Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

What's the word out there on the Mintor 170 Vs the OS 140 RX and the FX160
Is the Mintor as reliable as the OS? What about the support and the performance. I have not seen much on props/RPM/fuel/pipe and setup data. So I guess the Mintor isn't very popular. Can any one offer advice? The subject aircraft for the engine will be an Eclipse.

Mark

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

No, not by a long shot, compared to the 140. The 160 is a different animal entirely.

Support depends on where you are. I'm not sure you'd get good support from Mintor in your location. But then again I have no idea how the support is for OS there either so I couldn't comment. Here in the states Lance at Aeroslave is about as helpful as they come regarding the Mintor. The OS, well it's a large conglomerate company and you will get treated like the next sport flyer they don't care much about. Although parts are readily available.

As for performance, the Mintor wins on top end. I do not believe it is quite as reliable on the bottom as the OS, but it has more punch. It also vibrates like crazy.

10-15% nitro is plenty for either one, I prefer 15% cool power. RPM should be kept between 7800-8400. Props used are the APC 16x12, 16x14, 16.5x12w, 17x10, 17x12, 18x8w and a few more wierd ones. On the Mintor add the 17x13 and the 15.75x13 3 blade. One of the best props I've found for the OS140 is the bolly 17.5x12.

Pipes, I like the ES or aeroslave pipe for the OS 140. Either works fine, but I slightly prefer the ES. The Aeroslave pipe seems to have more punch but needs to be tuned a little differently.

Not really. In some areas yes, where they can make them run like they want. But the Mintor has a steeper learning curve than the OS 140.

Yep, get and OS 140rx, a hyde mount, a stock OS header, and an ES 2c140m80 pipe. Run a 16.5x12w prop, an OS F plug and 15% nitro with synthetic oil.

Turn the low end screw in a little less than 1/8 turn and run a few tanks through it rich. Then tune it to the rich side of peak and fly it...don't touch t again until the rear bearing fails. Then replace it with the sealed bearing for the OS 140 FI version, and you're good to go.

Happy flying,
-Mike

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

Hi Mike,

what type of con-rod bearing does the OS have at the big end?

Attila

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

The 160 os is an exceptionally well made engine i really enjoy mine it is also a very reliable engine. The 140 is a very specialized engine and it is therefore a lot more costly.

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

This year my friend and I flew competition with two the same planes, one equiped with an OS-160-FI (mine) and his plane with an MVVS-160, both using an Krumscheid 1015 pipe.

I must say, I am very impressed with the 'cheap' MVVS (close to 200 Euro;s), reliabel starting (flying three rounds, so you hit the prop only three times a day ;-) ) , very good throttle response , and the same RPM on the same prop as my OS.

He now flies with an APC 18x12, pulling like a tractor....

Maybe this can be an other choice.....

Offcourse OS is always OK....

Winfried

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

Mike,

Many thanks for the information.
So you would go with the OS 140 RX even though the Mintor 170 has more power?
What about the mid range and transition?
Regards,

Mark

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

No doubt!! Use 2 OS "F" plugs and 15% Cool Power.....with the new 92gr pipe you''ll get the best engine in the world!! Trasition is reaaally smooth and precise.
If you have the soft mount please take care to use the new o-ring header.....these are stronger and you do not need to replace them after 10 flights.
Marco

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

THE OS 1.40 and the 1.60 use the same con-rod. It has the usual OS insert that looks like phosphor-bronze to me.

Eric.

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

Hello Winfried
I'm very intested with MVVS, but I have some questions.
What is the length of resonator (distance between glow plug and the cone) ?
Thanks for your answer
Regards

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

Hello Papaone,

I will have to measure that, will be tonight.

Later
Winfried

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

Hello Winfried,
I'm also very interested with MVVS setup.
which kind of fuel is used in it (nitro, oil)?
which manifold with the 1015 KS pipe?

Thanks,

Christophe.

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

About the MVVS:

Pipe length is 67cm measured from the start of the manifold to the rough-part on the pipe.
Pipe can be set a bit longer, around 68-69cm, we are trying that now. Our KS1015 has got already a 10cm extenion to the pipe,this was done by Krumscheidt , so I think you can order them like that.

Manifold is a stainless steel one, 'm not sure which brand. The motor is hanging at 7 o'clock, so a simple 90degrees manifold will bring the pipe in the middle of the fuselage.

Fuel is 10% CoolPower (the green stuff)

If you need pictures send me your email

Winfried

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

Thank you for these infos Winfried.
For pics, my e-mail is [email protected] ...Thanks in advance.
Is there a pump or not? If not, where is the tank?

Christophe.

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

Hi Cristophe,

No pump, tank is right behind the firewall.

This winter we will experiment with a cline-regulator.

We also will try a 'hopper' (small tank) behind de firewall and the big tank at the CG.

Winfried.

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

3rdworld.
I have 657 flights on my 2 m pattern model with each of the engines you have mentioned.. It's a light version of the 2m Slingshot design ( Big Shot).
The engines I have used are OS 140 RX 260 flights. This ran really well. Usual bearing changes after 70 -100 flights and a new ring after about 350 flights( 200 in a previous model). Fuel 15% nitro 18% Coolpower. Usually ran a 16*14 APC at 7600-7700 rpm was getting 7900 rpm on a 17*12 APC but didn't like that as much.
Then got a Mintor 170 - 03 model. After 16 flights it wouldn't transition from idle- even with the fuel line squeezed and this engine was replaced with an 04 model. This ran a 17*12 APC at 8200 rpm with Mintor 95 gm Al pipe and 8100 on 16*14 APC. Generally had problems with loading up at idle before and during take off. Mostly OK in the air but mid range was pretty rich even after I had backed off the pump screw. Power was awesome but after 216 flights the con rod broke. Rebuilt the engine but after second start two of the lugs holding the cylinder barrel to the crankcase broke. Engine was returned to the supplier and was rebuilt. It's sitting in a box until I get a mantlepiece to mount it for an ornament. Have lost confidence in it. Other problem was the rear brging lasted about 116 flights and it can only be replaced as a genuine spare for $95 Australian.
Currently I have 165 flights on an OS 160 FX. Using a Perry pump and the Mintor pipe. This arrangement has been great. Virtually identical power to the Montor 170. On 15% nitro, 20% Coolpower I am getting 8150 rpm on 17*12 APC, 8100 rpm on 17*13 APC - suggests the pipe was a bit long for the 17*12 and about 8000 rpm on the15.5*12 4 blade APC. Had to back the Perry Pump out about 2 turns from the factory set and the engine transitions well and is very reliable. First start of the day on its back because plug tends to flood- probably from Perry pump which I don't run dryat the end of each day. After that no dramas. Original brgs lasted 60 flights then replaced rear with a stainless one. This rumbled after another 60 flights and currently I have 45 flights on stainless front and rear brgs. Only problem with the 160FX is its a bit heavier than the OS140 RX about 100 gms from memory. My Lite Shot currently weighs about 4450 gms so weight is not a problem. Will be using this engine in my next plane.
Don't know about service in your part of the world but apart from bearings the OS have been very reliable. My ranking is OS 160 FX, OS 140 RX then Mintor 170.
Happy flying. CW

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

Winfried

Thank you for these infos about the MVVS ... I'm interesting by this engine to. How is it possible to have the pics : my Email is : [email protected]

Thanks in advance.

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

CW---re OS bearings---I'm a bit surprised at the short life you've had from the OS 160's stainless rear bearing.
I don't keep the meticulous records that you do,but mine last a lot longer.
I use similar fuel, the same props, in a pattern model of much the same weight.
One difference though----when first starting to use the 160 two or three years ago, we found it a good idea to decompress the motor quite a lot (head shims totalling 30-40 thou.)
This actually increased the top end rpm a little (kept adding 10 thou. shims until no increase),and gave a nicer, softer, sound. There was a slight slowing of the transition from idle to low midrange, but this could be alleviated with a small "bump" on the Tx throttle curve.
Just wondering---might this slightly lower compression ratio help with rear bearing life?

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

f3ao5
Yes I was surprised at the short life of the stainless brg. Guys here are reporting 300 or so on stainless. Don't know whether not changing the front bearing had any impact or whether the bearing was faulty. Will monitor the current brgs and see how they go. 45 flights so far so will pass the 60 benchmark pretty soon. Appreciate your comments on the head shim - is certainly worth a try. I presume that is 30-40 thou additional to the head shim as supplied
Cheers,
CW

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

30-40 in total - just added approx 10 thou at a time until no further rpm rise.

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

I of the guys over here has revolutionized (pun intended) his typical OS bearing problem fix.
Fed up of having to replace bearing after bearing, he's placed a small air intake on top of the cowl, directly above the crank/ brearing.
Goodbye bearing problem... hello hundreds of flights.
It was that simple.

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

Hello bla bla,

could you explain more in detail where you put the air intake? Have you tried this on other engines (this would be a GREAT solution!)?

Thank you for sharing your ideas.

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

Cooling the crankcase area and as such the bearings is a good idea. In 2-c's and all the YS's except the DZ you also get a better charge going to the piston. You can get more power by cooling the bottom of the crankcase. A lightened backplate spinner with big prop cut -outs helps. Air-dams/diverters seem to be the most effective.

As a datapoint, my engines run at around 78F in the lower crankcase area now that they are cooled.

Some sample pictures. Quest-2 with side and top cutouts. Temptation and Impact with side diverters. Used 1/16" balsa that clears the engne movement on the hydemount.

Regards,

Eric.

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

My above post should read from the first sentence, "One of the guys... " just to set the record or my bad typing straight!
Yes well, no real Voodoo science here. Air intake directly above the crank/bearing casting... starting, say from 1cm back from the spinner.
Forces the air over the hot spot, down around the cylinder and out the pipe tunnel. The biggy is that it's position's on top! Side intakes do basically nothing to assist cooling unless the engine is mounted horizontally... which isn't the case with our's. They're more like drag inducing inlets than cooling inlets.

I'm doing the mod' to a new airplane at the moment. Found an old glass wheel pant, cut of a suitably curved part... cut a nice hole in the cowl area above the crank, stick on the part, blend it in and spray it up. Sounds horrible? It's isn't anywhere near as big as you'd imagine by reading the discription!

Thing is, it all makes a lot of sense. We're burying these high performance, inverted engines, deep inside a streamlined cowl and behind a giant spinner! Sure they're going to get warm. The fact the many folks are gaining sucess by adding some head shins to lower the compression, thus reduced the heat... just enforces the point.
We've been burning out the bearing!

RE: Mintor 170 Vs OS
 

There’s a 40mph breeze here today, so just to satisfy my idle curiosity I put the MVVS 160 glow into my pattern plane in a direct replacement for the OS 160 which normally lives there.
Both motors are on simple aluminium beams with the bolt spacings arranged so that either motor can slip easily onto four rubber isolation bobbins bolted through the firewall.
The OS has an old RFP61 carb, type 86(big hole, butterfly “barrel”) and an OS pump siliconed into the backplate. The pump operates on the same principle as the Perry VP30.
The MV has the same mods. After problems with the original needle roller conrod, it now has the conventional bronze bushed one, which I think is now the standard offering in the glow version.
Both engiines use OS 4-stroke plugs, and Hatori 907 side-to rear manifolds into the Aeroslave c/f pipe.
The fuel used is 10% nitro,18% Klotz/EDL oil.
My current favourite prop is the Engel carbon 18*11, which to me seems to be a good compromise between the speed of the APC 17*12 and the slowness of the APC 15.5*12 four-blade.
The OS will hold a steady 8300 rpm peak with the above setup; in fact it starts about 200 more then drops back(perhaps Bla-Bla’s right, might benefit from an airscoop)
Idle is an easy 1700rpm, with a smooth fuss-free transition.
The MV idle and transition are very similar, but the peak is lower, at 7900. I didn’t experiment with different pipe lengths, but got the feeling that this was all that the motor would do
My tentative conclusion would be that the MV will cope with pattern requirements ,provided that the model is at the lighter end of those available(and is itself quite a bit lighter than the OS), but go for the OS if you think you need the extra power.
.