MDS 48 engine advice please

[Emma 47]

Please could someone give me a very blonde guide to engines?

my tutor 40 trainer currently has a MDS 48 engine. 

I have been advised that these are not the best make to go for and so I am thinking of replacing it.

what I don't know is what is a suitable replacement engine.

i have tried google but it's not very helpful. Please could someone point me in the right direction without blinding me with science?

i was looking at Irvine 40 or 53 but can't find anywhere that has them in stock.

TIA

emma

 

[Emay 2]

Emma

ASP 52 engine is quite good and not too expensive. See here: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/asp-s52a-two-stroke-glow-engine-w-remote-hs-needle-valve.html

If you're going to get it from them, make sure to select "Ship From UK" (i.e. UK warehouse).

Emay

[Emma 47]

Thanks Emay.

[Pilot Ben 28]

Or you could get an asp 52 from just engines, whom would also help and advise you and unlike hobbyking is anything goes wrong they are extremely helpful. I wonder if a 46 might be enough for it? Most trainers have a 46 and you might find it flies better with less weight...  

[Bravedan 106]

For the record, SC, ASP and Magnum engines are all made in the same factory, British Leyland obviously exported their badge engineering expertise. I have used SC for planes since at the stage I was buying they were easier to get.

You'd need to check but 46's and 52/53's usually use the same crankshaft casting so weight is not really much of a factor.

NO experience of any of the four strokes as I try to avoid them (except Lasers), as I really don't see the point in adding weight, more wear out parts, and throwing away half the power strokes for a "nicer" noise. .

For heli's I use Thunder Tiger Redline (53's mostly), superb engine, but no experience of the plane units.

ENYA is another excellent under-rated make. (Steve Webb Models)

 

 

 

[Pilot Ben 28]

Yeah, I have an SC in that trainer I bought a year ago and it usually runs ok. I prefer the OS in my cougar but it is much more expensive, almost £139 for a 35!!! ASP is probably my most used make as they are very cheap and to be fair if they are set up properly they run quite well. Rod had an ENYA in something which ran very well but I recall him saying a cost a bit? 

With a 52 though you may find it eats fuel and makes the plane fly to fast, or you fly with 1/5 throttle which defeats the 52 object!!! A 46 is also good for a wot 4 which might be your next plane?

whatever you do, if you are unsure ask someone (not me   ) and we'll help...

 

b

[Bravedan 106]

Ben, having 52 power is not necc defeating the object or a waste, subject to its handling.  The greater power/torque allows (you infer forces, its a question of perspective!) lower revs sure, but that is a benefit and keeps the noise down, particularly prop generated noise, and with a lower than usual pitch prop gives scope for instant blips of power to put prop wash over the surfaces for control when the airframe has no airspeed to give it due over ambitious 3D or just getting it too slow!

My first RC plane was a third or fourth hand Super Sixty, (60" span high wing cabin) the sort of "classic" airframe that often had a tiny diesel up front, or at most a low power 19.  I had a 60.  It didn't out power the thing, it didn't add too much weight, but it gave really good versatility and the instant power needed to get out of jail when that long one wheel touch and go didn't QUITE work out.

With regard fuel consumption, the not that much larger 52 will be running under less strain and so lower than expected fuel burn, and may even be more economical than the harder working 46.