ORIGINAL: Volfy
One man's trash is another man's treasure. I never did understand why folks have such bad luck with the same engines that I find perfectly fine - MDS, for example. I have several of each of the .68, .78 and 1.48 and have not come across one that didn't run smooth and powerful after a break-in session on the test bench. Then again, maybe that is the problem. Some folks expect an engine to fly right out of the box.
I have had Magnums, OS FPs, and Towers, too. Not all of them are perfectly smooth, but none that I would say AVOID THIS ENGINE AT ALL COST!!!!!
I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head, Volfy. We often hear that X engine is no good, etc. ad nauseum, but how often do we hear, "Gee, I dont know how to opeate my Fsatasssumbichi" , or "Gosh darn, I picked this Hitorkstumpulr when i needed one of them faswhatchamacaulitz?
I have somewhere in the neighhohd of 150-200 engines, manufactured from the 1930s to present. I can point to a few, a Thor for example, that I would say are "no good". I can also name a gentleman who can make a Thor purr like a kitten. (To my embarrassent, since I can't)
Previously mentioned in this thread was a K&B Sportster 65. In the proper application- big prop, lotsa torque proper fuel (castor, low nitro) It is a superb long lasting engine.
Sadly, this is the age of instant gratification. Witness the number of ARF models as opposed to kit built or (forget it) scratch built models. Most RC flyers today want an engine that functions as an on/off switch in a rtf, zero maintinence airframe. No wonder then that a poor choice in engine/airframe match, or lack of knowlege results in an engine that is "to be avoided at all cost"
jess