. This great little engine is a screamer,combined with low weight and relibility. This is the fastest engine in the club racers, even more powerful than the BB 15s!

So in summing up the OS LAs are great engines with modest power and low cost. Good one OS.....

Stefan

Jim C.

i dont think the la series motors are that bad... realitively inexpensive, light weight and have decent power.. i have a 46 la and a 65 la.. i trashed my 46 by not breaking it in properly.. cant get it to run correctly.. but i absolutly love the 65.. altho on recent inspection i have noticed that the very very top of the cylinder is starting to peel... so ill have to see what becomes of it.. i have since found my own way of breaking in my motors because i followed the book to the period at the end of a sentance and it didnt run right so that is MY only issue..

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Wild and Graup:

If your LAs please you I'm glad.

But the FPs, which were replaced by the LAs, were much better engines.

The LA series was a step backwards.

Bill.

robb_h

My Feedback: (1)

I've helped quite a few trainees with LA's, and they do the job. They're quiet, reliable, and have ample power. The only thing I've noticed is that they sometimes load-up when starting. I'm convinced it's probably due to something with the remote needle valve setup.

I agree about the FP series. I have a .15 size, and it's probably my favorite engine ever. Compression is still great after being in four (4) different planes. Not bad for a $60 engine.


Robb

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

>

Well said, and very true; in everything , of course, except profit margin.

On the one hand, I was at first amazed that OS would even try to produce such a...a... well, let's be kind and say "economical" engine. But then I realized what the deal is.

In short, OS is doing the same thing that other companies with a long-standing reputation have been forced to do; put out cheap crap to stay competitive (and profitable). And whose fault is this? OURS. Those "modelers" who buy on price alone.

I never could understand this mind-set. But you see it every day, on the posts asking "Where can I find the cheapest/best price on..." whatever.

I know, I know, there are two ways to look at this attitude. Hey, I wasn't exactly Donald Trump when I began the hobby either. But I paid the extra $30 for an OS 40 FP when my pals "saved" money with that miserable K&B Sportster 45. Guess who got a lot of flying in, and guess who spent most of their time trying to keep their engine running?

Having said all of that, I had a 46 LA a few years back. It ran okay; but a "screamer"? Perhaps on 50% nitro fuel...

ajcoholic

My Feedback: (10)

I am just curious - I have heard this arguement before toomany times to count. I have been an OS owner/user for 20 years of my 33 alive, and included many FP engines (multiple 35's and 40's, a few 10's, a 20 , etc) and in recent years have run a 15 (great little engine, one of my fave's) a few 46's and recently got a 65.

I do not see the "decrease" in quality, performance or whatever else over the FP line. Both produce the same "sport engine" power, exhibit easy starting and tuning qualities and make a great running sport engine. The plastic backplate of the LA series is unliked by some, but doesnt have anything to do with the running qualities of the engine.

For whatever reason that few if anyone has cared to tell me outright (just the same old comments that they are a "step back", or "crappy" or whatever else) , many contribute to "slagging" the engine line but I want to know SPECIFICALLY what makes them so poor? I mean actual experience not just because you heard they werent good...

I speak of my personal experiences and have never had an OS engine run poorly. I bet I have owned and run well over 50... in every displacement from the PET 099 to a 1.20 FS.

So PLEASE tell me specifically what makes the LA line crap....

Andrew Coholic

(PS I am not just an OS guy, I like and own engines by allmost all other manufacturers past and present. I love engines!)

Jim C.

i have never seen the fp series motors .... so i wouldnt know what they are like.... its a personal opinon.. i just happen to like them.. im easy to please.. if they run decent and keep my ships in the air.. IM HAPPY!!!!

jaka

Hi!
I have had both the FP and LA series OS engines and help friends in my club with the LA (.15.25.40.46 and .65) and all have been very good performers.
I have not discorvered any different behavior from these than the OS Fp series......That means perfect throtteling ....super reliable...and good performance.....provided you use a good prop (APC).
For instance in my Kyosho PBY Catalina flying boat I have two of these OS .15 LA ..and they turn 8x5 APC props at more rpm than I have need for in that model (only at take off from water do I use full power). I think the engines turns these props at more than 13000 rpm, I haven't checked top rpm) I set the engines fairly rich at 12500rpm so I can fly safely without having them quit on me.
As for trhe .40 and .46 LA in a trainer aircraft I do recommend a 11x6 and a 12x4 APC for these engines ( at sea level) because they can turn these props a low noice levels and give much bettetr flightperformance than the usual 10x6 can.


Good engines!
Jan K

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Okay:

My experience/impression, all with the 40-46 sizes only.

The FPs atart and run nicely, don't burn a lot of fuel, and are just generally a good sport engine that looks like an engine.

The LA series seems just the least bit more powerful, but also harder starting and more prone to flame out. And it's ugly.

The LA cylinder is shaped like a mid-fifties teen-age punk with a "Duck-tail" haircut. Sorry, it's just an ugly shape.

Bill.

ZAGNUT

My Feedback: (1)

yep, ugly shape and sick looking blue paint.

does the LA have a bushing or does the crank run in an unbushed case like the sp**tst*rs from k&b?

dave

ajcoholic

My Feedback: (10)

Bill,
Looks have no bearing on engine performance.

I have found the LA's to hand start extremely easily. Especially the smaller sizes which are usually not as quick to get running compared to the larger 40 and up sizes when flipping by hand.

I have spoken to a few very experienced modellers that just said they "dont like em' "(the LA's) but will not give me a reason why. That I dont understand.

If you are having hard time starting and having flame outs, thats at least a good reason.

AJC

ajcoholic

My Feedback: (10)

Looks have NO bearing on engine performance! Thats not fair to dis an engine becuase of the appearance when 99% of the fellows that are reading this assume you are speaking about the performance....

AJC

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

ZagNut:

Only the early K&B Sportsters were running directly in the alloy case, the later ones had a brass or bronze bushing cast in.

Not sure about the LAs, but my FPs have a nice coppery-looking ring around the crank, where it comes out of the case.

Bill.

ZAGNUT

My Feedback: (1)

andrew, you are 100% correct! i don't doubt that the LA is a good running engine but to me looks do play a part in engine choice. the only time i'll consider buying an ugly(to me) engine is if the performance is better than the rest. to me the YS two strokes are kind of ugly but because of their awesome power i dont think twice about buying them. anyways, i just don't like painted engines- especialy airhobbies' ugly red creations.

dave

ajcoholic

My Feedback: (10)

Of course personal opinion will determine whether or not we will buy something. To be honest with you, I also think the FP and "plain" looking engines are nicer than the squared off heads and blue paint. BUT my point was that for some reason, I have heard/read many people say they dislike the LA engines and that they are not like the older FP line...

When I assume they are talking about how they perform. From my good experiences with them, I just wanted to know exactly why they are to some poor quality engines.

There are a lot of "ugly" (to me) engines as well, but I try and make my opinions based on machining quality and performance (not just top end but idle, transition, handing and ease of tuning, etc).

Regards,
Andrew

Rudeboy

I only have one plain bearing engine... a very old OS .10 FP.

This was my very first engine... It has uncountable runs on it, although I haven't used it in years... And I'm sure it would fire right up I wanted it to.

This small engine has some sort of bushing also...It looks like bronze or something...

ZAGNUT

My Feedback: (1)

one of my first engines (besides cox) was a .10 FSR, almost perfect in every way! i doubt that os would stop making this engine so they could go down in quality with the FP and then do the same with the LA. i would assume that quality and performance increased with each model change.

i think a few peeled cylinders started the ball rolling with the OS bashing.

dave

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Andy:
It is true that, generally speaking, looks have no bearing on actual performance.

But they have a very large effect of perceived performance.

For example, I wouldn't consider driving the all-time champion ugly car, a Ford Taurus, even if they have managed to stop them breaking con-rods.

In that case I'm hopelessly biased against the car by its looks, and I'd never be satisfied with it.

I'm sure you've heard "Form follows function." So if it looks like crap we expect crap performance. If the LA weren't so butt-ugly it might just seem like a better engine.

Unfair? Maybe so, but it's the way things are.

Bill.

ajcoholic

My Feedback: (10)

Bill,
My problem is with guys who have never owned an LA or run one, but feel fine telling others that they are crap - if they are basing their opinion on heresay, looks, etc. That is not good...

I speak only of personal first hand experiences and base my "opinions" on that and that alone.

I am weary to tell anyone that an engine (no matter what brand) is crap unless I have some personal experience with them and usually that means more than one or two engines of the same brand...

AJC

Spaceclam

good performance nthing. i had one and it was a piece of crap. #1 during break in, it vibrated a lot and threw a prop accross the street.
#2, it made my fuel foam so much the needle valve was useless
#3 really low power with a lot of fuel consumption
#4 died all the time
#5 sometimes wouldn't run
#6 one the fuel problem was resolved, it was still hard to adjust
#7 the engine was always out of tune. by the next week, you had to retune before you flew
#8 it eventually vibrated it's own prop loose and trashed itself

keep in mind, becasue we knew nothing, we had the guys at the field break it in, tune it up, and teach me how to do it

i sold it for about $20 more than i bought it for after a free repair, and bought an os .46 fx, which was much better. it didn't weigh much more (try a couple of ounces) and would swing a larger prop at higher rpm's, never died, was easy to tune and stayed in tune forever, never trashed a plug, would idle infinatly without loading up on 20% oil, hada better carburator and a better needle valve. i broke in and tuned this one myself, even though i was really new to them, and it still ran better than the la. it was not nearly as pickey either

ajcoholic

My Feedback: (10)

I just want to add one more thing to this discussion - not about the LA engines in particular but about all engines, and the way a lot of engine bashing occurs..

I am no "expert" but I am a long time modeller (been running engines since age 7, for 25 years now) and I have owned/own and run well over 5 to 600 engines, in all sizes from .010 to over 100cc. I have run with great success the following brands:

OS, Enya, Irvine, Fox, Webra, Merco, Saito, YS, Jett, Nelson, Picco, ASP, Magnum, K&B, Moki, Supertigre, RCV - and many more vintage and collectable engines on top of the "modern" ones. I think I have a good understanding of engines in general and my other hobby is building engines, I cast my own aluminum and machine my own parts, I even design them from scratch.

I firmly believe that 99.9% of engines today are quite excellent and 99.9% of problems which occur are due to improper set up and break in, improper installation and tank set up, wrong prop/plug/fuel choices, and generally not understanding how engines need to be set. I have fellow club members with as many years experience as I have who dead stick every engine they run, EVERY time. They do not understand how to set up an engine and no matter what they buy it will be considered "crap". Sometimes it just gets to me, as people are quick to blame an engine for problems but slow to look for help when they are having difficulty.

Spaceclam, if the LA you had did indeed run like that why didnt you send it back for service? I surely would have as no engine sold today should run like that.

If they were really that bad do you think OS would still be in business? Certainly not!

Off the soapbox now...

AJC

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Andy:

Thank you, sir.

One of the most bashed engines on this thread is the MDS. I've never had one give me a hard time, and I'm happy with the ones I have. Also Magnum - very much an under rated engine.

I've only had two mechanical failures, with two brands; a Fox broke a crank in flight, and I had a Cox swallow a reed valve and retainer clip.

Some, like the OS LA, I was never happy with, it got sold.

The great majority of engines I have taken out of service were "C/L" engines, unthrottled, and I just don't have any use for them anymore. They all served their purpose very well.

The last truly cruddy engine on the market, in my opinion, was the Testor's McCoy "Red Head" series. Please note these were not the "Real" McCoy Red Heads, they were the $4.95 engines Testor's sold that wore out in little more than an hour total time. They had a plain bearing crank, running directly in the aluminum crankcase, and were a VERY cheap knock-off of the "Green Head" K&B engines.

There are still some brands I wont buy, and some I lust after. But there really aren't any BAD engines on the market, just people putting them in the wrong applications.

As for example a 0.61 RIRE racing engine is a 40 size trainer.

A bit extreme, but you get the idea.

Bill.

ajcoholic

My Feedback: (10)

Bill,
I agree 100% with that. Hey, I had some "harder" to tune engines than others, and even one expensive engine I just bought just got sent back for service (my first time I had to send an engine back for repair, it was just run for one hour and lost a bearing. I was told by the rep to just send it back and not try and fix it myself) NO ONE BRAND is 100% without failure rates and/or sometimes a lemon slips out of the factory but it is rare these days.

In many cases like you said, the engine gets used for something it was not designed for.

We are lucky to have such a wide selection of good engines available to us these days.

Speaking of older engines, and you want to talk UGLY how about the Testors McCoy series with the square finned cases... they ran, but not what I would call great..

AJC

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Andy:

The "Square McCoys" were Testor's not so successful attempt to get over their lousy reputation, which reputation they correctly earned with their first series "Red Head" engines.

I just lumped both series together. Neither one was better than the other.

Bill.

Spaceclam

here's my thinking though. i did eventually send it in for cervice, but at first i did not know that was abnormal, because it was my first engine. although, i had everybody at the field tune it and break it in for me, i think they jsutdid not want to tell me i had the wrong engine. i put my .46 in a 40 sized trainer, the right application i think. eventually though, i did not get enough airtime thanks to the engine. when it over revved, i sent it in and they said it was my fault because i was running it too lean, (if that werer true all the guys at my field wouldn't have 30 year old workhorse engines that still ran) but because they were so nice, they would repair it free of charge. i will again reffer you yo uto the fact that i had the seasoned guys at the field set it up for me. when i sold it and bought my .46 fx, i did everything the same way. i had the guys at the field instruct me, but let me break it in with them watching this time so it was broken in the same. i put it in the same application without changing anything else, and at the time i was still using the same fuel, leaving the engine at fault through process of elimination. because os replaced the piston/sleeve, i sold it to some guy for $20 more than i bught it for, and the fx worked like a dream. it is entirely possible i just got the bad one of the bunch, but i am not willing to spend another $70 to find out.