<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=293260413-16092004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Hi
John, Your email struck a chord, so I had to chime
in....</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=293260413-16092004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=293260413-16092004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>It is
surprising to notice how much better fuel mileage we get out of the big 2
strokes. I messed with pattern birds in the 70's (Atlas, Super
Kaos...HP61 / Pipe). We used to fly them at full power for the
majority of the routine (pre-turnaround). I actually used about 12oz of
fuel in 6-7 minutes...it was horrendous. I ran the Webra 145's last
year and the YS 140 Sport now...and these engines give me 2 runs through
Advanced with a little reserve on 16 ozs of fuel. Yes the DZ's use a
lot more fuel than the Sport....I haven't needed a DZ yet, but am told that
available power isn't any sort of problem up through the Masters
sequences. Bob gets excellent performance and economy from the OS160
and his setup works extremely well, he does his homework and you can trust what
he says to be his true experience.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=293260413-16092004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=293260413-16092004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
found it was a pleasant surprise to get so much available power without a fuel
consumption impact. Throttle management really is proportional to
economy. You can really see it on a windy day vs a calm one....the reserve
really goes down when you have to stay in the throttle to play the consistent
groundspeed game:) I love the YS 4 strokes because I believe they
help those of us with low experience fly more consistent speeds. (Excellent
throttle control throughout the envelope coupled with good downline
braking.)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=293260413-16092004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=293260413-16092004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Just
my 2 cents....</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=293260413-16092004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Chris
White</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=293260413-16092004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=293260413-16092004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> discussion-request@nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of </B>John
Pavlick<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11:30 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
discussion@nsrca.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Motor Costs
Comparison<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=560521004-16092004>Bob,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=560521004-16092004> Interesting comparison. Some people will always
favor the 4-stroke because they have a different feel but it's interesting to
see the fuel consumption. I was worried about this. Up to now the biggest
motor I have been flying is an OS .61 Long Stroke. It eats fuel at a pretty
good rate. From what you're showing, it looks like the 1.60 will actually get
better mileage. I'm assuming this is because you don't need to fly it at full
throttle all the time. I'm surprised at the big difference between the 1.60
and the YS. My small 4-strokes (.40 - .46) get much better mileage than their
2-stroke equivalents. I have an Enya .46 4-stroke in an Ace 4-40 that flies
well over 10 minutes on a 6oz. tank whereas a .40 2-stroke would need at least
an 8oz. tank. If you can get 8 minutes out of less than 7oz. of fuel with the
1.60, you must be doing something right. It looks like I should be happy with
my new motor next season...</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=560521004-16092004>
<P><FONT size=2>John Pavlick<BR><A href="http://www.idseng.com/"
target=_blank>http://www.idseng.com</A><BR> </FONT>
</P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
discussion-request@nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]<B>On
Behalf Of </B>Bob Pastorello<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, September 15, 2004
10:28 PM<BR><B>To:</B> NSRCA<BR><B>Subject:</B> Motor Costs
Comparison<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Had some questions from the last contest, so
decided to do a little spreadsheet. Just comparing operation of the YS
1.40 DZ to the OS 1.60 (performance being roughly equal, according to
feedback I've received from observers of my setup).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Not starting some
battle; just providing some information that some may find
helpful.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.rcaerobats.net/MotorCostComparison.htm">http://www.rcaerobats.net/MotorCostComparison.htm</A></FONT></DIV><FONT
face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><BR>Bob Pastorello<BR><A
href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">rcaerobob@cox.net</A><BR><A
href="http://www.rcaerobats.net">www.rcaerobats.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>