Motor Costs Comparison

[White, Chris]

Hi John,  Your email struck a chord, so I had to chime in....
 
It is surprising to notice how much better fuel mileage we get out of the big 2 strokes.   I messed with pattern birds in the 70's (Atlas, Super Kaos...HP61 / Pipe).   We used to fly them at full power for the majority of the routine (pre-turnaround).  I actually used about 12oz of fuel in 6-7 minutes...it was horrendous.   I ran the Webra 145's last year and the YS 140 Sport now...and these engines give me 2 runs through Advanced with a little reserve on 16 ozs of fuel.   Yes the DZ's use a lot more fuel than the Sport....I haven't needed a DZ yet, but am told that available power isn't any sort of problem up through the Masters sequences.  Bob gets excellent performance and economy from the OS160 and his setup works extremely well, he does his homework and you can trust what he says to be his true experience.
 
I found it was a pleasant surprise to get so much available power without a fuel consumption impact.  Throttle management really is proportional to economy.  You can really see it on a windy day vs a calm one....the reserve really goes down when you have to stay in the throttle to play the consistent groundspeed game:)  I love the YS 4 strokes because I believe they help those of us with low experience fly more consistent speeds. (Excellent throttle control throughout the envelope coupled with good downline braking.)
 
Just my 2 cents....
Chris White
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of John Pavlick
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11:30 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
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 <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/20040916/2a61dbe9/attachment.html