speedster 1919

My Feedback: (3)

I think Klotz was honest in their chart. But you have plus and minuses with castor oil and in tests the 100% synthetic Klotz came closest to heat tolerance to castor oil. What they are saying is a blend is the best of both worlds. What are you Aussies using for oils ? Is it Motul and Aerosave like Europeans ? If you had a choice petroleum 2 cycle oil would be better ,but allas it doesn't mix with meth.

buzzingb

My Feedback: (2)

Tip For Super Tiger Owners Only!!
Ok here is a tip to keep your Super Tiger looking great and to prevent that black stuff from building up on the motor. I saw a helicopter pilot doing this and adapted it for my Super Tiger engines. After you finish flying use a pump bottle with pure alcahol (no oil) ( I buy pure methanol for $3 a gallon-=cheaper than some cleaners) to mist the engire engine till it drip off and use a toothbrush to aid if you wish. This flushes any remaining castor oil off the engine which will prevent it from carbonizing and turning black. The alcahol will quickly evaporate and then you can use some spray like Fantastic, 409, Windex to finish the job. I like to open my carb to allow the alcahol to evaporate out of the carb but once you get home use an old foam ear plug to seal out any dust and you are ready to store until next flying session.

buzzingb

My Feedback: (2)

There are many post here on RCU about how to clean engines but to me the key is to keep it clean to start with. Now if you are one of those who like a cowl I think the alcahol will work for you to if you can get to spray through the front intakes of the cowl. It will not remain on the engine long as methanol evaporates very quickly but it is an excelent carrier of castor oil (that is what turns our engines black). Givet his tip a try and report your findings to others. Lets face it knowledge is worthless unless it is shared.

JettPilot

My Feedback: (6)

Didnt Super Tigre go out of business like 15 years ago ? I didnt know anyone still flew those dinosaurs [sm=lol.gif]

JettPilot

buzzingb

My Feedback: (2)

Super Tigers are still in business and we are still flying them and I might add loveing them. They are the best made engine on the market other than their carb. I don't consider the carb on any of these engines to be well made but I will admit on the ST2300 there are a few out there better. One thing for sure the Super Tiger won't peel its liner with the iron liner and iron ring and that is more than you can say about othre brands. If you haven't tried one lately maybe you should the power is out of this world and the price is about half that of OS.

N1EDM

My Feedback: (2)

OK, everyone is complaining about ST Carbs....

Has anyone married a 3rd-party carb to one of these? I have a ST G-45 that I'd like to use again, but of course it also had the transition problems. I agree that when they run sweet, they are a beautiful engine.

Does anyone have any actual experience with 3rd-party carbs on any ST's??

Bob

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

Not the newer .45 but I have an old G.60 witha HUGE bore Kavan carb on it that runs like a bear, and an old .46 w/ a Perry on it that actually allows the engine to function the way it's supposed to.

Anyone who complains about the current carbs also remember the "carb of the month" they used to have? Seems like there were as many different carb designs back in the 60's and 70's as there were engines!

rkliemann

I have a .61 ringed brand new Italian and have set up to start breaking it in. First try, choked, started and stalled. Next attempt my electric starter spun the prop off?? I know I tightened this up but tried again and the same thing, spun the prop off. It has a 2 1/4" spinner. is thaT TOO BIG? also, there is only 2 threads left so a back up nut will not go on far enough. prop is 10x8

any help will be greatly appreciated

Thanks rkliemann

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

-----------------


Of course they have. There have been lots of articles on RCU Engines Glow describing the use of Magnum, Perry, OS and MVVS carbs on Super Tigre engines.

It would be nice if Super Tigre went back to equipping their engines with carbs based upon the old designs and throat sizes. Back in the days of utilizing small toothpick props, the larger throat carbs were very good. Today when most folks are flying either 3D or are running large props in order to quiet down the noise signature, a return to lower air flow/higher suction carbs is due.


Ed Cregger

buzzingb

My Feedback: (2)

I wish Super Tiger would make a four stroke then maybe we could afford to buy the four stroke. I am sure it would out perform OS.

rc34074

My Feedback: (5)

EVERYONE is not complaining about super tiger carbs. I am very happy with their carbs, and others are not complaining either. You just need to learn how to adjust them after breakin, and if you change the muffler to an aftermarket muffler such as a pitts style muffler from bisson or slimline you need to learn to set the muffler back pressure for proper carb operation.

I have only had to mess with one Tiger carb very much, and this was after I crashed the engine. In the end I found that the crash had damaged the needle and when I replaced the needle it ran great again.

The chinese 2300 carb is a great carb when used with the original muffler. If you change the muffler you need to adjust the back pressure to get even running at all speeds. Or if you want to spend the money and time you can buy a different brand carb, but its not necessary to change the carb get the chinese 2300 to run VERY well.

However, if you want a perfect power source for 3d I suggest you go to electric - this eliminates carb adjustments and I believe electric will soon take over in 3d. Several local 3d pilots have gone though a number of different engines looking for the ideal engine and the closest seems to be desert aircraft as far as glow or gas goes.

Ed

XJet

For a start, there are *plenty* of engines out there that are wickedly good for 3D -- offering gobs of power and lightning fast transition.

The OS46, OS50, OS55, TT46Pro and any number of other good 40-55 sized motors are great examples of this.

These engines are also so good that, even when you change mufflers or props, it only takes a quick tweak of the needle to get them back on song and 100% reliable. Oh that ST carbies were as good :-(

The future of 3D is *not* electric -- unless you're a part-time 3D flier who's happy to spend a small fortune on batteries or wait an hour between flights. Neither of those options appeals to most of the hard-core 3Ders I know. As soon as they land, they want to fuel-up and fly again. And, for the price of a single 4s, high-current LiPo, you can buy enough fuel to last you all year.

Finally, Desert Aircraft don't make glow motors -- and their gasers are good -- but not necessarily the best. There are plenty of folks who'll argue that ZDZ, 3W or a raft of other manufacturers produce better products.

I've got a ZDZ160 and I'm *very* pleased with it. A friend just benched his DA100 in favor of a ZDZ because the ZDZ gave more power, better throttling and less vibration.

seeme323

I need help, I'm looking to buy a new engine for a Pt-60 trainer by
great planes (requires a 60 engine). My options are a O.S. for about
CDN$190.00 (http://www.gpmd.com/cgi-bin/wgpinf100p?&I=OSMG0561) or a
super tiger for about CDN$100.00
(http://www.supertigre.com/engines/supg0161.html), unfortanitly I'm new
to engines and the guys in the store seem to lead me nowhere but in to
confusion (good way to get me to get the O.S.) any ways was hoping
someone here could tell me if they have heard of super tiger and what
its record is for breaking in, starting (hot and cold) and its general
running and maybe its reliability and its longevity in comparison to
other engines and specifically to the O.S.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

Get the Super Tigre. You will like it very well.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

---------------


As far as I'm concerned, OS's four-strokes are the best engines they make these days.

When it comes to two-strokes, I look other places than OS to fill my needs.

Since the Super Tigre personnel you are referring to who would do the design work are no longer the owners or employed by Super Tigre...


Ed Cregger

buzzingb

My Feedback: (2)

SEEME323, If you are new to RC, as your post indicates you might be, the OS engines can't be beaten for user friendlyness, as they are easy to set up and get running. However, if you look at the price you can buy 2 Super Tigers for the price of OS. If you look at longevety the Super Tiger will last twice as long. If you look at power the Super Tiger and OS will be very similar. Fuel, they both run about the same fuel. The Super Tiger engines are great engines as are OS. The choice is yours but if it were me I would buy the Super Tiger 90 because the weight is about the same as the 60 and the size is about the same too but the power is better and the 90 will run well on any 60 size plane.

buzzingb

My Feedback: (2)

I think I am going to start useing a flight log so I can keep up with things better. I ofter wonder about some of my engines, like how much fuel has been through them or how much time they were flown.

buzzingb

My Feedback: (2)

I have discovered that most people don't fly that much today. They will brag about how long they have had an engine or how good one kind or another is. Then when you start inquiring about how much fuel they buy a month, a ayear, etc. and then you realize they only fly ever once in a while. I recently talked to an older gentelman who was bragging on an evolution engine. I asked about his fuel and how often he bougth it and come to find out the fuel he had was so old it wouldn't even run it was so old. Now if I had believed him about the engine I would have been mislead into thinking Evolutions could really go through the fuel without wearing out.

rc34074

My Feedback: (5)

xjet- Since you have found the 2 strokes you list to run well, why don't you just buy then and run them? why do you take time to post the messages you do complaining about the st carbs? If I had the complaints that you and some others have I wouldn't buy the tigers, I would buy engines I liked. Or I would either 1. buy the Jett carb and maybe his muffler and be done with it, or 2. come up with a recommended change kit to fix the carb problems you list. Maybe you could make some money selling them?

Since you believe there is a problem it would be better for the hobby to come up with recommended solutions instead of spending the time complaining.

However, I have no reason to change as I see no problem with the st carbs.

Ed

XJet

I do!

Alongside my SuperTigre engines are a number of other brands.

I believe in "horses for courses". I use Saito and TT engines on my 3D planes -- because they have superb throttle response and an excellent power-to-weight ratio.

I use the STs on those planes that don't need a good reliable throttle response or good mid-range characteristics and where price is more important than performance. For example, if you've got a warbird that usually gets flow either WFO or cut back to idle for landing then there's nothing wrong with the ST -- chances are that the extra weight will also help the model balance properly.

But that makes the ST a very inflexible engine when compared to its peers from other manufacturers.

Because I find it intensely frustrating (and perplexing) that ST are effectively hog-tying what is a potentially a *great* engine by not updating the carby. If they fitted a decent carb so that I could use my ST's for 3D, aerobatics and other kinds of flying where good mid-range and transition are essential, I would probably by *only* ST -- and I suspect a lot of other folks would do the same.

The problem is that one of ST's greatest benefits is the low-cost of their engines. For example, at $80, the ST51 is a well-priced engine that has the potential for being a great 3D power-house. Unfortunately, by the time you go buy a third-party carby, it's simply $20 cheaper to buy a TT46Pro (at $90) -- so why would I bother?

As for going into the business of making carby fix-kits, the same problem applies. Why would anyone buy an ST plus a carby fix-kit, have to mess around installing it, and then end up with an engine that's *more* expensive than one which performs perfectly well straight out of the box with no mods?

The only people who can fix the ST carby problem in an economic fashion is ST themselves. Simply stop making the existing carb and either retool to make a decent one -- or outsource the carbs to someone who can make them properly -- such as ASP.

Maybe you don't -- but *all* the people around here who have bought them *do* see problems and you don't have to trawl very deep through these forums to see that they're not alone. Nor is it simply a problem of ignorance as to engine-tuning.

The reason some folks (such as yourself perhaps) "see no problem with the st carbs" is probably because your expectations are different to those who do.

You may be happy to use an engine that runs a little rough in the mid-range, is very sensitive to plug and prop selection, and can't be relied on to give a reliable or rapid transition. Others, who are used to more modern engines that are very tollerant of plugs, props, fuels etc, and which offer very smooth mid-range with excellent responsiveness find the ST carbies and their effects on an otherwise perfect engine to be unacceptable.

The other possibility is that you (and others) may be happy to live with ST's recommendation that you don't tune the engine with an idle below about 2750 rpms. The fact is that if you do set your idle this high, the ST carb *can* be made to transition beautifully and they become a wonderful motor.

The other truth however, is that many models (notably 3D and aerobatic models) are grossly overpowered, by the old-fashion standards which were in place when ST first designed this carb. A 2,750rpm idle may have been fine for those old underpowered models (and is probably still okay for your average warbird or trainer), it's simply impractical for many of today's high-performance models. Most of my 3D planes would be almost impossible to land with an idle that high!

As I've said before -- the only real problem with ST's carby is that it's only designed to accurately meter fuel down to a high idle and when you try to set what is today a *reasonable* idle of around 2,200-2,300 -- it excessively restricts the fuel flow. The only way to obtain an idle this low is to richen up the low-speed needle which then produces the ultra-fat mid-range and transition problems.

The crazy thing about this is that, if I choose to richen the low-end enough, my STs will idle down to about 1,850-1,900 RPMs almost all day. These engines have the potential for a *wonderful* idle -- but not if you want any kind of transition.

So, stick your ST in a draggy, heavy or underpowered model, adjust your idle to anything over 2,800RPMs and you'll think the ST is a brilliant engine with no carb problems.

Put it in a *modern* sleek, lightweight, highly-powered model and you'll either find that the recommended idle is way too high to land with, or you'll have to richen the low end so much your transition will be shot to hell.

Finally, this becomes even more ridiculous when you consider that one of the main markets for the ST90 (for instance) is to over-power aircraft that would previously have been fitted with a 60 -- thus seriously agrivating the need for a slower idle.

The bottom line -- the ST engines show *excellent* engineering, machining and quality control. The ST engines with the current carb design work absolutely perfectly when used in models with power-to-weight and power-to-drag ratios that were commonplace 20 years ago.

Until the update the carby, ST engines are not a good fit with today's relatively overpowered and underweight models for the reasons previously stated.

If ST spent a few measly bucks fixing that carb, they'd open up some of the fastest growing markets in the hobby: 3D, aerobatics, etc.

So why don't they spend a day in the design room, another day testing and a week re-tooling?

Baffles me! Unless they have absolutely no engineering skills in-house and are simply producing as many engines as they can before the tooling they bought from Italy eventually wears out and they shut up shop.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

----------------


The age of the individual had nothing to do with the conclusion you reached.

I've used seven year old fuel with no signs of degradation at all.

The best way to form opinions is to do it yourself and gather your own experiences.

I haven't ran an Evolution glow engine as yet and I doubt that I will any time soon, unless they begin making four-strokes. I do have their rebadged MVVS 1.6 sitting next to me NIB. Maybe someday I'll get around to running it. Maybe not.

I'm about to sell off a lot of R/C stuff. Mostly larger stuff (for me). I'm too lazy to drag around a big model when a small one will suffice.


Ed Cregger

buzzingb

My Feedback: (2)

Ed, I think his problem came in the he pumped in fuel into his airplane fuel tank and never ran all of it and then pumped it back into his fuel jug. This drastically shortens the life of the fuel as air is allowed to mix in with the fuel as it is pumped back and forth and as we know air has water in it and methanol will absorb water over a period of time especially when it is agitated or air is bubbling up through it like the pumping process creates. I wasn't downing Evolution as I am sure they are good engines and are probally made in the same factory that makes all the other engines. My point is don't take everything as the truth from everyone you see, or read about on RCU, because some are just spouting off without any knowledge of what they are talking about. I enjoy talking to people and listen intentlly but somethimes only for entertainment or curiosity.

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

Glow engines create a lot of water when running and some of it gets in the fuel from the muffler tap, it's best to run it all out at once rather than contaminate the whole jug.

buzzingb

My Feedback: (2)

Hobbsy, you are correct but I never can seem to run it all out but I never have a problem with the fuel as it never last me that long anyway. However, if you keep a gallon of fuel around for a year or longer be careful as it can go bad from water contamination especially if the jug is 1/4 or lower. As ED said you can experience this for yourself if you want but I have alread been through it.

speedster 1919

My Feedback: (3)

You guys keep forgeting about the test where 20% water was purposely added to fuel and the engine started and ran surprisingly well. Now if you left the cap off a jug of fuel I will guarantee you will lose 100% of the alcohol before you ever absorb 20% water. I keep hearing (maybe your fuel is bad or your fuel went bad) But it never proves out to be bad fuel unless it is some 30 year old shinola stuff ...HOME BREW or EXPERIMENTAL STUFF..........