<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Now for a genuine (not sarcastic) opinion on this.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Yes, several "top" pilots are making noise like they're going back to glow
set ups. But I believe there are a lot of different reasons behind this shift.
Anyone who thinks they know one underlying reason is probably mistaken.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What I am about to say, take with a grain of salt (that's good advice
anyway!) I'm not a "top" pilot myself, just a really active and outspoken
participant. I am currently sponsored by Morgan Fuels and YS Performance. I was
toying with the idea of electric for my next planes (ok actually I already had
the stuff and was in the building/planning stages) until last year's Nats. Up
until that point, the overwhelming majority of pattern flyers were thinking
electric was THE way of the future, and if you don't switch to electric, you
might as well stay home. Sad and twisted, but true....and not exactly a
secret.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>After the Nats, that impression shifted....HARD. Not by the hardcore pilots
who were already deep into electrics and having tons of success, but by the
casual flyer and the fence sitters. The YS and OS engines held thier own in the
terrible conditions, and a lot of electric set ups were failing.....because of
many reasons, one was that they were being pushed hard in the awful nats
conditions. Most still did well, but it wasn't the one sided goat rope like
everyone expected.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So, people in general no longer believe they are at a severe disadvantage
going in. They may still be, there is definitely still some judging bias out
there, but that will never change. I hope it does when the new wears off, and
people remember to judge what the plane is doing, not the "wow" factor. This is
the underlying reason for myself and most of the people I have spoken with on
the subject.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It means nothing in the long run, except the playing field might be a
little more level than it was a year ago....and that's not a bad thing. I could
be wrong, of course. Who knows what awaits at this year's Nats? If it's dead
calm and under 95 degrees, the electrics might really sweep everything
again.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And about the fuel and YS sponsorships: this was a fairly recent
development. I had already installed the DZ160 and was flying it for a long time
before I recieved any offers or help. My decision was already made. As of this
writing I haven't benefitted at all from the YS field rep position, as I bought
and paid full price for my stuff and it hasn't even worn out yet. And yeah, they
know about my anti-YS sentiments in the past, and we had a good laugh over it.
=) Bottom line, in my opinion, the DZ160 is the baddest dog in the boneyard. And
it's darn near bullet proof IF it's set up and maintained correctly. Watching
Jim Ivey put 2 long hard years on his without ever touching it was the first
clue, watching my OS 140 strain at the nats last year was the final push.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Also the OS 160 as Jon and Ryan have proven is a REAL alternative to the
YS. It does however require a lot of tinkering to get it right, and that was the
reason for the article jon wrote for the K Factor (I still can't even fathom
that someone complained about that!). And of course, there is the old reliable
plug and play OS 140. if OS pulls it's head out of it's rear end and makes that
engine a 170 or so, then they will have a top class 2 stroke again! they are
working on a 4 stroke 200fi....it's real, I actually had it in my hand, it's not
a myth LOL</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But, I am sold on the YS. I promised to give it a fair try, and I did. What
I found was utter and complete reliability and the best power I have ever felt
in a pattern plane. This engine is NOTHING like the quirky old 140FZs and Ls of
yesterday. it requires a pateint, almost expert touch in the initial set up and
break in/tuning, then you follow 2 simple rules: don't touch it, and filter that
fuel!!!! And it just keeps going and going and going......</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ok, got kind of sidetracked but....it's relavent. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Electrics are still alive and well. But as of this typing, I feel just as
competetive with my glow set up and that's a GOOD thing!!!!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-Mike</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=amad2terry@juno.com href="mailto:amad2terry@juno.com">Adrien L
Terrenoire</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 14, 2007 9:57
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Back to
glow???!!!</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Just recently I was having a discussion with several top pattern fliers
adn the sentiment seemed to be that we will be heading BACK to nitro power,
and away from the current, pun intended, trend.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Any thoughts out there?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Terry T</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>