Motor Costs Comparison

[gene.maurice at comcast.net]

Just to add my $.02......................
I've run two 1.60 setups very similar to Bob's (header, pipe, pump), one in an Entropy and the other in an Aries. I tend to fly quite a bit faster than Bob, but still only use full throttle in verticals. I can fly the Master's sequence twice on about 15-16 oz. of Magnum 15%. 
I formerly ran YS 140L's and could also get two sequences out of a 20oz. tank, but be pretty much on fumes when landing. Of course that was 30% fuel. 
 
--
Gene Maurice 
AMA 3408 NSRCA 877 
Plano, TX 
gene.maurice at comcast.net


-------------- Original message -------------- 

A comment about "mileage" is in order. I don't want to upset anyone because they may use a different prop/throttle management technique. My style is a slower-paced presentation, although I tend to stay out near 150 or so, and the three blade is a very efficient setup in my package. It has very good braking, yet accellerates well - - - for me.
Other motors have different mileage, and different techniques of throttle management, so perhaps it wasn't fair to make the mileage comparison. The DZ that I observed, however, seemed to use quite a bit MORE 30% Heli Cool Power than my 15% Cool Power, so I thought I should include that in the spreadsheet.

Bob Pastorello
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net
----- Original Message ----- 
From: John Pavlick 
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11:29 PM
Subject: RE: Motor Costs Comparison


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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040916/4eb88a30/attachment.html