> I used to run OS engines in my helicopters many years ago. The last one I
> had, took a replacement carb (Supertiger 60) and a new piston & liner to
> make it idle right, transition properly, and make decent power on the top
> end. :-(
> Since then, I've run YS 60's exclusively. I've yet to have a problem with
> them. I know a bunch of folks who run the C-spec 91. It's supposed to
> more power than it's YS competition but considering all the comments I
> to continually hear about them (ie: have to mod this, replace that, etc.)
> make them run anywhere near consistent, I don't see the point. Maybe
> has the time and recourses to make the modifications necessary to make his
> run like it should have in the first place but I don't.
> Can anyone explain to me "why" people keep putting up with this kind of
> from OS?
I would think because OS have built the most reliable engines over the
years. They took model engines out of the dark ages where a degree in fluid
dynamics was necessary just to get the ***s to run and up to the point
where their engines would run almost right out of the box. Trouble is, they
didn't run far enough:-)))
They have some of the finest engines on the market, quality wise.
> There's no excuse for not being able to pull the C-spec out of the box and
> have it run correctly without jumping through hoops in the process.
I agree, but the early YS motors gave lots of head scratching moments too.
I've not had anything to do with YS for a number of years and little to do
with the larger displacement OS's either, but I'm about to nail a "C" spec
(unpumped) into one of my heli's. time will tell if the unpumped version is
any better than the pumped version.
> doesn't seem to have this problem as far as I know. Am I missing
> here? :-|
Just YS's development period for their pumped motors. Nothing of any real
Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)
Beavisland now lives at