O.S. 61 FSR - Owner Manuals (break_in)
Stuart McKenzie
(read Owners Manual). It has never been run. Does anyone have a manual
for this engine? I would gladly pay for the copying and mailing charges.
If I can't find a manual, What would be an appropriate break-in prop
(11x6 ?) and flying prop (11x7 ?)? How many turns of the needle valve
would y'all recommend to start with?
Finally, I also have a broken in, never flown, Webra .61. In your humble
opinion(s), which is the stronger engine?
Cregger
The Webra, regardless of ringed or ABC or ABC ringed will stomp the grape
juice out of the OS.61FSR.
If ringed, run them in a lean four-cycle (paradoxical - huh?) on an 11x6 or
11x7 prop for several 12 oz. tanks of fuel. Gradually lean out the mixture
on the fourth tank. By the fifth tank you should be able to adjust the high
and low speed circuits to perfection. If you KNOW that the engines are ABC,
then just fly them in a rich two-cycle with the 11x6 props. Don't load these
engines down with more prop. They were intended to spin. In fact, the
OS.61FSR fuel metering goes all to hell with too much prop, this because the
carburetor venturi opening is too large for good fuel draw and it relies on
high rpm to keep the gasses moving. Good luck. They're both nice engines,
but my favorite is the Webra. I've owned them both. I am assuming the Webra
is a Speed .61.
Ed Cregger
ecre...@mindspring.com
Stuart McKenzie <smck...@nnpdc17.state.va.us> wrote in message
news:374AEA57...@nnpdc17.state.va.us...
RCKRZY1
<ecre...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>You didn't say if either engine was ringed, or abx.
>
>The Webra, regardless of ringed or ABC or ABC ringed will stomp the grape
>juice out of the OS.61FSR.
>
Apparently Cregg is unfamiliar with the OS FSR and it's great power, hence he
also was unaware that FSR=Front intake Side exhaust Ringed. It is a
short stroke 61, and like high rpm, vs the new 61 which is long stroke. I use
a 11X8 for flying and that with a tuned pipe turns 14k rpm.
Adam Tucker
AMA 520901
Hurst Tx
ICQ#27191334
Remove "NOSPAM" to Reply by Email
Aileron37
>From: rck...@aol.comNOSPAM
>Adam Tucker WROTE
>Apparently Cregg is unfamiliar with the OS FSR and it's great power, hence he
also was unaware that FSR=Front intake Side exhaust Ringed. It is a short
stroke 61, and like high rpm, vs the new 61 which is long stroke. I use a 11X8
for flying and that with a tuned pipe turns 14k rpm.
I agree Adam, I had several FSR engines over the years. Every single one was
a powerhouse and ran perfectly. Very seldum did i have to adjust the needle
valves they simply ran great. One of my dislikes about OS is they had a great
running engine and changed the darn thing. I have one fsr 40 still going strong
must be 12/ 13 years old. I just sold my last 50 fsr, it went through two
heli`s and an airplane. Still had the power of a cheaper 46 or a great 40. Not
bad for an engine 14 years old and put throught the ringer. Too many gallon`s
of fuel to keep track of. aile...@aol.com rick markel
Greg Turnbow
Front Schnurle Rotor). The FSR was available in ring or ABC versions as
was the Webra Speed. The OS .61 FSRABC was a good engine. The Webra
Speed .61 ABC, a great engine.
I have both types still and the Webra runs circles around it and always
has. The Webra is lighter, and more powerful. Model Airplane News
(MAN) ran a .60 engine shoot out in the mid-80's. Check it out if you
can. The Webra (ring) was about even with the OS .61 FSRABC. The Webra
ABC was much stronger and the results were published for all to read.
BTW the 2 engines that were stronger than the #3 WEbra Speed ABC were
#1)YS and #2 Fox. The OS was down in the middle of the pack in this
test.
This does not in anyway mean I did not like the OS FSR series. I had
one of every size I flew at that time and I haven't bought an OS since
as they have yet to improve on the FSR series. The OS engine that gave
the Speed .61 fits was the OS .61 VF ( rear exhaust/ ABC). It was very
strong !!
I think you are in a unique position to run your own test and share your
results.
Greg Turnbow
Cregger
suffered the same problem (carb sucked) and needed a pump to keep things on
the boil. One could buy a Rossi (without a pump) and run rings around both
the OS.61s and the Webra .61 Speed. Incidentally, I expected my pattern
sixties to run effortlessly at 14.5K+ rpm.
Ed Cregger
ecre...@mindspring.com
Greg Turnbow <Turbo...@webtv.net> wrote
(snip)
> The OS engine that gave the Speed .61 fits was the OS .61 VF ( rear
exhaust/ ABC). > It was very strong !! (snip)
ROSCOE P. COLTRAIN
owners and many gallons of fuel since 1982. It has a very large carburetor,
so use a 11-7 and muffler pressure for good fuel draw. Also use 10-15% fuel
and expect a touchy needle.
ROSCOE P. COLTRAIN
bad with muff pressure and a small prop.
Cregger
the other hand, if you fly pattern, which I did, the lack of fuel draw was a
serious drawback and limited vertical ascents due to leaning out. Not a bad
sport engine, but not up to pattern standards of the day. I ran a Robart
pump, which helped considerably. Still, it would not compete with a Rossi.
Neither did the Webra Speed, which I dearly loved.
Ed Cregger
ecre...@mindspring.com
ROSCOE P. COLTRAIN <kc5...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:xoN23.1357$Lc1....@news.flash.net...
Greg Turnbow
Webra cost $109 and the OS FSR $115. A Rossi went for over $200. It
should have run rings around both of them. Rossi is a fine engine, but
it was not 2 times as good. They are also HEAVY -- they have to be to
take the power-- and they ARE built to take it. I had to add tail weight
with the OS FSR and it weighs less than the Rossi. I always put a ST
90 ($179 then) on if I needed more GO and it also weighs less than the
Rossi. I know pattern wouldn't allow it (then), but I did what it took
to get he most ponies for the least bucks.
Cregger
Do you remember all of the hype World Engines pushed on us concerning Dave
Brown (their employee at that time) using OS engines for winning pattern
contests? Well, young and naive, I bought into the baloney. I couldn't
understand why my OS engine didn't sing as Dave's sang, or should I say
honked. My point being, that, yes, the OS was a sport engine, but it was
being sold as a competitive pattern engine. My mistake was in believing
them.
The Rossi engines had problems in losing carburetor pieces for a while. Yes,
they were heavy, but as you have indicated, it took a lot of mass to
continually produce that much power flight after flight. I can still hear
the Rossi engines howl! 8>)
Ed Cregger
ecre...@mindspring.com
Greg Turnbow wrote
Greg Turnbow
than a sport engine. The guys that did pipe it for pattern bought a new
engine fairly often. Rossi's were/ are performance engines and very
close to works of art!
Greg