<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rich</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Fletcher, Richard" <Richard.Fletcher@gs.com></b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: discussion-request@nsrca.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">09/28/2004 02:21 PM</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to discussion</font>
<br>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> To: "'discussion@nsrca.org'" <discussion@nsrca.org></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> cc: </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Subject: RE: Sarcastic thoughts on engine brands-and general pattern stuff</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">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 size=2 color=blue face="Arial">Rich</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma">-----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 size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
1. Every engine brands at one time or another has a "problem" engine.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><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 size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
b. No need to EVER change a break in methodology, since it worked well back in '75.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><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 size=2 face="sans-serif"><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 size=2 face="sans-serif"><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 size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
a. How many times has the reply been "great".</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><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 size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
More stinging yet light hearted additions anyone???<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Gray Fowler<br>
Principal Chemical Engineer<br>
Composites Engineering</font>
<br>
<br>