jimbrock2

Well, I like gasoline power. Electric is okay, but too much to learn at my advanced age.

BalsaGhost

Electric can seem a little confusing at first, but if you can get a buddy to show you the basics about esc’s, charging, and the wiring it’s really straightforward. Like most things in life, people tend to make it sound more complicated than it really has to be.

TomCrump

I had been flying glow and electric, the last few years. Last year, I built a gasser, and pulled another out of moth balls.

I'm now enjoying all three forms of power, but with the guys I generally fly with, I'm the only one who has gas powered models.

DGrant

My Feedback: (4)

I like them all. Glow isn't as relevant as it once was, but for those of us that experienced it in the 70's-80's-90's it's still a very viable power choice. I ebb and flow from gas to glow to E planes...depending on what's trending and what my friends are flying it's nice to have a choice.

I particularly like my four-stroke engines... a few OS newer generation style. They're more expensive then much larger gas rigs these days though. My OS 1.10a four-stroke glow(about 17cc) was well over $400 back about 4yrs ago... now you can get a 50cc gas engine for that same price. Right now an OS 95V four-stroke glow(15cc) is $299... you can get a DLE30cc for about $30 less.. The price of gas engines has drastically dropped... while the price of glow engines has remained stable... not to mention the costs of fuel vs gasoline.

I wouldn't say glow still gains favor... sorry.. not by a long shot... but there's a definite following by those of us that still like to burn nitro. They do take a touch sometimes... but again those of us with experience like to tinker with them.... but we're actually the minority at this point I think. I know nobody in my club is flying four-strokes of any kind... I'm it. I occasionally fly a smallish two-stroke glow, but they're messy... and I also occasionally fly a 1.80 or 2.10 two-stroke glow.. not as messy, but they suck a ton of glow fuel each.. and get expensive to feed. Fortunately I'm not worried about cost factors at this stage of the game. If I want to run one.. I just do it... but if someone's asking.. yes glow is more expensive to run no doubt.

TomCrump

I like glow 4 strokes, too, having Magnum, Saito and OS singles and twins, along with an OS 4 cylinder. I like the way 4 strokes fly a model, and it's hard to beat their exquisite exhaust note.

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

That looks Tom like a ' I like the way 4 strokes fly a model"

init4fun

My only big 4 stroke is a Saito 270 twin , but I have heard engine's like Tom's run , and yes indeed there is nothing else that has that "real airplane" sound like 4 or more 4 stroke cylinders ! One gent at my club has one of those 7 cylinder radial engines and it sounds just like the "shaky jake" (Jacobs R755A1) radial engine I had my A&P training on .

TomCrump

We'll see how this 4 stroke performs, I think it will do well. The engine needs a thorough break in, and then I'll perform the maiden.

The model is a Hostetler Luscombe Silvaire. Wendell Hostetler Pawnee

DGrant

My Feedback: (4)

That right there Mr. Tom is a work of art! Very nice looking power plant you have my friend... as well as that plane no doubt. I look forward to your reports on the maiden flight. Glow lives on!!!

init4fun

For sure Glow will live on for quite some time , as a niche market , in the same way that these which were SO dominant in the hobby 70 years ago are still flown by some today

Soar RC

Those old ignition engines are the only 'wet' engines I run now. everything else iselectric.

fourstar40

My Feedback: (27)

I'm a glow guy. Mostly because that's what I started out doing. My biggest beef with electric is you have to have a different battery for every plane you have. I have around 12 ready to go planes and can use the same gallon of fuel for every single one of them. If they were electric planes I would have to have a ware house to store all the packs they require. I have nothing against electric. I have a couple myself. Glow is the way to go for me.

BTW, the club I am in is almost all glow powered. There is one guy that flies electric. I tend not to fly while he does because I can't hear his plane. I am on top of him before I know it. So I just sit back and watch while he is flying.

TomCrump

Many electric pilots use power/battery systems, in their models, that use the same batteries. This eliminates the need for multiple battery packs, one for each individual model.

oliveDrab

I have 2 LT-40's, a 4*60, a Something Extra, an ESM Bearcat, an ESM FW-190 D9, and a Rascal 110 which all use the same battery(s). I've got two 5-cell 5000 mah Lipos and two 6-cell 5300 mah Lipos. They are high quality, high C rating, Lipo batteries I've used for 3 years. They have not swelled at all and there's no defective cells in them. But I did pay more for them than a 25 or 35C Lipo. You get what you pay for.

fourstar40

My Feedback: (27)

I know that is an option and a good one but doesn't that kind of limit your choices on planes? I looked into the electric world and when I see a plane that I would like then I have to research to find the battery pack that will fit. I guess it's just easier for me to deal with glow stuff. But the way it's going glow will disappear and I will have to go electric or bow out gracefully. And at my brain capacity the latter will probably be the one.

TomCrump

I don't feel limited, but I fly glow and gas, too. I have models as small as 54", and as large as 121" to choose from.

I notice that you don't consider gas. Isn't that a viable option for you ?

init4fun

My friend I believe you have nothing to fear WRT glow disappearing anytime soon . While it's true glow is no longer the #1 flown power source , having lost ground to both electric and gasoline , the example of my O&R .60 was supposed to drive home the point that 70 years after glow knocked spark ignition off of the top spot , there are still flyers flying them just as there will be glow engines well into the future .

To be honest , I do believe there are enough of us "Motorheads" around to keep glow alive for quite some time and so I don't think dwindling demand will kill off glow , but I do fear the EPA at some point banning ALL two stroke engines and possibly even force four stroke engines to have a separate oil system from the fuel system , basically a "no more oil burners" law or something to that effect .

fourstar40

My Feedback: (27)

Right now gas for me isn't a good choice. Mostly because I drive a small car and 40 size planes are all I can transport. If gas engines get down to the 40 to 50 size range then I will be more than happy to move to that. In fact, I wish all the time that happens.

DGrant

My Feedback: (4)

My good friend drives a Honda Fit and gets a 33% aerobat(wings come off of course) and a small electric aerobat(with wings installed) in there... by just laying down the seat. It is a hatchback though.. still very small car, and he's still got some room too.

Gas engines are now down to 10cc and under, and becoming very reliable. I've been flying my gas IMAC plane all week and went through a gallon... and even though as I said I still fly glow.. I wonder why when I think about how easy my gas planes are. All I need to take to the field is my transmitter case, gas can, and plane. There's quite a bit less needed for gas once you have it set up... and I contend between the smaller gas engines, and electrics, therein lies part of the reason glow engines aren't near as popular as they once were... They'd still have to pry my hands off my glow-four-strokes though.

Waco

My Feedback: (265)

I started with glows and tried electrics and don't like electrics, tried gas for 4 years and got tired of the stink of their exhaust and went back to my 4 stroke glows, I love glow exhaust smell how a 4 stroke flys a plane.

H5606

Gasoline power is great... for big airplanes; I have at least one flying now. However, there are some places where gasoline doesn't make any sense IMO.

I dabbled in 1/2A, club .25, and Quickie racing forms (AMA 424 [sort of the entry level for Q-500] and AMA 428 [the hi-rev engine class Q-500]) some decades ago.
The desire to get gas engines small enough to go below 10cc (.60 cu.in. size) doesn't quite seem plausible - a Q-500 with a gasoline ignition engine just ain't right (sounds heavy, slow, complicated, and dangerous) or say an ICDF with a gasoline ignition engine. I can't imagine a ducted fan airplane being powered by a gasoline engine and flying well - can you?

Perhaps I'm wrong and I'd certainly welcome being shown examples of gasoline powered types that would rival glow/Methanol performance for these specific kinds of airplanes...

My point being that It just seems to me that gasoline power sounds more like torquey, nitro four-stroke power - moving a large mass of air at low speed (most appropriate for biplanes, aerobatic types, 3-D, old-timers, trainers, etc.) versus two-stroke glow where you can move a small mass of air at very high velocity for appropriate aircraft (thinking racing airplanes, ballistic pattern types, jet-props, fun-fly, sport types, ducted fans, etc.) There are just some airplanes that don't make sense powering with gasoline like say, take for example a Sig Kougar: a glow .40 - .50 size two stroke powered low wing with tricycle gear and a higher wing loading. I can see this airframe with a two-stroke alcohol engine and a tuned pipe but I just can't see it being powered equally effectively with a gasoline-ignition engine (extra weight, complexity, ground clearance issues [prop diameter] and slower speed).