WheelPantz

I'm planning on the Edge 540 from Hanger 9 and have the Moki 1.35 for engine. Now since the OS 1.60, I'm wondering if this would be a better engine as far as unlimited verticle. I have the Moki 1.35 but don't want to fit cowl to this engine if the OS would be a better choice. I would appreciate any comments on these two powerplants ONLY, for this airframe. I guess what I want is point the noise up and keep going, will the Moki do this in this airframe? Thank you in advance

Rich

krayzc-RCU

My Feedback: (31)

look under a thread call satio 180 vs OS-160 and it may help answer most of your concerns.....it may be under the arf section with lots of posts....

ps i would go with the OS-160

mrc100

My Feedback: (4)

I have a Moki 1.8 on my H9 Edge and I use all the power on the up lines. Your 1.35 would fly the plane but it would be working very hard.

I might at some point replace the 1.8 with a 2.10. Personally i would want more power than 1.60.

Mount the servos in the tail...the wooden rod is a problem.

Mike

hilleyja

My Feedback: (3)

With this airplane, the OS FX 1.60 would be on the low side of recommended power if you want to do anything other than simple flying or simple aerobats.

Pound-for-pound the OS FX 1.60 is a match for the Moki 1.80. Many people find that the OS is light and results in extra weight to properly balance the plane. This would definetly be true of the Moki 1.35. On the other hand, the Moki 1.80 seems to fit nicely and you can usually adjust components to properly balance without adding extra weight. An added bonus for the power hungry types there is the Moki 2.10. It only weighs a few ounces more than the 1.80 and adds almost 1 hp.

Some stats:

OS FX 1.60: weight 32.6ozs, 3.7hp
Moki 1.35: weight 30.2ozs, 3.45hp
Moki 1.80: weight 41ozs, 4.1hp
Moki 2.10: weight 46ozs, 4.95hp

Shortman

My Feedback: (21)

The only thing bad about Moki's is there fuel consumption

dansuf

My Feedback: (3)

I have Hangar9 Edge, and using OS 1.60, love it. Have not done any 3Ds yet, however, it does all kind of stuff. I know three guys at my flying club, they had the same combination, they all are happy campers.
In my opinion, it is a better combination. These big engines are for sure gas guzzlers.

Quickie

My Feedback: (4)

How do you figure that? This plane's recommended 2 stroke engine on the top of the range is a 150. Granted a engine such as a 148 MDS won't let you torque roll the plane but I doubt performance is horrible. As for the OS any motor that swings an 18" prop at 8700-9000 RPM with 15% nitro is not going to leave this plane looking like a slug during zero airspeed aerobatics.

Rich said he was looking for opinions on the 135 Moki and the OS 160. Between these two I think the obvious winner is the OS. The OS is known to fly well on 5-15% nitro with low fuel consumption for an engine it's size. The OS also has an impressive midrange powerband for a 2-stroke engine and is VERY compact. Now if this comparison was opened up to the Moki 1.8 and small gassers THEN you would have a heated debate on your hand. There is MUCH more to consider then looking at the manufacturer's spec on engines, especially model engines which have no stated testing method or standardization. What you have to rely on is personal experience of users.

hilleyja

My Feedback: (3)

Definitely not my intention to start a heated debate. You are 100% correct about the OS. My point was based on observance of the OS FX 1.60 on H9's 1/4-scale Cap 232 -- a very close cousin to the H9 Edge 540. While that engine provides all the power in the world you would normally want for a 1/4-scale aerobat it lags behind the Moki 1.80 and 2.10. In addition, I wouldn't mount anything less than the OS FX 1.60 on a 1/4-scale plane designed to fly the 3D envelope. That is why I said the OS FX 1.60 is on the low-end of the RECOMMENDED power.

RECOMMENDED = pilot's recommendation, not manufacturers.

BTW, I would be the last person to denegrate the OS FX 1.60. I've been getting max out of my 120 Ultra Sticks on that engine for the last 3 years -- I only hope that my 1/4-scale Cap will give me the same dependability with its Moki 180 that I've had with the OS. I would even recommend the OS over the Moki if it could be mounted without having to add extra weight to the nose because pound-for-pound it is slightly more powerful than the Moki(s), i.e., 3.7hp for 32.6ozs vs 4.1hp for 41ozs vs 4.95hp for 46ozs.

Besides, I have another 120 Ultra Stick in a box with a choice of a Zenoah G23 or the OS FX 1.60 (The G23 is a dog on this airplane, therefore I will stay with the FX 1.60). I also have a NIB Moki 180 and a H9 1/4-scale Cap in a box -- a marriage made in heaven.

Quickie

My Feedback: (4)

Heated debate? No nothing like that, I'm just trying to bring the post back to the origional question that's all (always a problem). Rich said he wanted unlimited vertical. You figure what the 160FX did in that Cap and then think of it in a airframe weighing around 1lb less. I think he'll have unlimited vertical, maybe not with authority but with the right prop he should be there. For what it's worth if he doesn't have that awesome vertical he'll have more than a Moki 1.35. No debate here just trying to answer the question.

LuvBipes

My Feedback: (4)

I have a Moki 1.35 in the GP 1/4 scale Giles and it turns an APC 17X8 at 9200 rpm max on 5% nitro fuel. I'm running a 20 oz tank and fuel consumption at FULL throttle is 1.5 oz/min, quite a bit less when you figure only 1/2 throttle is needed for strait and level flight. I, therefore, don't understand the negative comment regarding the Moki's fuel consupmtion.

The Moki takes about an hour to break in, but given its hard crome plated liner, should outlast the OS by quite a margin.

A friend has the same plane w/ an OS 160 which also performs very nicely, both planes will climb out of a hover slowly, for what it's worth. The only real world advantage the OS (w/ the stock muffler) has over the Moki is regarding noise. With the Bisson Pits style muffler, the Moki is noticebly louder than the OS.

WheelPantz

Thanks for all the input, my personal choices are between the Moki 1.35 (because I already have one) and the OS 1.60 (may not be the most powerfull choice for the airframe, but I like the engine and it seems it will hold it's own). Looks like the OS has the nod for me, still love my Moki, keep it for another airframe. Thanks again

Rich

WheelPantz

The replies with the big Moki's, especially the 2.1, can you fit this big of engine in the airframe? I know the cylinder will stick out of cowl on alot of them, but I would think this would be abnormally to much. Considering the muffler that will stick down and the fuel tank that will be needed. Unless this is a bigger airframe than I realize. Does the cylinder stick out of the cowl on the OS 1.60 and/or the muffler?

I'm looking at a weight of 11-13 pounds advertised.

rich

Shortman

My Feedback: (21)

I thought about it for a long time. A h9 edge 540 with a moki 2.1 or possibly a small gasser. My choice now would be the zdz 40. Why, fuel consumption.

As for your question, the cowl for the h9 edge 540 is huge so I wouldn't worry about it. PM finnz, he has A BME 50 IN HIS H9 EDGE540! It flies flawlessly and looks beautiful. Weighs 15 pounds though

sport10

I also have the H9 edge w/1.60FX. This combo is great. It is not underpowered in anyway. Use an 18x6 prop and vertical is unlimited. Climbout is somewhat slower with a full tank of fuel but much better as the level of fuel decreases. This plane holds over one pound of fuel! So I try and burn off 1/2 of the tank before I start doing serious 3D. My plane weights in around 12 3/4 pounds. If I were to build this plane again I would use the same engine combo but would use pull-pull in the elevator using only digtal servos. Use the lightest wheels and landing gear (TNT) I could find. I like the slimline muffler on the 1.60 FX. With this combo the engine and all but the tubes on the muffler are inside of the cowl without any relief holes. The only holes in my cowl are for the needlevalves and glowplug starter. Looks great!