OS .46 FX? Should I keep it?
Greg Parrish
comments on the engine I am wondering if I should be returning the engine
for another option. I have not even opened the box for the engine and could
easily exchange it. Maybe for a super tigre, MDS, K&B or satio. I prefer
to get an engine that is good and will cost around the same price. Any
thoughts.
Brian Felice
Greg (?),
One thing is for certain- if you take that engine back, you will
have exactly -0- risk of having an FX plating failure.
As far as a replacement, there are many suitable engines in that
size and price range. The Thunder Tiger Pro is a virtual copy of the OS
FX series, and the .46 TT is only $69 from National Hobby. For about
that same cost as that OS, you could also get an Enya .50 CX from
Bruckner Hobby in NYC ($100). These are just two suggestions but there
are many other good choices.
Brian
"You can always tell an Engineer......
but you can't tell him much"
thunder_ace
well used and runs flawlessly. I haven't checked to see if the chrome is
coming off or not, but it doesn't matter, since it runs so well. I am pretty
abusive to the engine and its still running strong.
If you do have a problem, OS will fix it.
Heck, I bet the only ones that complain about the plating peeling off are
ones who open up their engine all the time and clean with a wire brush!...
Maybe not... I don't like to take apart my engines unless their running bad,
and from what I have read the plating probably has peeled off. But I have no
performance or reliability hits, so why complain!
Geez, give this engine a break.
- Ara Tidwell
Greg Parrish <gpar...@NOSPAM.statewidesurety.com> wrote in message
news:7h6tte$88e$1...@news.onramp.net...
David Ivory
<thund...@email.msn.com> wrote:
etc etc
t_a, why did you start a new thread?
David Ivory
Cold welding solutions
for balsa and soil.
Bill
<<snip>>
> One thing is for certain- if you take that engine back, you will
> have exactly -0- risk of having an FX plating failure.
>
> As far as a replacement, there are many suitable engines in that
> size and price range. The Thunder Tiger Pro is a virtual copy of the OS
> FX series, and the .46 TT is only $69 from National Hobby. For about
> that same cost as that OS, you could also get an Enya .50 CX from
> Bruckner Hobby in NYC ($100). These are just two suggestions but there
> are many other good choices.
There's also the SuperTigre GS-51 which sells for around $80-90. I
bought mine from my local hobby shop about a month ago for $79, so I'm
sure Tower (and several other sources) should be around the same.
They're a little harder to get the carb setup on initially, but once
that's done they'll run with an O.S. ANY DAY and cost you less in the
long run. PLUS, there's no nickel plating to peel! ;-)
I abused a GS-40 ringed engine for several years by putting it on a
.45-sized "pattern" plane along with a tuned pipe and 11-7 APC prop.
That little plane would fly straight up out of sight even though the .40
was on the low end of the recommended engine range. The only problem I
ever had was the need to replace bearings about every other year (I
assumed this was from the pipe use, but really didn't care since they
were only $20 to replace!) I eventually sold the whole rig to a fellow
modeller who still has it to this day! One tough little engine, and
extremely reliable once the right plug was found!!!
--
Bill
wra...@hiwaay.net
Bill's Homepage
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~wrainey/index.htm
Unknown
have no idea weather or not it's got this peeling problem. Having
owned OS engines for years (FP's, SF's, and now FX's) and never having
a problem, I find it hard to believe that *ALL* .46FX's are bad
engines. Perhaps I'll find out one day I'm dead wrong, but until then
I'm going to continue to enjoy the great little engine.
marlboro
On Mon, 10 May 1999 12:58:15 -0500, "thunder_ace"
<thund...@email.msn.com> wrote:
David Ivory
for the Raptor 46 basis 5 months experience. No probs. V friendly.
Pulls worse than a badly trained Labrador. Take a good supply of
tranquilisers. Seriously, I have OS46fx and Raptor. As yet, I still
dont fly the OS enough to have problems, but the reason is that the
Raptor, bless it, can be as soft as a hamster or as mean as a snake
depending on the position of the left stick. Outpulls the OS under any
circumstances.
In a nutshell,l you can save money, get a better engine, and improve
on reliability. I'd also take a look at that Webra......
On Mon, 10 May 1999 10:39:50 -0500, "Greg Parrish"
<gpar...@NOSPAM.statewidesurety.com> wrote:
>I purchased an OS .46 FX last week and after having read all of the negative
>comments on the engine I am wondering if I should be returning the engine
>for another option. I have not even opened the box for the engine and could
>easily exchange it. Maybe for a super tigre, MDS, K&B or satio. I prefer
>to get an engine that is good and will cost around the same price. Any
>thoughts.
>
David Ivory
It is in fact 3 months experience of this engine.
On Mon, 10 May 1999 18:55:16 GMT, 588...@alaska.u-net.com (David
Ivory) wrote:
>Take it back while you still can. If you can get a refund, I can vouch
>for the Raptor 46 basis 5 months experience. No probs. V friendly.
>Pulls worse than a badly trained Labrador. Take a good supply of
David Ivory
Joe L.
>
> I purchased an OS .46 FX last week and after having read all of the negative
> comments on the engine I am wondering if I should be returning the engine
> for another option. I have not even opened the box for the engine and could
> easily exchange it. Maybe for a super tigre, MDS, K&B or satio. I prefer
> to get an engine that is good and will cost around the same price. Any
> thoughts.
Greg, Get someone who knows how to set the high end properly on your OS
.46 FX, and
don't under or over prop the engine and you'll be in fine shape for
years to come. I've got two of 'em, and think they're great.
--
Joe L.
======
The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.
thunder_ace
Officer, if you use your head you will notice that my answer is clearly NO,
but not direct enough so he could make that decision for him self.
Geez, why start a new thread, SIR.
David Ivory <588...@alaska.u-net.com> wrote in message
news:37382011...@news.u-net.com...
> On Mon, 10 May 1999 12:58:15 -0500, "thunder_ace"
> <thund...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> etc etc
>
> t_a, why did you start a new thread?
thunder_ace
David Ivory <588...@alaska.u-net.com> wrote in message
news:37372989...@news.u-net.com...
> Take it back while you still can. If you can get a refund, I can vouch
> for the Raptor 46 basis 5 months experience. No probs. V friendly.
> Pulls worse than a badly trained Labrador. Take a good supply of
> tranquilisers. Seriously, I have OS46fx and Raptor. As yet, I still
> dont fly the OS enough to have problems, but the reason is that the
> Raptor, bless it, can be as soft as a hamster or as mean as a snake
> depending on the position of the left stick. Outpulls the OS under any
> circumstances.
>
> In a nutshell,l you can save money, get a better engine, and improve
> on reliability. I'd also take a look at that Webra......
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 10 May 1999 10:39:50 -0500, "Greg Parrish"
> <gpar...@NOSPAM.statewidesurety.com> wrote:
>
> >I purchased an OS .46 FX last week and after having read all of the
negative
> >comments on the engine I am wondering if I should be returning the engine
> >for another option. I have not even opened the box for the engine and
could
> >easily exchange it. Maybe for a super tigre, MDS, K&B or satio. I
prefer
> >to get an engine that is good and will cost around the same price. Any
> >thoughts.
> >
David Ivory
You miss the point - if you start a new thread, it just makes the
posts more difficult to follow. SIR.
BTW, it is the NET STAZI, not NETCOP, and if you piss me off I shall
report you to teacher for bad grammar. Also I bet my 46fx pulls worse
than yours....
Tell you what, we can have a resume war off-line if you want.
On Mon, 10 May 1999 16:40:39 -0500, "thunder_ace"
<thund...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>How come did you join the NETCOP force?
>
>Officer, if you use your head you will notice that my answer is clearly NO,
>but not direct enough so he could make that decision for him self.
>
>Geez, why start a new thread, SIR.
>
>David Ivory <588...@alaska.u-net.com> wrote in message
>news:37382011...@news.u-net.com...
>> On Mon, 10 May 1999 12:58:15 -0500, "thunder_ace"
>> <thund...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> etc etc
>>
>> t_a, why did you start a new thread?
Paul Mcintosh
weeks. You just never know with the Chinese, though. It is getting real
frustrating, though. A lot of people have stuck with me through this and I
really appreciate it.
thunder_ace wrote:
> Hey Paul M, how many months are these engines backordered?
>
> David Ivory <588...@alaska.u-net.com> wrote in message
> news:37372989...@news.u-net.com...
> > Take it back while you still can. If you can get a refund, I can vouch
> > for the Raptor 46 basis 5 months experience. No probs. V friendly.
> > Pulls worse than a badly trained Labrador. Take a good supply of
> > tranquilisers. Seriously, I have OS46fx and Raptor. As yet, I still
> > dont fly the OS enough to have problems, but the reason is that the
> > Raptor, bless it, can be as soft as a hamster or as mean as a snake
> > depending on the position of the left stick. Outpulls the OS under any
> > circumstances.
> >
> > In a nutshell,l you can save money, get a better engine, and improve
> > on reliability. I'd also take a look at that Webra......
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 10 May 1999 10:39:50 -0500, "Greg Parrish"
> > <gpar...@NOSPAM.statewidesurety.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I purchased an OS .46 FX last week and after having read all of the
> negative
> > >comments on the engine I am wondering if I should be returning the engine
> > >for another option. I have not even opened the box for the engine and
> could
> > >easily exchange it. Maybe for a super tigre, MDS, K&B or satio. I
> prefer
> > >to get an engine that is good and will cost around the same price. Any
> > >thoughts.
> > >
robert steele
> >Greg Parrish wrote:
> >>
> >> I purchased an OS .46 FX last week and after having read all of the
negative
> >> comments on the engine I am wondering if I should be returning the
engine
> >> for another option. I have not even opened the box for the engine and
could
> >> easily exchange it. Maybe for a super tigre, MDS, K&B or satio. I
prefer
> >> to get an engine that is good and will cost around the same price. Any
> >> thoughts.
>
> >Greg (?),
John Sturdevant
inspected the liners. 2 of the 3 have large areas with nickle peeled off.
I will not buy another OS engine until they resolve this problem.
> Joe,
>
> Have you checked the liners on yours? Reliable sources tell me there's
> no power drop off at first. The FX is so powerful it can lose a bit of
> power and is still strong enough to make you think everything is fine.
>
>
>
>
> "From the Heart of Cajun Country"
>
> Bob ICQ 657746
>
>
NC BILL NC
>well used and runs flawlessly.
I have around 150 flights on mine and it has been perfect. Requires very little
tinkering to keep it running tip top as far as adjsutments. I've never even had
to replace the glow plug. My next one is already on hand for my next plane. I
would highly reccommend this engine.
Brian Felice
>
> I lied.
>
> It is in fact 3 months experience of this engine.
>
> On Mon, 10 May 1999 18:55:16 GMT, 588...@alaska.u-net.com (David
> Ivory) wrote:
>
> >for the Raptor 46 basis 5 months experience. No probs. V friendly.
> >Pulls worse than a badly trained Labrador. Take a good supply of
>
> Cold welding solutions
> for balsa and soil.
David,
No need to try an correct the first post. None of us believe you
anyway- NOTHING pulls worse than a badly trained Lab, a well trained
Lab, or even a sleeping Lab. <VBG>
Brian Felice
>
> Im finding all this nonsense about this engine stupid. I have one that is
> coming off or not, but it doesn't matter, since it runs so well. I am pretty
> abusive to the engine and its still running strong.
>
> If you do have a problem, OS will fix it.
>
> Heck, I bet the only ones that complain about the plating peeling off are
> ones who open up their engine all the time and clean with a wire brush!...
> Maybe not... I don't like to take apart my engines unless their running bad,
> and from what I have read the plating probably has peeled off. But I have no
> performance or reliability hits, so why complain!
>
> Geez, give this engine a break.
>
> - Ara Tidwell
Ara,
Glad you like yours. And, of course, everyone is entitled to their
opinion. But just out of curiosity, on what do you base the OS FX .46
being a good engine? It's a good engine compared to what? Or is it good
because you have one? What does "running strong" mean? Usually, a
product can't be defined as good or bad without comparing it to
something similar. Which engines are you comparing this one to?
It is interesting that you defend this engine as a fine piece of
machinery, and at the same time expect that the liner has already
peeled. It makes me wonder what you would define as a "bad" engine.
Brian
"You can always tell an Engineer......
but sometimes he wonders why you said it."
Brian Felice
>
> DO SOMETHING FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!! Either keep the .46 FX or get rid of it. I'd
> run the shit out of it and if you have problems send the $&%@# thing back. Buy
> a Raptor or Enya or SuperTigre or ThunderTiger or SOMETHING as a back
> up(preferably something that will drop right in). If your like most of us in
> this hobby(which ain't cheap) you will need or WANT another engine in this
> size displacement at some point anyway!!!!
>
> Pete C. Maurek
> Wichita Falls Texas
Wow, now I know these FXs are bad- they're annoying Pete, and
they're not even his! <VBG>
Sorry Pete, I couldn't resist. I was just sitting here, cleaning my
FX with a wire brush when I saw your message....
Brian
"You can always tell an Engineer......
but it works best if you use a bunch of capital letters."
Dave Sauer
second one to the field the other day to break it in. The peanut gallery
couldn't believe it when it started the first time I flipped it over by
hand. It will take a lot to sour me on OS.
--
Dave Sauer
Remove the !NOSPAM! from my e-mail address to reply
http://web.usxchange.net/dsauer
Greg Parrish <gpar...@NOSPAM.statewidesurety.com> wrote in message
news:7h6tte$88e$1...@news.onramp.net...
bigjo...@my-dejanews.com
"robert steele" <rst...@jps.net> wrote:
> How much do you want for your engine?
>
> > >Greg Parrish wrote:
> > >>
the
> negative
> > >> comments on the engine I am wondering if I should be returning
the
> engine
> > >> for another option. I have not even opened the box for the
engine and
> could
> > >> easily exchange it. Maybe for a super tigre, MDS, K&B or satio.
I
> prefer
> > >> to get an engine that is good and will cost around the same
price. Any
> > >> thoughts.
> >
> Hi
What do you think is wrong with this engine that would make it unusable
you will hear and read pros and cons about almost anything>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
MrPete37
aur...@iamerica.net
>
> >Im finding all this nonsense about this engine stupid. I have one that is
> >well used and runs flawlessly.
>
> tinkering to keep it running tip top as far as adjsutments. I've never even had
> to replace the glow plug. My next one is already on hand for my next plane. I
> would highly reccommend this engine.
Report back in about eight years, if it's still running, like my Super
Tigre S45K ABC, as strong as ever.
Vince
--
I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it left
Dno1939
>comments on the engine I am wondering if I should be returning the engine
>for another option. I have not even opened the box for the engine and could
>easily exchange it. Maybe for a super tigre, MDS, K&B or satio. I prefer
>to get an engine that is good and will cost around the same price. Any
>thoughts.
You could get a Super Tigre, but you probably wouldn't be able to spend as much
money for it. Might have to make the difference in glow plugs or some other
accessories. You would have a better engine, though. Good Luck!!
pjb...@my-dejanews.com
"robert steele" <rst...@jps.net> wrote:
> How much do you want for your engine?
>
> > >Greg Parrish wrote:
> > >>
the
> negative
> > >> comments on the engine I am wondering if I should be returning
the
> engine
> > >> for another option. I have not even opened the box for the
engine and
> could
> > >> easily exchange it. Maybe for a super tigre, MDS, K&B or satio.
I
> prefer
> > >> to get an engine that is good and will cost around the same
price. Any
> > >> thoughts.
> >
>
>
And when you read about the new engine's problems.... whatcha gonna do?
Any number of people have no problem with the OS 46 FX... like me!
Others do.
That's true of EVERYTHING!
Some of it works, some of it doesn't.
PJB's Seriously Aeronautical Stuff
http://www.ptw.com/~pjburke
Cregger
bad, but why buy an engine with a high probability of
failure when there are other engines without such known
problems? Life is a lottery as it is. Why tempt fate?
By the way, I was an OS booster for many years too. After
owning one of their first attempts at ABC pattern engines
and being told to "take a hammer to it" when I asked what I
could do to alleviate the problem, OS is just another engine
manufacturer to me. When they are right, they are great, but
lately the greatness appears to be slipping away.
Glad yours runs good. Enjoy it, but I wouldn't advise others
to buy one unless you don't care about negative thoughts
being directed your way.
Ed Cregger
ecre...@mindspring.com
<marlboro> wrote
> (snip) Having
> owned OS engines for years (FP's, SF's, and now FX's) and
never having
> a problem, I find it hard to believe that *ALL* .46FX's
are bad
> engines. (snip)
Dave Elsey
I have two OS engines that I had to buy new liners / pistons for from
performance specialties to get true ABC. I avoid OS engines.. They sell on
their brand name and good INITIAL running, but should have changed to true
ABC years ago when this problem first showed up.
--
Dave E. MAAC 6895
Greg Parrish wrote in message <7h6tte$88e$1...@news.onramp.net>...
thunder_ace
Dave Elsey <da...@passport.ca> wrote in message
news:37380...@news.passport.ca...
Bill
<<snip>>
>
> Probably caused by that 60 size prop you were using. :-)
>
> "From the Heart of Cajun Country"
>
> Bob ICQ 657746
Probably true, but that little jewel was still turning over 11,000 on
the ground! I tried some smaller props and all I got was a lot more,
higher pitched noise, plus a LOSS of vertical performance. I went
through a BUNCH of different props looking for the best performance, and
the 11x7 APC was the hands-down winner!
BTW, based on other pilots' prop selection, I tend to overprop all of my
engines! I'm close to completion of my GP CAP 231EX and have a S.T. G-51
in the nose with a 12x6 Zinger on it. I expect that prop to be just
about right, but may later switch to an 11x7.5 to see what happens. If I
don't like that combination I'll swap it all out for a S.T. G-61 and a
13x6... ;-)
Greg Parrish
Greg Parrish
avoid the problem now, while I can if I should. Once I use the engine, then
it's too late.
Bill
<<snip>>
> Bill,
>
> Good for you. I'm glad you try different things and don't simply do as
> you're told by some book or local guru. Don't let anyone talk you out of
> your preferences. We all have our own priorities. Since noise is far
> down my list and obviously very high on yours, we can not and should not
> agree on a best prop for a given engine. This is part of what makes this
> hobby so interesting.
Actually, noise was not an issue, but I did notice that I got a much
higher scream out of the engine with smaller props, and none of them
would pull vertical as well! (more response to come after the following
additional info from Bob)
>
> Having said that, I disagree that the 11x7 is your best prop for
> vertical performance.
>
> An 11x7 APC at 11000 RPM only produces 5.31 pounds of static thrust.
>
> Let's look at an 11x6. Based on your 11x7 figure, I conservatively judge
> your ST should turn an 11x6 at least 12000 RPM. Guess what? It gives you
> 6.32 Oz of thrust, and flies at the same speed of about 70 MPH static.
> Anything over 12000 RPM gives you an even greater boost in vertical
> performance and speed. Over a pound more thrust is a LOT on a 6 pound
> model!
>
> I'm not suggesting you change to an 11x6 prop. I'm just throwing out
> some figures for you to look at and apply your own priorities.
Actually, I tried an 11x6... also an 11x5, a 10x9, 10x8, 10x7, and an
10x6. On the higher side, I tried an 11x8, 11x9, 12x5, 12x6. All of the
static thrust calculations and calculated airspeed do not replace actual
performance in the air! Any prop BIGGER than 11x7 would just lug the
engine down when I went vertical with the resultant drop in airspeed
until finally the airplane would quit climbing. An 11x6 prop (and
several smaller) would fly the airplane faster straight and level, plus
would not slow down the engine as much when pulling vertical; BUT, with
ANY of them the airplane would not pull out of sight vertical like it
would with the 11x7!
I know it doesn't calculate on paper, but that's what it did in the air,
and that's what counts! The "straight and level" airspeed was slower
than it could have been, and the engine RPM did drop some when pulling
vertical, but then the pipe would kick in and the little plane just
climbed like a homesick angel until you cut the throttle, pulled it off
of a vertical line, or lost sight of it! Note: I never did try that last
option all the way! ;-)
On a slightly different note: The airframe my GS-40 was on was a
Yoshioka Flash 45; THE sweetest flying .40-.45 sized "pattern" model
ever. If you've ever seen one of these little things fly you know what I
mean! Unfortunately, no one is importing Yoshioka kits anymore due to
their rather high cost. (Those of us who have built and flown one know
they're worth the money, but it's hard to convince someone who's never
heard of them to fork over the dough!)
By the way, if anyone has a .45-sized Flash kit (NIB only), I'd love to
buy it from you!!!
--
Bill
AMA 16192
Bill
option all the way! ;-) The little plane gave me VERY consistent
airspeed when flying pattern maneuvers, so long as I remembered to
throttle back on the down side!
Greg Parrish
a 5 year break with only 2 flights under my wing 5 years ago. I am
purchasing an engine to use in a trainer and then transfer to my hanger 9
cessna 182. I want to buy something that will be dependable and don't want
to purchase something that the majority of everyone seems to be having a
problem with.
Simply put, if it seems to be a wide spread problem, why chance it. I can
return the unopened engine and swap for one that doesn't seem to have a
problem. Thanks.
thunder_ace
Greg Parrish <gpar...@NOSPAM.statewidesurety.com> wrote in message
news:7ha4pf$9h3$1...@news.onramp.net...
WAGNER JFW
the needlevalve breakage!Look no furthur,I have the alternative backplate
assembly that will hit the hobby market soon!!WILL NOT COST YOU AN ARM AND
LEG!!e-mail me for follow up,you will not be dissapointed!!
Jim
SPuck99
>I have 2 OS .46 FX engines. Both are equally reliable. I brought the
>second one to the field the other day to break it in. The peanut gallery
>couldn't believe it when it started the first time I flipped it over by
>hand. It will take a lot to sour me on OS.
I agree! I have three OS 46FX engines, two of which I have been flying for
almost three years. Would someone please tell me what the SYMPTOMS of this
peeling are. Quite frankly I don't care if there is bailing wire and bubble
gum inside these engines as long as they keep starting on the first or second
flip and run strong enough to pull stumps up with.
John Hawkins
It is because of the qualities stated in these posts that
OS's feet are not held as close to the fire as they should be. Apart
from the durability of the liner I think it is a very fine engine too.
However, if you are looking for optimum performance you will notice
the top end drop off as the nickel peels. I believe the engine will
continue to be user friendly even as this happens. Many users may not
notice the gradual loss of top end. I noticed because I want top
performance and kept track of output with a tachometer. That told me
that the perceived drop off was real. I sent the engine for repair
when I lost 1000 rpm.
One person wrote me in regard to rpm figures given here and
wondered why he wasn't getting near as much from his engines. He
wasn't aware that the output wasn't what it should be and only then
when he took the heads off to see what had happened to the liners did
he learn why. I asked five other people to look at their engines
that had been in service for a while, say a year. None were concerned
that they had a problem. On inspection every liner had peeled. I
suspect that the problem is far more pervasive than most people are
aware of because, as the people above have stated, the engine
continues to start and run reliably and that is all they are looking
for.
That is fine for them and it saves OS's ass, but those good
qualities are not enough for me to accept the short life of the liner.
I want the engine to continue to operate in the wonderful way it does
for more than one year. The second liner in mine is just starting to
peel after 80 flights. It is out of warranty. It just doesn't make
sense to me to pay the high cost of a replacement piston and liner
that is likely to have a similarly short life. I would rather put the
money towards another engine that performs as well and lasts too. I
will not award OS with my money for producing an inferior product.
Others may choose as they see fit.
I do not know if OS is now producing a liner that is free of
the peeling problem. In fact, I doubt if they even acknowledge that
there is a problem. Their silence on the topic here must surely be
noted by more than just me. I wonder if registers on them that there
has not been so much as a single complaint of a similar problem among
the many competing engines in what must be the most popular size in
the hobby. OS seems to have the peeling problem exclusively to
themselves. I wish they would do the right thing and replace failed
liners with new ones that last regardless of warranty period.
Meanwhile I am not holding my breath. Shame on you, OS.
John Hawkins - from Canada's Atlantic Coast
Cregger
I would consider buying an OS.46FX after they correct the liner problem. It
is not a bad design, just poor quality control.
For those that think the OS.46FX is really strong, try a Raptor. You won't
believe this engine is for real. Now, if one of you talented lads could just
figure out how to keep our bombs away from the Chinese Embassy, maybe we
could get our hands on a few more Raptors. 8>)
Ed Cregger
ecre...@mindspring.com
John Hawkins wrote
>
> It is because of the qualities stated in these posts that
>OS's feet are not held as close to the fire as they should be. Apart
>from the durability of the liner I think it is a very fine engine too.
>However, if you are looking for optimum performance you will notice
>the top end drop off as the nickel peels. I believe the engine will
>continue to be user friendly even as this happens. Many users may not
>notice the gradual loss of top end (snip)
Cliff Griffin
> Excellent post, John.
>
> It is not a bad design, just poor quality control.
>
Since I haven't seen the inside of an FX, I can only discuss the aspects of a
quality plating job. It may be different for engines where there are extreme
temperature swings...For a high quality CHROME plating job, it must actually go
through THREE plating processes. For most chrome plated metals, including
aluminum and steel, the base must first be COPPER plated. Copper is an easy to
plate metal that has excellent adhesion to most metals. On top of that, for a
quality plating job, is a nickel plate. If chrome is plated directly on the
copper, it will have a dull finish, and reduced adhesion. The nickel plating has
an excellent finish. Many cheap "chrome" plated things are actually just nickel
plated. Nickel is just a little bit more yellow than chrome, which typiclaly has
a blueish tint. The colors of these metals is much easier to see when they are
not plated on a mirror finish. Anyway, nickel is a good, extremely hard metal
that should probably serve the purpose of a cylinder liner just fine. Chrome,
however, is plated over top of the nickel (on a quality product) and it comes
out with a nicer finish, and is a little harder. Chrome, however, costs more
than nickel--which is probably insignificant when compared to the cost of a
third process--and it does not take well to being thickly plated. Nickel can be
plated thick enough to where it can be romoved from the original metal, which is
called electroforming. Anyway, the final finish depends on the quality of the
finish on the original metal, in this case the cylinder wall. If OS is plating
cylinders without properly finishing them, or they are skipping the copper, or
plating the nickel too thin, then the plating will be prone to peel.
As you can see, there is more to a quality plating job than quality control. It
is entirely possible that they do have a quality control problem, however, with
such a high rate of failure--especially if it happens over a long period of
time--I would be more prone to calling it a poor design. If your shiney new hub
caps are nickel plated, rather than chrome, few will notice. The same with a
good quality cylinder, I'm guessing. However, if they skimp ("cheap" car parts
are notorious for leaving out either the copper or the nickel) then you have a
system that is *designed* to be cheap and short-lived. Sounds like what I'm
hearing about the FX. However, as I said, I haven't seen inside their cylinders
to see what may cause the failure. That's just my experience, having worked in
the plating industry in the past.
--
Cliff Griffin
Remove the obvious for NO SPAM.
Dixon Garage
$99. OS .40 FX that I'd like to swap for a NIB $79 TT. 40 or .46 Pro, or
I'll also consider a $89 ST .45.
Any takers out there?
Jack -Dixon Garage-
Cregger
There certainly is not a shortage of talent/expertise in this newsgroup! 8>)
Ed Cregger
ecre...@mindspring.com
Cliff Griffin wrote
> (snip)
Ian Maclaughlin
>Since I haven't seen the inside of an FX, I can only discuss the aspects of a
>quality plating job. It may be different for engines where there are extreme
>temperature swings...For a high quality CHROME plating job, it must actually go
>through THREE plating processes. For most chrome plated metals, including
>aluminum and steel, the base must first be COPPER plated. Copper is an easy to
>plate metal that has excellent adhesion to most metals. On top of that, for a
>quality plating job, is a nickel plate.
<rest snipped>
Cliff-
Your experience with chrome plating was apparently with items plated
for appearance. That's not why cylinder liners are plated. For
these, the plating is applied directly to the base metal, be it brass
or aluminum. IIRC, the latter process is referred to as 'hard' chrome
plating.
Ian
San Diego
Brian Felice
>
>
> Cliff-
> Your experience with chrome plating was apparently with items plated
> for appearance. That's not why cylinder liners are plated. For
> these, the plating is applied directly to the base metal, be it brass
> or aluminum. IIRC, the latter process is referred to as 'hard' chrome
> plating.
>
> Ian
> San Diego
Ian,
Right. The process used for cylinders is called Industrial Hard
Chrome, or just Hard Chrome. What Cliff described is called Bright,
Decorative, or Flash chrome. Decorative chrome is applied for appearance
and corrosion protection but not for wear purposes. Hard chrome is
applied differently (no substrate of any kind is used), is much thicker,
and must be ground or honed after plating. Bright chrome is rinsed and
sold.
It's interesting that the nomenclature refers only to the process,
not the material itself. Chromium is chromium, and is identical in both
types. But the processes are so different that there is no common usage
or comparison between them.
Brian
"You can always tell an Engineer......
but you can't tell him much"
MSlaugh111
>system that is *designed* to be cheap and short-lived. Sounds like what I'm
>hearing about the FX. However, as I said, I haven't seen inside their
>cylinders
Another 2 cents worth...
20 or so members of our club between them run about 30 O.S. 46FX's regularly,
i.e. on our everyday planes. I checked with as many of those folks as I saw in
two weeks, and we all took a look at the innards of our FX's. No problems. We
discussed the issue to see what common ground we possessed that may contribute
to this good fortune. Thay are:
1. Engine broke in as recommended by manufacturer
2. Prop used is within the range suggested by the manufacturer.
3. Engines are flown several clicks rich from the high end peak, never leaned
out to get that extra 50 rpm.
4. Engines use 10% or 15% nitro fuel with a combined castor/synthetic blend or
all synthetic oil content of 18 - 20 %. I use Wildcat fuel, love it!
5. Each flyer ensures his engines are shut down after the last flight by
burning all the remaining fuel out of the engine and using a good after run
oil.
6. Each engine sports a glow plug that is recommended for a sport 2-cycle
engine.
BTW, one club member reported that he had to send his O.S FX back because it
wouldn't run correctly. He didn't open it up the see why. This guy has a
history of burning up 6 or 7 of his own engines last summer, and at least two
belonging to newbies he "helped" set up the engine. He over-props his engines
and runs them extremely lean to eke out that last available rpm. Even uses a
hot glow plug, thinking that this helps performance. He has burned out OS,
Supre Tigre, Thunder Tiger, and K&B engines, to name a few, so his "bad luck"
is not limited to O.S.
For those of us fortunate enough to have hundreds of flying hours with
excellent performance on our O.S 46FX's, maybe it isn't good fortune, but good
flying and maintenance practices that leads to this end.
Rules of Physics - Follow them
Government Rules- Oppose the incremental loss of our freedom.
Mike