FA: OS 40 FX Engine.

I have an OS 40LA which is a little weak. Is the 40FX more powerful?

Mr Akimoto

On 20 Jul 2005 17:51:36 -0700, "Mr Akimoto" wrote in :

Yes, much more.

Marty

"Mr Akimoto" wrote in news:1121907096.347231.264880 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

I'll concur with the the other response that the FX is certainly more powerful than the LA. In the .46 size, I have one of each and, as far as I can tell, the FX is simply better - more powerful, easier to start, more reliable.

But getting back to the question - are you asking because you're thinking that for your next .40-class project, you'd like a little more power, or are you thinking of the FX as a quick upgrade for a plane you're flying now? The FX is significantly heavier and wider, so it may not be a simple drop-in. Also, if you're going to buy a new engine anyway, it might make sense to go for a bigger jump in power - say, an .46FX or a Thunder Tiger .46 Pro.

And, finally - if you *are* simply looking for more power for an existing plane - have you experimented with various sizes of APC props? Props are a lot easier & cheaper to change out than engines . . .

My OS 40 LA is in my trainer, a Duraplane Trainer 40, that I have been using since the weather became favorable for flying. It has been through Hell, and it has held up without any structural failures. It takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'! I'll be selling it after the season is over in probably late October or early November.

Next season I'll be flying a Model Tech Lucky Stick that I'll assemble this winter. The OS 40FX sounds like a reasonable engine for this plane which weighs 5 pounds. At 16.84 ozs and 1.34 HP, it should do a fine job of powering the Lucky Stick.

I notice that many modelers are power hungry, but I don't like an overpowered model. What I want is enough to get the plane gracefully off the runway in a reasonable distance. Even the 40LA was enough for the Duraplane; although, the takeoff roll was a little long.

Anyway, thanks for all of your valuable advice.

Mr Akimoto

Oh I also wanted to add that the OS 46FX has been replaced with the OS

Mr Akimoto

"Mr Akimoto" wrote in news:1121993936.823872.67360 @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Ah. Yes, the .40FX should work fine. I admit that I'd probably go with a .46, but for my aerobatic planes, I tend to over-power them. In truth, I virtually never go full-throttle with my .46FX; it hovers the plane (a Simply Magic) easily at about 2/3 throttle, so I'd have to admit that my Simply Magic would probably fly just as well with the .40FX.

Duraplanes aren't noted for being either light or efficient. I'd guess that the Lucky Stick would require slightly *less* power than the Duraplane would for comparable performance - in other words, the Lucky Stick would probably take off more easily than the Duraplane if you put the .40LA on both. Still, it's morally wrong to simply putter around the sky with a Stick; it'll would never be really happy with just a .40LA.

- Mark

"Mr Akimoto" wrote in news:1122054290.769298.132750 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Yep - I have one on the shelf. After my MidStar 40 died in a tragic crash (I loved that plane . . . ), I'd thought that its .46FX had been damaged in the crash, so I bought a .46AX to go into the Simply Magic that I planned to replace the MS40. But after some cleaning and replacing the backplate, the old FX seemed to be as good as new, so the AX is still in the box.

Now that you mention it, though . . . that's *way* too nice an engine to have sitting in a box on the shelf.

I too have a brand new OS 46AX sitting on the shelf that I bought from Tower last year for only $105. The price was too good to resist. However, I am saving this engine for my ultimate plane - the H9 Ultra Stick 40 with the full-house set up! If I don't build it, I might just mount it on a nice mahogany engine stand to admire!

Mr Akimoto