My Head is Spinning!

[Brian Young]

I am very happy w/ my Webra 1.45. It was running as
good as ever when I switched, no issues, good
transition good idle, one flip starting etc.

I got this bigger plane and wanted more power, just to
be sure; so I got the W 1.60 w/MC carb. I dont have
enough time on this to speak beyond what others have
said.
 
Incidentally the main reason I am flying the 2 strokes
is the lower initial cost plus lower overall fuel
cost. 

--- "White, Chris" <chris at ssd.fsi.com> wrote:
> Brian, you've had excellent results running Webra
> 145's without the MC carb.
> (I can't imagine your engine running any better:))
> From your initial
> impressions of the MC carb on your new 160, would
> you recommend the change
> to the MC carb for the 145? (Not ready to change
> yet, just trying to develop
> a competitive attitude:) I know that other
> experienced pilots believe in it.
> (Tony F, Mike Mueller have voiced opinion to that
> effect in the past....)
> 
> I'm just curious how many of you out there are
> running the 145 without the
> MC and feel that it is satisfactory. (Maybe I'm just
> to new to realize the
> benefits?)
> 
> Chris White
> NSRCA 3601
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of
> Brian Young
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:59 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: My Head is Spinning!
> 
> 
> I just setup a Webra MC carb, bolted in and running
> in
> about 4 hours. I still have some mixture tweaking to
> do. Its easier to adjust the mixture this way than
> with a screwdriver, just turn the knob on the radio
> once curve is established. Good background in engine
> tuning and operation will help you set this engine
> up.
> 
> So far so good. I only have a few flights on it but,
> it sure pulls good and throttle seems more linear
> and
> more responsive.
> 
> A very handy resource is this list for anyone having
> trouble with a fussy engine, plane setup, equipment
> selection......etc...
> 
> If only I had wireless internet, and a webcam Im
> sure
> I could get some critiques of my practice
> flights......lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Keith Black <tkeithb at comcast.net> wrote:
> > Lance, I need to correct your correction. The
> Webra
> > Aero X (1.45 and 1.60) being sold today by
> Horizon,
> > Central Hobbies and Radio South, etc. all have the
> > aluminum sleeve and weight 28.5 ounces. This
> feature
> > did not disappear when Piedmont stopped selling
> the
> > engine.
> > 
> > That being said, the Webra is only .8 oz under the
> > Mintor 1.70 and that's hardly a good sole reason
> to
> > go with the Webra.
> > 
> > The truth is if price and compatibility with my
> > existing planes/parts wasn't taken into account
> I'd
> > probably go with the Mintor. Smooth transition,
> > awesome power, excellent workmanship, no need to
> > fiddle with the MC carb (I like to keep things
> > simple). However, my post wasn't to convince
> anyone
> > of what to buy but rather to layout my
> understanding
> > of the differences and the options to help Scott
> > make his own decision. Until my post prompted your
> > detailed reply none of the "experts" had given him
> > much to sink his teeth into. Having been in his
> > position not that long ago I can relate with his
> > dilemma.
> > 
> > Keith Black
> > 
> >   ----- Original Message ----- 
> >   From: Lance Van Nostrand 
> >   To: discussion at nsrca.org 
> >   Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:22 PM
> >   Subject: Re: My Head is Spinning!
> > 
> > 
> >   Thanks Keith for laying out the basics.  In
> > following Bob P's advice (before he even gave it),
> > Keith got the Webras when we were flying them and
> > learned from us how to balance pump pressure and
> > needle.  Now He's the expert.
> >      I want to correct that the Webra 145 requires
> > the AeroX/AL sleeve to be lighter than the
> > OS/Mintor.  The standard steel sleeve leaves it
> > about 1.5 oz heavier.  If you buy an engine from
> > Horizon now, or a sleeve, it will be steel.  The
> > AeroX was available from Piedmont and Swift, but
> may
> > no longer be available, except as an aftermarket
> > upgrade.
> >     Once you add the weight of the MC servo, its
> > arm, mounting bracket and setup time, I don't see
> > the attraction to that engine.  If one was willing
> > to do all that, one could get an OS160FX for even
> > less money and get all the power with the same
> > amount of fiddling.
> >     I think the fuel economy is more similar than
> > was stated.  but my measurement is being able to
> fly
> > the Masters sequence twice on a 21oz tank.  Isn't
> > that enough?  There's actually a lot more throttle
> > management in Masters than Intermediate, so maybe
> > things balance out.
> >     Here are some other comments based on my
> > experiences: Webras with the steel sleeve burn
> > bearings the fastest, with the AL sleeve it is
> tied
> > with the OS (which is next), and the Mintors last
> by
> > far the longest as long as the engine is used. 
> > Nothing stops corrosion, but the double row
> angular
> > contact bearing of the Mintor has twice the load
> > capacity, which virtually eliminates load related
> > wear.
> >      Mintors pack a punch and as a result shake a
> > bit more.  More care needs to be taken in the
> > header/pipe mounting if softmounting the engine. 
> > The Webra is taller and, even though it shakes
> less,
> > can more easily bang the cowling if clearances are
> > close.  Webras have a big square head which makes
> > this even worse.
> >     OS and Mintors (post June 30 production) break
> > in fast (about 3 tanks to flight worthiness),
> Webras
> > take longer to break in right (> 1 gal).  I know
> > many have claimed flying Webras out of the box,
> but
> > none of the FIVE I own(ed) ever broke in that
> > easily.
> >      OS and Mintors share the same mounting holes,
> > nose ring, prop distance and, exhaust mounting and
> > headers.
> >      Mixture control can be made linear for all
> > engines but the Mintor has a leaner midrange to
> > start with so the rest of the tuning is easier.
> > Obviously the OS140EFI or MC carb on the webra can
> > compensate.
> >      The brass fitting into the aluminum case on
> the
> > Webra has failed on my several times.  I prefer
> the
> > bolt together carbs of the other two.  However,
> the
> > Webra has more low end adjustment than either the
> OS
> > or Mintor which can be useful in a pinch (long
> term,
> > extreme needle positions indicate other problems
> to
> > be solved).
> >      you need to carry a drive washer puller with
> > you for the Webra if you need to change the
> bearings
> > at a contest.
> >      the Webra 145 still has the front mounted
> > needle, the OS is permanently positioned in the
> > rear, the Mintor has a repositionable rear needle.
> 
> > Obviously the 160 MC carb has a servo.
> > 
> >   OK, no need for me to post offlist.  Please
> accept
> > my experiences as genuine and based on real life
> > (not comparing datasheets).  Others may have
> > different experiences, but as least mine are based
> > on multiple engines all subjected to the same care
> > system.
> >   --Lance
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#