Maybe this seems a tad presumptuous, but I made a comparison earlier in another thread that no one has commented on yet, and which I thought was rather apt to the general discussion around here.

"This just in: Modern airliners are horrible designs. All of them. NONE of them have the ceramic heat tiles on the bottom of the fuselage and wings. How are Delta Airlines' fleet of 737s ever going to enter the earth's atmosphere at orbit speed without those tiles? Must be those nagging bean counters at Boeing. Always trying to make a buck and rip off the customer. Lives are at stake here guys! It's that important! "

Looks like someone was up kinda of late and wanted to cause a little "mischief", you know, throw some bait out there, tinder into the fire, help friends decide whether to fly nickel or not, something like that, huh.

The thing that upsets me about the airlines,, Boeing in particular, is not that their planes aren't fully functional, but that that misrepresent their design features. The fact that they advertise the underbellies are coated with a special high temperature alloy, for which they have come up with their own meaninless letters, when in fact they are made from recycled soda cans, is a little disconcerting. As so called leaders in the industry, selling a premium product at apremium price with misleading advertising is more than a little bit sleezy. I can honestly say that when I was new and researching the whether to fly Boeing I was confused by their wierd designation for their alloy. Still, the planes seem to perform their intended task well enough. So the question is "should friends let friends fly planes made from recycled soda cans'?

BOEING!

Are you talking about GOVERNMENT AIRPLANES ?

The heavily subsidized builder of mediocre , misrepresented devices that fall from the sky. Talk about "boat anchors" !

Of course , the market drives product offerings. Some people decry the major model engine builders for stifling "performance" engine developement. Not really true. In days gone by the percentage of flyers participatingin simple "engine dominate events" was a lot higher. The population has matured (thankfully) and now the flyers are less competitive and more interested in pilot dominanted type flying. With maturity comes the realizatition that relying on a machine to make up for a pilot's inabilities perpetuates mediocrity.

So we have come to a point where people are using the entire flight/speed envelope. They are learning to fly on the wing, not the engine. The control line mentality is also fading away. It isn't all "up and down real fast" around and around.

Along with that comes the reality that WTO ABC engines are actually not the only choice.In fact they may be a very mediocre choice ! Picture a pair of beautifully built expertly piloted Piper Cubs . One with a fire breathing Jett , the other with a Pegasus flat four .

"How many revs do you get with a 14-6 ?" is no longer the big deciding factor.



As a result the companies that offer the products people actually want do well. High performance makers problems are not a kooky conspiracy by a major engine maker to put high "performance" engine maker out of business as some may try to blog.

In fact, to that makers credit they concentrate their high performance efforts in the RC car market. A market ripe with the less mature , still seeking the "edge" from their machine. In fact OS is doing quite well in that market. The companies that cater high "performance" model aircraft powerplants are just fighting for their share of a shrinking market.
I hear one of those companies would have probably have been long gone if it were not for the government work they do..So, back to the top.

Gary, my wife and I do not fly airlines who use other than Boeings.

Here is a less than mediocre engine that I dearly love. Its a MERCO .50 that turns the Graupner 12x6 at 9,100 rpm, will fly all day with out so much as a hiccup and burn very little fuel doing it. A Fox idlebar plug and 5% nitro fuel is all that is asks.

Why would you call the Merco a mediocre engine? They are a fine sport engine. The last time I look they had auto mixture carbs and ringed P&Ls. They were well priced the last time I saw them imported into North America. Did they ever come out with a Schnuerle ported model?

Friends don't let friends fly nickel,
Konrad

Originally Posted by I TOBOR

Gary, my wife and I do not fly airlines who use other than Boeings.

Here is a less than mediocre engine that I dearly love. Its a MERCO .50 that turns the Graupner 12x6 at 9,100 rpm, will fly all day with out so much as a hiccup and burn very little fuel doing it. A Fox idlebar plug and 5% nitro fuel is all that is asks.

Actually Dave, I was just kidding. Playing the advocate. Mocking some of the mediocre silliness we often hear. Much like your "less than mediocre Merco" I really appreciate Boeing, the company and what they have done. I fully understand your Merco comment Like Duuuh!

The old workhorses like Saito, Enya , OS and Merco surely have a place in our hobby.
I guess it is just fine to rate an engine as mediocre , if you must. But even that is relative to intended application. In the J-3 Cub , a Jett wonder engine would rate mediocre compared to a lovely OS flat four 4 stroke Pegasus. How about a hot Mitsubishi Zero powered by a new OS radial ?



The market has changed. The majority of the HP stuff in toy engines seems to be the car kids .

Originally Posted by u2builder

Looks like someone was up kinda of late and wanted to cause a little "mischief", you know, throw some bait out there, tinder into the fire, help friends decide whether to fly nickel or not, something like that, huh.

The thing that upsets me about the airlines,, Boeing in particular, is not that their planes aren't fully functional, but that that misrepresent their design features. The fact that they advertise the underbellies are coated with a special high temperature alloy, for which they have come up with their own meaninless letters, when in fact they are made from recycled soda cans, is a little disconcerting. As so called leaders in the industry, selling a premium product at apremium price with misleading advertising is more than a little bit sleezy. I can honestly say that when I was new and researching the whether to fly Boeing I was confused by their wierd designation for their alloy. Still, the planes seem to perform their intended task well enough. So the question is "should friends let friends fly planes made from recycled soda cans'?

Do any of you have a link to this alloy or the Boeing subject.

Originally Posted by u2builder

Looks like someone was up kinda of late and wanted to cause a little "mischief", you know, throw some bait out there, tinder into the fire, help friends decide whether to fly nickel or not, something like that, huh.

The thing that upsets me about the airlines,, Boeing in particular, is not that their planes aren't fully functional, but that that misrepresent their design features. The fact that they advertise the underbellies are coated with a special high temperature alloy, for which they have come up with their own meaninless letters, when in fact they are made from recycled soda cans, is a little disconcerting. As so called leaders in the industry, selling a premium product at apremium price with misleading advertising is more than a little bit sleezy. I can honestly say that when I was new and researching the whether to fly Boeing I was confused by their wierd designation for their alloy. Still, the planes seem to perform their intended task well enough. So the question is "should friends let friends fly planes made from recycled soda cans'?

I hope you aren't going to make this your life's mission.
But now that you think about it, these are a lot more important issues than simple toy airplanes .

I am sure they give the government all they are overpaying for.

I bet even one of these could fly CL with a ROSSI on the front and a pair of wires :
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._airplane.html

Then again:

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5401706...g-process.html

Originally Posted by Gary Cee

I guess it is just fine to rate an engine as mediocre , if you must. But even that is relative to intended application. In the J-3 Cub , a Jett wonder engine would rate mediocre compared to a lovely OS flat four 4 stroke Pegasus.

Like this one?

Originally Posted by 706jim

Like this one?

So when are you going to have the born-again , I saw the light conversion to a well warrantied Rossi ? The messiah has spoken. Can we save you from yourself and the Evil Empire ?

Really, that is a very fine looking classic Cub with a very well chosen engine. No mediocrity there !

BTW, That looks just like one built by a very good friend. He passed away and his daughter has it hanging in their shop. Could it be ?

Gary, the "less than mediocre" comment was tongue in cheek, the MERCO is a fine engine. Its main bearings would support the Bay Bridge. I have a gasoline .61 also.

Originally Posted by I TOBOR

Gary, the "less than mediocre" comment was tongue in cheek, the MERCO is a fine engine. Its main bearings would support the Bay Bridge. I have a gasoline .61 also.

Exactly, I got that.
Much the same as my Boeing comments.

Illustrating the absurd

Originally Posted by I TOBOR

Gary, the "less than mediocre" comment was tongue in cheek, the MERCO is a fine engine. Its main bearings would support the Bay Bridge. I have a gasoline .61 also.

Glad to hear that. You had me concerned for a bit!

Still looking for that Boeing link.

Friends don't let friends fly nickel,
Konrad

Originally Posted by Konrad

Still looking for that Boeing link.


Konrad

You may have to stand on a chair. It just went over your head

Don't worry though you'll find it . Perhaps after your favorite engine maker goes tits up but long before OS does .

Originally Posted by Gary Cee

So when are you going to have the born-again , I saw the light conversion to a well warrantied Rossi ? The messiah has spoken. Can we save you from yourself and the Evil Empire ?

Really, that is a very fine looking classic Cub with a very well chosen engine. No mediocrity there !

BTW, That looks just like one built by a very good friend. He passed away and his daughter has it hanging in their shop. Could it be ?

No, it's not your friends' plane. I built this one in 1989 over a period of about three months. The O.S. engine on this airframe is just marvelous. It will climb at a 30 degree angle even with the floats. Once off the water, you can throttle back to about 3500rpms (obviously, just a guess) and it sounds like the real thing.
At idle in a gentle dive, all you can hear is wind whistling through the struts and a quiet burbling from the open exhausts.