Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / February 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Difference between Max-S and Max-H

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ook - 18 Feb 2007 21:03 GMT
Anyone know the difference between the OS Max-S and Max-H engines? I think S
is for Stunt - not sure what H means.
daytripper - 18 Feb 2007 22:16 GMT
>Anyone know the difference between the OS Max-S and Max-H engines? I think S
>is for Stunt - not sure what H means.

Helicopters
Ook - 19 Feb 2007 00:25 GMT
>>Anyone know the difference between the OS Max-S and Max-H engines? I think
>>S
>>is for Stunt - not sure what H means.
>
> Helicopters

OK...any idea what is different about the engine itself? Other then one has
S embossed on the side, and the other has H? You can run an S engine is any
pretty much any position. I wonder if the H has better cooling? I would
think a Helicopter engine would not have as much air blast on the engine. Or
maybe it has some internal design difference to run at lower speeds...I'm
guessing...I have no clue LOL
daytripper - 19 Feb 2007 01:00 GMT
>>>Anyone know the difference between the OS Max-S and Max-H engines? I think
>>>S
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>maybe it has some internal design difference to run at lower speeds...I'm
>guessing...I have no clue LOL

Yes, typical "H" variant engines have much larger head assemblies for cooling.
There can be other heli-centric features as well, but the big head is key, the
others don't mean squat if the engine is being fried.

It wouldn't take but a couple of minutes on any of the major model engine
manufacturers to educate yourself a bit.

It ain't rocket science - it's airplane science ;-)
Morgans - 19 Feb 2007 02:08 GMT
> Yes, typical "H" variant engines have much larger head assemblies for
> cooling.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> It wouldn't take but a couple of minutes on any of the major model engine
> manufacturers to educate yourself a bit.

Along with the better cooling head, it is made to be shrouded, with a fan
blowing air onto it.  I think (I'm not sure on this one) that the threaded
crank is made longer, to mount the fan and the gear or cogged pulley to
drive the gearbox or main shaft.  The thrust washer is most likely a
different type, too.

The Heli engine is likely made to run at higher RPM's, to get a maximum
weight to power ratio, which is so very important for a heli, and run those
higher speeds for longer periods of time than an airplane engine.  There are
likely to be a larger bore carb, with the crank having a different timing,
optimized for high RPM, and peak power, meaning sooner opening, and more
overlap, which could mean subtle differences in the porting, too.  It is
just not as important for a Heli engine to idle well.  They usually run the
same exact RPM, or close to it, for their whole flight.

Some guys do run heli engines, but put a regular head on them, to take
advantage of the higher power output.  They are usually the kind that race,
or run around wide open, like they are pretending to race. <g>
Signature

Jim in NC

mjd - 19 Feb 2007 01:49 GMT
"AFAIK" they tend to be set up for a different midrange mixture via needle
geometry, as well as the head issue. I think the midrange tends to be richer
than a sport engine carb setup.

> >>Anyone know the difference between the OS Max-S and Max-H engines? I think
> >>S
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> maybe it has some internal design difference to run at lower speeds...I'm
> guessing...I have no clue LOL
Robert Roland - 19 Feb 2007 19:22 GMT
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:30:14 -0800, "Ook" <Ook Don't send me any
freakin' spam at zootal dot com delete the Don't send me any freakin'
spam> wrote:

>OK...any idea what is different about the engine itself?

The most visible, and perhaps the most important, difference is the
bigger, usually square, cylinder head. The square shape is much better
suited to fit inside a shroud, so that the air flows between the
cooling ribs, and not around the engine.

Another important difference is in the carburetor. The load/throttle
relationship is substantially different in a helicopter, compared to a
propeller driven plane. Very simply speaking, the heli engine has a
richer midrange, but it is much more complicated than that.
Signature

RoRo

R.A.Gareau - 18 Feb 2007 22:42 GMT
"H":stands for elicopters
> Anyone know the difference between the OS Max-S and Max-H engines? I think S
> is for Stunt - not sure what H means.
Peter Nyffeler - 21 Feb 2007 13:17 GMT
>Anyone know the difference between the OS Max-S and Max-H engines? I think S
>is for Stunt - not sure what H means.

I have  OS Max-S 35 which has a sleeve bearing and OS Max-H 40  wiht ball
bearing. So I gues it is the kind of bering making the difference.
Ook - 27 Feb 2007 20:52 GMT
How about an OS-Max 35 FP? I have two of those, and don't really know
what the differences are.
Morgans - 27 Feb 2007 23:12 GMT
> How about an OS-Max 35 FP? I have two of those, and don't really know
> what the differences are.

The FP series are sleeve bearing, instead of ball main bearings.
Signature

Jim in NC

Zootal - 28 Feb 2007 02:55 GMT
>> How about an OS-Max 35 FP? I have two of those, and don't really know
>> what the differences are.
>
> The FP series are sleeve bearing, instead of ball main bearings.

Ahh...and therefore more susceptible to damage from lean burns, more
susceptible to wear, etc. ?
daytripper - 28 Feb 2007 03:14 GMT
>>> How about an OS-Max 35 FP? I have two of those, and don't really know
>>> what the differences are.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Ahh...and therefore more susceptible to damage from lean burns, more
>susceptible to wear, etc. ?

To the extent that such engines are mistreated, yes. But you should know the
venerable FP series probably powers more models than any other line (as
opposed to, say, the dreaded FX series...)

/daytripper
Robert Reynolds - 28 Feb 2007 03:44 GMT
> To the extent that such engines are mistreated, yes. But you should know the
> venerable FP series probably powers more models than any other line (as
> opposed to, say, the dreaded FX series...)
>
> /daytripper

As far as I can tell, ball bearings are just another way to squeeze $20
out of the customer's pocket.  The FP series was just about the perfect
model airplane engine.  I still have quite an extensive collection of them.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ - 28 Feb 2007 03:47 GMT
> ... you should know the
>venerable FP series probably powers more models than any other line (as
>opposed to, say, the dreaded FX series...)

I don't own any of the new OS plain bearing engines,
but I don't like the looks of them.  I've seen a
lot of them at the field, both .40 and .60 size.

This is sheer prejudice.  I've stripped too many
Philips head screws in my day, I guess.  I also
don't like remote needle valves very much.

                Marty
Signature

Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

Martin X. Moleski, SJ - 28 Feb 2007 03:44 GMT
>>> How about an OS-Max 35 FP? I have two of those, and don't really know
>>> what the differences are.

>> The FP series are sleeve bearing, instead of ball main bearings.

>Ahh...and therefore more susceptible to damage from lean burns, more
>susceptible to wear, etc. ?

The plain bearing engines in my experience are more rugged.

It's pretty easy to ruin ball bearings.  Please don't ask
me how I know.  :o(

The FPs tend to rattle at low throttle.

They are more susceptible to breaking things if
you flood them and get hydrolock.  I don't know
why that should be, but it seems to be the case.

The FPs with which I'm familiar also use an air
bleed carb.  To lean the low end, you want to
close the air hole (tighten the adjustment screw).
To righen the low end, open the air hole (loosen
the adjustment screw).  This is the opposite of
a dual-needle valve system.

For starters on the air bleed carb, put a pin
or the tip of a fine blade into the air bleed
hole and adjust the screw so that the hole
is half-open.  Just a few turns will close
the hole completely or open it completely,
so make many small adjustments instead of
large adjustments.  If in doubt, get out the
pin or the knife and find out where the
adjustment screw is.

If I ran a lot of FPs, I would probably use
castor blend.  For some reason, I think they
would like the extra protection castor gives.
I've run them successfully on all-synthetic
15%, too.

As a general rule, FPs are lighter than the
same displacement ball-bearing engines.  They
also tend to be less powerful.  I had fun with
a TT GP .25 (an FP clone) in a Sig Wonder.
It worked a whole lot better than the Magnum
.15 ball bearing engine that I started with.

I took out a .40 ball bearing and put in a
.40 FP in a GP Fun One.  The change saved
six ounces overall, but I had more fun with
the more powerful engine and switched back
to it.

            Marty
Signature

Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

Robert Reynolds - 28 Feb 2007 15:03 GMT
> The FPs with which I'm familiar also use an air
> bleed carb.  To lean the low end, you want to
> close the air hole (tighten the adjustment screw).
> To righen the low end, open the air hole (loosen
> the adjustment screw).  This is the opposite of
> a dual-needle valve system.

You got that one backwards.  To richen the idle on an air bleed carb,
you close the air hole.  To lean the mixture, you open the air hole.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ - 28 Feb 2007 15:58 GMT
>> The FPs with which I'm familiar also use an air
>> bleed carb.  To lean the low end, you want to
>> close the air hole (tighten the adjustment screw).
>> To righen the low end, open the air hole (loosen
>> the adjustment screw).  This is the opposite of
>> a dual-needle valve system.

>You got that one backwards.  To richen the idle on an air bleed carb,
>you close the air hole.  To lean the mixture, you open the air hole.

Yup.  My bad.  I should have drawn a diagram:

1. Leaning the low end:

    A. Air-bleed: turn out, loosen screw. (Increases air input.)

    B. Dual-needle: turn in, tighten screw. (Decreases fuel input.)

2. Richening the low end:

    A. Air-bleed: turn in, tighten screw.  (Decreases air input.)

    B. Dual-needle: turn out, loosen screw.  (Increases fuel input.)

                Marty
Signature

Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

Morgans - 28 Feb 2007 04:20 GMT
> Ahh...and therefore more susceptible to damage from lean burns, more
> susceptible to wear, etc. ?

Not necessarily.

I think most here would say that the plain bearing is more durable, and
tolerant of less than ideal conditions.  The piston and cylinder is what
suffers from lean burns, mostly.  Ball bearings are susceptible to damage
from moisture and corrosion if not stored well, and protected by after run
oils, or castor oil fuels.  (watch this bring out the discussion)

The penalty for the plain bearing is mainly less HP for the weight and size
than the ball bearing twin.
Signature

Jim in NC

Ed Cregger - 28 Feb 2007 05:08 GMT
>> Ahh...and therefore more susceptible to damage from lean burns, more
>> susceptible to wear, etc. ?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> The penalty for the plain bearing is mainly less HP for the weight and
> size than the ball bearing twin.

What you say is true, but it is not the plain bearing that causes lower
power output in such engines. It is the overly mild timing/porting that is
the culprit. How would it look for OS' plain bearing engines to be keeping
up with their high dollar ball bearing engines? It would not help sales of
the expensive engines at all.

There have been some very powerful plain bearing engines made by Fox and
several other companies. These were usually special event engines, of which
classes totally escape my mind at the moment. I'm sure that others will
remember.

I just obtained two NIB OS LA engines. One is a .40 and the other a .46.
Much to my surprise, both engines have a pronounced pinch near TDC. I truly
did not expect to experience this, as the FP series that I'm familiar with
lacked such a pinch. At least they did by the time they got to me
(used/beginner engines).

Ed Cregger
Jack Sallade - 28 Feb 2007 13:59 GMT
Don't worry Ed, as soon as you get them good and broken in that will
disappear! ;-))  Seriously that is entirely normal for FPs and is actually a
good sign.  I wouldn't reccommend rotating them much by hand however to feel
that pinch until you get some lubrication into the motor.  You might damage
the liner and/or piston cranking it dry like that.  Proper break-in is key
for an FP if you really want it to run well for a long time.  Had a couple
and did (like most newbies I suppose) everything bad I could do to them...
crank them with an electric starter while hydro locked, ran them over lean
etc...  The lasted about 3 years before the bearing up front started to leak
and made them hard to tune.  Considering the abuse I gave them they did
great.  They are lighter but less power than the ball bearing models of
course but they work well within their designed use.  I'd take a ball
bearing over a sleeve every time for the average sport flyer who wants a
good reliable long lived motor but for the dollar an FP can be a great buy.
Similar to an LA in my book, just lacking the remote needle valve and
plastic backplate... a plus in some folks book!

Jack

>>> Ahh...and therefore more susceptible to damage from lean burns, more
>>> susceptible to wear, etc. ?
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Ed Cregger
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.