Originally Posted by
skypup50
I've always enjoyed tinkering so I'm game for anything new. We've really just come full circle having started with spark ignition before glow. The biggest advantage is fuel savings. Proper air frames can offset the weight disadvantage IMHO.
My feelings exactly!
People made the same remarks back in 1981 when I bought the "innovative" OS .60 four stroke.
They said it was too heavy and too underpowered and a good 2 stroke 30 would put out as much power for 1/3 the money.
All this was true but I loved the sound and the big prop ability so much that I didn't care.
I wound up with the .40, .60, .90, and 1.20 and flew them all till I retired from the hobby and loved every minute of my underpowered fleet.
(Ok, the Smith wasn't exactly underpowered, but it wasn't fast, it just climbed straight up)
Now I've re-entered the hobby with the electric boom in '05 and found it a little wanting until Good old Saito shook things up a bit.
I've pulled the Balsa USA Taube that held the OS .40 fs out of the attic and put the FG11 on it.
Love at first flight, though it's a bit over powered, I usually fly it at 1/2 throttle.
Now we're building a Quaker for it.
The Irony is that the Quaker is the ship we used for the OS .60 four stroke. (see the pic)
So I too have come full circle. (Nice part is the gas is $3 a gallon instead of $30)
Nick
