Engines - long

[Mike Hester]

With a pump like the 140RX would be nice =)

But I'll settle for RE right now.

-Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Pastorello 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 7:05 PM
  Subject: Re: Engines - long


  As much as I *love* the OS 1.60, and have it working very satisfactorily (no - I am NOT sponsored, either!), the 1.60 in a rear exhaust would really be a significant improvement in permitting lots of designs to use the 1.60.  The bigger crankcase, better bearing life, lower nitro and more power, reliable starting....like Richard said - we just need a RE version.
      Help me out, Jason!!!

  Bob Pastorello
  rcaerobob at cox.net
  www.rcaerobats.net


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Jason 
    To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 6:00 PM
    Subject: RE: Engines - long


    I'll pass this along and see what happens....but just in case, don't hold
    your breath just yet...lol.

    I think I still have a Hanno, although it might be lost in FL at my dads.
    That was the best motor I ever had, bar none. The 140's and 160's have been
    great, but the Hanno just never quit anything, even with a 1/2 coil of plug
    element.

    Jason

    -----Original Message-----
    From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
    [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Richard Strickland
    Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 3:49 PM
    To: discussion at nsrca.org
    Subject: Re: Engines - long


    OK--Will accept rumors!  We just need a big Hanno. Or just hone out the 140
    a little. Or stroke it a bit. Or both. 180 in a 140 case would do. Pumped, 2
    plugs, SS bearings and a nice simple linear carb with 5 HP on 15% stump
    pulling capacity. Cheap.

    RS

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jason" <jasonshulman at cox.net>
    To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
    Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 5:21 PM
    Subject: RE: Engines - long


    > Nothing that I'm aware of yet.
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
    > [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Richard Strickland
    > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 1:51 PM
    > To: discussion at nsrca.org
    > Subject: Re: Engines - long
    >
    >
    > Hey Jason,
    >
    > Anything new on the OS front we should know about?
    >
    > Richard S.
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Jason" <jasonshulman at cox.net>
    > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
    > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 3:45 PM
    > Subject: RE: Engines - long
    >
    >
    > > Actually Dave, I am not a YS sponsored pilot. I am a OS/Hacker sponsored
    > > pilot though <G>.
    > >
    > > Jason
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
    > > [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of David Lockhart
    > > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:33 PM
    > > To: discussion at nsrca.org
    > > Subject: Re: Engines - long
    > >
    > > And while not positive, I believe every pilot in the 2004 NATs F3A
    finals
    > > was sponsored by YS - and YS by far sponsors the most pilots.  I'd be
    > > willing to bet that if OS, Webra, or Hacker provided an equal level of
    > > sponsorship the number of sponsored YS pilots would diminish
    > substantially.
    > > In view of the engine problems I had at the 2004 NATs, I was asked by 2
    of
    > > the finalists why I was running the 2C and not a 4C.  I replied less
    > weight,
    > > less vibration, more power, more reliability - and while neither
    > disagreed,
    > > both felt having a YS sponsorship made the difference (as they both
    > believed
    > > I would be able to obtain YS sponsorship).
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > =====================================
    > > # To be removed from this list, go to
    http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
    > > and follow the instructions.
    > >
    >
    > =====================================
    > # To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
    > and follow the instructions.
    >
    >
    > =====================================
    > # To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
    > and follow the instructions.
    >

    =====================================
    # To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
    and follow the instructions.


    =====================================
    # To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
    and follow the instructions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20041004/f3e5c57b/attachment.html