Howard Tomlin

 http://www.justengines.unseen.org/mds.htm like "just engines" say, 99% probability of carb problems

depends what aerobatics you want to do i suppose, 3d, pattern, or sport flying. From the looks of it you want 3d and sport so i would recommend a funtana 90 or similar, then you can do both!. Both the extras are nice but you talk about a 60 size and upwards then go on to talk about a 45cc model, thats a fair size difference! Have you thought about a big ultimate, they certainly look the part and are a little different to your standard mono wings - dont be put off by a bipe they are just as easy to fly as a monowing and sometimes are better in windy conditions

Mine was a Pilot QB20HII (quick build 20 high wing),  we gave it a viking burial in the end! It was meant to be a trainer but it only flew at one speed, fast, anything less than that and it fell out of the sky. I went on to a super 60 ( 3 channel) and learnt to fly in a couple of afternoons!.  Also the precedent Bi-Fly we had handled like a brick with wings

Al, So what was the actual fault with the mds?, engine replacement seems like an expensive fix to what is probably a small problem....  I myself would have sought to track down the fault with the MDS (and whilst doing so check that the clunk wasnt stuck forward,  check that it wasnt plumbed in the wrong way around, and checked the mixture wasnt over lean, dirt in the needle, air leak in the fuel lines, carb o-rings, duff plug etc ) and perhaps seek a refund or replacement  - seeing as it was brand new from a model shop.  I just dont get why someone would buy another engine when the "faulty" one is under warranty.

I have an sc 53 (?) 2 stroke, goes like the preverbial!!!!  No complaints from me and it was only £50 brand new - who cares if it only lasts a couple of years ( this is not the manufactures stated life expectancy , its just that i generally abuse my 2 strokes by prop hanging loads)!

I can whole heartdly reccomend the Phoenix Sim, I fly many hours a week on that!

Until last year, all of my planes were kit built, I bought 2 x artfs in 07 . Im 33 and have been flying/building since i was 9, my first r/c model that i built was a "hepcat" it had an un throttled paw diesel!

here in the uk I use www.xcweather.co.uk

just to pull this back on thread !  I'm more intestered on whether the laser will be a suitable power plant. but thanks the same for your opinions on flick recovery....

Thanks to all of you guys for your help, i will persevere with the Laser 90 ( maybe wit h some 15%nitro ) and see how i get on with it.  When i flew it with the saito 90 twin it was a bit tail heavy, this was mainly due to the twin layout being very compact +  rear mounting arrangement ( i had to remove an inch from the rear of the cowl to suit this shorter nose set up).  During its maiden i carried out the standard : Stall at height (dropped right wing but only gently), low speed circuit at height (all good), spin and recover (L&R recovery ok), outside loop, inside loop (both straight with little rudder correction), roll right and left (all ok - and quick as well), four point roll (some rudder coupling noticed ) and knife edge (again rudder coupling but not too bad) On landing I brought it in on a fairly steady approach and subsequently flared it into a perfect three pointer engine running about haf way down the strip, I was quited chuffed with that considering it was a tail heavy maiden flight. When i got it back to the pits i checked the fuel remaining and noticed that i was virtually out of fuel, this was probably because the motor was nearly at full chat for the whole flight - hence the requirement for an engine swap before i fly it next.  The shape of the wing no doubt makes it more susceptable to tip stalling and i have also heard about cap's etc flicking out during tight loops (probably because they have similar shaped wings), however i was fairly gentle with the loops etc. as the speed really wasnt there from the saito twin so no problems. I will certainly bear in mind your comments during the next flight and probably try to write up some more details if anyone is interested.  Perhaps its a good idea for a section for reviews from forum users on models they own detailing engines used etc. this could become a great database for others to choose models and engine setups

So i put all the data into the thrust hp program and it reckons that i should have a 1.4 -1.6 thrust to weight ratio,  Does that mean that it should be accelerating in a vertical climb????

if anything it would be a saito if i had to install anything bigger than the laser, i've heard some nightmare stories about YS engines failing to start etc.  The all up weight of the model c/w laser 90 should be 3220g approx.  As for the drag, i have no idea, is there a formula for that?

Recently I built (ok its an artf) a Graupner 300s, the Patty Wagstaff one i think it says for 61 2st on the box. For the first engine choice I installed the saito 90T ( the original version) c/w on board glow system (to keep both cylinders lit, I hate unreliable engines) and a bigger tank.  This combination looks really good with both the cylinders poking out of the cowl, however it really wasnt powerful enough for the model and I pretty much had to fly it on full throttle just to get loops, rolls, knife edges etc.,  So unfortunately the saito has had to go back on the shelf in the work shop.  Its not all bad news though as I happen to have a Laser 90 and an irvine 61 2st also waiting on the shelf, the irvine has a lot of hours on oit whereas the laser doesnt, I also prefer 4 st to 2 st for noise reasons.  Question is ( yes i finally got to it) do you guys think the laser 90 will be able to power it- bearing in mind it wont have the 2x c cell on board glow system anymore and it should have less mechanical losses as its a single pot.  Does anyone have a similar model and what have you used in it if so.  note: I have a 3d model which is completely loony so this plane is just for standard "real" aerobatics ie vertical rolls lomcevaks etc..