[NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

[Ed Alt]

Vince:
There's a whole thread on this engine on RCU.  I'm also covering additional details in an upcoming KFactor.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_9237216/tm.htm

Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 10:14 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.


  Ed,



  What about power and weight?  It will be interesting to see results on the Syssa 180.  



  Vicente "Vince" Bortone

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Ed Alt" <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
  To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 8:50:17 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

   

  The Syssa SAP 180 vibration isn't any greater than a 140RX.  It's a nicely balanced engine.

  Ed
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
    To: General pattern discussion 
    Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 9:31 AM
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.


    Correct.  However, fuel cost would make a difference if we could use gasoline.  After my experience, I don't think gasoline engines available in that time were viable option for pattern for higher classes.  However, it could work for lower classes.  I am not sure what gasoline engines manufacturers are offering to increase power today.  Gasoline engines for sure are more reliable in the low run than glow engines.  Another issue, vibration of gasoline engines requires special attention but is similar to the situation we have when using glow engines.    

    Vicente "Vince" Bortone

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: CHV69 at aol.com
    To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 8:11:24 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.


    The Cost for the ZDZ was more than the OS 1.60 by more then twice as much. Right?

    In a message dated 12/13/2009 8:49:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vicenterc at comcast.net writes:
      It will be very interesting to see your results.  I had the chance to build and fly the Abbra with ZDZ 40.  I was able to comparare the same plane with OS160 back-to-back.  Clearly the ZDZ 40 was behind in power (or power-to-weight ratio) when compared with the OS 160 when doing the Master schedule of that time.  I am sure that less fuel consumption with less BTU content means less power.  The Abbra with the ZDZ 40 was ~3-4 oz over 11 lbs.  The OS 160 Abbra was 9.8 lbs.  I am not sure now what the new gasoline engines manufactures are doing to increase the power.  I believe that an improvement in the design of gas engines is required to make it usable for pattern. 

    _______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _______________________________________________
    NSRCA-discussion mailing list
    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

  _______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091213/c0b036e1/attachment.html>