<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=244313919-28092004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Hi
Gary, </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=244313919-28092004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=244313919-28092004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> I was perhaps the first guy to buy and run an OS 140
back in 1997 - 1998. The rear bearing failed after 125 flights, not too bad. The
carb did load up but they came out with a mod in a few months. The pump worked
flawlessly. Overall I was very happy with those engines, my biggest problem was
trying to slow it down. I have no experience with the EFI version, too rich for
my budget.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=244313919-28092004></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=244313919-28092004></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=244313919-28092004></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=244313919-28092004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Thanks, Rich</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=244313919-28092004></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=244313919-28092004> </SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us 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>Gray E Fowler<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:39
PM<BR><B>To:</B> discussion@nsrca.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Sarcastic
thoughts on engine brands-and general pattern
stuff<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Rich</FONT>
<BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>So true now......but what about those of
you who bought MFG Run #1 of the OS 1.4????? Rich midrange, bearing problems,
stuck fuel pumps...what else????not to mention the EFI and it total
"reliability". Just poking holes....<BR><BR><BR><BR>Gray Fowler<BR>Principal
Chemical Engineer<BR>Composites Engineering</FONT> <BR><BR><BR>
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>"Fletcher, Richard"
<Richard.Fletcher@gs.com></B></FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=1>Sent by: discussion-request@nsrca.org</FONT>
<P><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>09/28/2004 02:21 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=1>Please respond to discussion</FONT> <BR></P>
<TD><FONT face=Arial size=1> </FONT><BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=1> To:
"'discussion@nsrca.org'"
<discussion@nsrca.org></FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=1> cc:
</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>
Subject: RE: Sarcastic thoughts on
engine brands-and general pattern
stuff</FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><FONT face=Arial color=blue
size=2>I have been flying competitively since 1984. I have observed that OS
engines are the most reliable. YS's on the other hand have been a crap shoot.
I flew YS .60s and 120s and had good and bad luck with them. Now I own an OS
1.60 and am very impressed with how powerful and reliable it is, typical OS
engineering. But having said all that, my first choice is my 3W 150. 350
flights, no dead sticks, no-brainer on fuel, fill the can at the nearest gas
station. Unreal HP, O-O-S vertical on a 40 lb. plane.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2>Rich</FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<B><BR>From:</B>
discussion-request@nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org] <B>On
Behalf Of </B>Gray E Fowler<B><BR>Sent:</B> Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:03
PM<B><BR>To:</B> discussion@nsrca.org<B><BR>Subject:</B> Sarcastic thoughts on
engine brands-and general pattern stuff<BR></FONT><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2><BR>1. Every engine brands at one time or another has a "problem"
engine.</FONT><FONT size=3> </FONT><FONT face=sans-serif size=2><BR>
a. Most pattern flyers are engine experts, and have been
for quite a long time, just ask, they will tell you.</FONT><FONT size=3>
</FONT><FONT face=sans-serif size=2><BR> b. No need
to EVER change a break in methodology, since it worked well back in
'75.</FONT><FONT size=3> </FONT><FONT face=sans-serif size=2><BR>
c. No need to EVER consider an different fuel for a particular
engine, especially since I get this brand free/at cost/etc.... after all, my
fuel should work in EVERY engine or
the engine is defective-Right?</FONT><FONT size=3> </FONT><FONT
face=sans-serif size=2><BR> d. Any modifications
that an owner must perform are a sure sign of bad engineering/poor quality,
unless its my brand.</FONT><FONT size=3> <BR></FONT><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2><BR>2. All pattern planes have one or more weaknesses. Some do
particular things very well and other things poorly(really-less well). When
ever someone sees a"new" plane they ask the owner "how does it
fly".</FONT><FONT size=3> </FONT><FONT face=sans-serif size=2><BR>
a. How many times has the reply been "great".</FONT><FONT
size=3> </FONT><FONT face=sans-serif size=2><BR> b.
How many times has the reply been " it sucks.....looks like I just blew
$2000".</FONT><FONT size=3> <BR><BR></FONT><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2><BR>More stinging yet light hearted additions
anyone???<BR><BR><BR><BR>Gray Fowler<BR>Principal Chemical
Engineer<BR>Composites Engineering</FONT> <BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>