Motor Costs Comparison

[John Pavlick]

Bob,
 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...
John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com


  -----Original Message-----
  From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
Behalf Of Bob Pastorello
  Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 10:28 PM
  To: NSRCA
  Subject: Motor Costs Comparison


  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).
      Not starting some battle;  just providing some information that some
may find helpful.
  http://www.rcaerobats.net/MotorCostComparison.htm

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



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040916/17ac5553/attachment.html