Opinions on Irvine engines
Mark Hensley
jerry
fine engine but they're pretty expensive.
Jerry
David Larkin
engines for some time. But I use and fly these engines. They have
always been a quality engine and the new versions - the 25 MkII, the 36
and the new Mk III (red) series are particularly good. These versions
bring the Irvine product right up to date with the best methods of
attaching the carb, and muffler. Basically the engines are powerful
(good low end torque, too) and very well made. They use true ABC
construction on most engines (the 120s and 150s are still ringed) so you
don't need to worry about nickle plate peeling, as you do on some ABN
engines. The Irvine carb is as good as any available, and better than
most.
Customer response to the new MK III engines (40, 46 and 53) has been
very positive. The engines are particularly smooth running and easy to
start. The mufflers used are very quiet. I haven't tried the new 61
and 72 engines yet, but expect them to be just as good.
Irvine engines run well on low or zero nitro fuel. If you plan to use
higher nitro, consider ordering an extra head gasket to drop the
compression ratio. 15% nitro would be the changeover point.
Irvines have been around for a long time. They were probably the first
company to use CNC technology in engine production. Their designer,
Peter Halman, recently won the World control line speed championship
with their .15 engine.
Irvines are a major firm in the hobby business in the UK. They
distribute many lines including OS and a number of American products.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<mark_h...@telus.net> wrote:
>Anybody used them? How are they.
An Irvine .40 was my first engine when I returned to the hobby
in 1995.
It worked great on my LT-40.
I overtightened the plastic backplate, ran lean, warped the original,
and had to buy a new one.
I don't know what the current generation is like. There may be
a new design.
On the whole, I think Irvine has a good reputation.
Marty
Jim Archer
reason, I just never got around to trying them.
I was so impressed by the well thought out design, and apparent build
quality of the new (red) engines that I bought a 53.
This has turned out to be the best 2 stroke engine I have _ever_ owned.
Performance, ease of handling and throttle response are little short of
outstanding. Compared with one well know engine (the O.S. 46 FX) - the
Irvine 53 is only 25 grams heavier and outperforms it in _every_ way. Here
in the UK the 53 it is also only 60% of the price of the O.S. 46 - so no
contest there either.
About the only down side is that they seem to need about 2 gallons through
them before they are fully run in - they handle fine after the first
tankfull, but the performance really 'steps up a gear' when fully run in.
My 2 pence.
--
Best regards
Jim Archer, Norwich, UK
http://www.jimarcher.cwc.net
Kevin
" Compared with one well know engine (the O.S. 46 FX) - the
Irvine 53 is only 25 grams heavier and outperforms it in _every_ way."
And so it should, it's displacement is considerable larger.
John Hollinshead
a blistering performancefor an engine still running in and running very
rich. I can't wait for it to run in. The plane is a Panic which is an
aerobatic Bi plane.
Mark Hensley <mark_h...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:3902A4E3...@telus.net...
David Turner
They're fine. I've used one for years without any problems. I've also used
the products of many other engine manufacturers. Irvine produce a decent
motor.
David T
Pé Reivers
Irvine for a special high nitro head? Shimming the head increases the squish
band distance to the piston, which is not good and only to be recommended as
alternative if all else fails. Increasing the bowl volume is a far better
approach which keeps the engine happier also.
--
Pé, from Arcen, south-east Netherlands
David Larkin <dsla...@igs.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
3902D7F4...@igs.net...
Pé Reivers
crappy big-end bearings, all run fine. After replacing the bearings on the
12cc engines, these run fine too; probably a production glitch.
--
Pé, from Arcen, south-east Netherlands
Mark Hensley <mark_h...@telus.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
3902A4E3...@telus.net...
J L Troyano
i have one of the new "red" generation 2 stroke size 46. Ive been running it
around 3 months now and i can honestly say it is EXCELLENT. Took a while to
run in and doesn't like being cold (after a few days non flying) but the
performance and reliability has been excellent. If you can, get one!
Regards
JLT
John Hollinshead <john.hol...@v6406.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8dvaa8$v77$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I've just had two f;ights with the new 72 the only comment so far is it
has
> a blistering performancefor an engine still running in and running very
> rich. I can't wait for it to run in. The plane is a Panic which is an
> aerobatic Bi plane.
> Mark Hensley <mark_h...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:3902A4E3...@telus.net...
Brian Hampton
"Pé Reivers" wrote:
> As you import these engines into the American market, may I suggest you ask
> Irvine for a special high nitro head? Shimming the head increases the squish
> band distance to the piston, which is not good and only to be recommended as
> alternative if all else fails. Increasing the bowl volume is a far better
> approach which keeps the engine happier also.
In theory I'd have to agree but in practise I found no discernable difference
with an Enya 60X going from the standard approx .010" squish to over .040" at
the same compression ratio. I'm sure it's critical for pylon engines or C/L
speed though.
Brian Hampton
Adelaide, South Australia
Ton C. Jaspers
You don't need two gallons. Run it in using short bursts. Let it
get hot in a few minutes and let it cool down completely. Repeat
this many times. That way you need far less fuel to run it in.
I used about 30 ounces of fuel before taking off on the first flight.
The performance did still improve after that but only marginal.
Ton
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 16:26:09 +0100, "Jim Archer" <jima...@cwcom.net>
wrote:
Dno1939
it, the crappy plastic backplate leaked, and it ran lean. I cleaned it up,
siliconed the backplate, and put it back in the box. I can't have too much
faith in an engine with a plastic backplate. Good Luck!!
David Larkin
in a while they certainly do... But Irvine stopped using plastic backplates
quite some time ago in their new designs. If you had a problem, it should have
been replaced free under guarantee. In any case replacement backplates are
cheap. But I wonder why OS have gone to plastic backplates in some of their new
designs.
Dave Larkin
Joe
IIIs. These are totaly new designs. Ordered a new .53 today.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
krob...@avsia.com
would open the throttle all the way, put my finger over the carb, flip
the prop and it wouldn't even pull fuel up to the carb. I always had
to squirt fuel in the carb to prime it. Later the ring broke and tore
part of the top of the piston off. I have seen 3 Irvine 61 engines.
The first one would run about 2 minutes and quit no matter how the
fuel mixture was adjusted.The owner took it back & traded for another
one which ran but had no power at all. He took it back & payed the
difference for a OS. I taught a guy to fly that had a Irvine 61 & it
ran great. That's 1 out of 4. I will never buy another Irvine or
advise anyone else to buy one.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 02:02:10 GMT, t...@xs4all.nl (Ton C. Jaspers)
wrote: