I know that Horizon dropped the MDS line, but I expected it to reappear under a new name, with either the same engines rebadged or new products. The company was Russian, did they go under? Or did Putin give them a military contract?
So far, nobody's given a definite answer to this legitimate question. IS MDS still alive in Russia? I only have one of them, and, yes, it does have carburetor issues, but overall, it's well made. If I could buy another MDS .48 without the carburetor, I'd do it.
It turned out that once again, the Americans were too stupid to follow the directions and to run them with 0-5% nitro fuel.
Indy R/C faced the same problem with their ASP line.
Many years ago, I discovered that glow two-strokes intended for sport flying did not benefit significantly from using more than 5% nitro, and, in fact, would begin to act funky if more was used, depending upon the fuel, its oil content, etc.
What is acting funky? Overheating and quitting because the extra nitro advanced the timing too far. You can preach until you are blue in the face and all you'll get back are blank stares and the intended beneficiary reaching for high nitro fuel.
Add a hot, humid day to the equation and you are guaranteed to hear the sheeple bleat, "This engine is junk!". All the while not knowing that it is they that are making the engine run as it does.
Do you think Horizon would tell people to use 5% nitro fuel? Oh no, that would ahve been contrary to their policy of pushing high nitro fuel in their four-strokes. Four-strokes actually can benefit from using more nitro, unlike most stock sport two-strokes.
Did the MDS have quality issues? Of course, but that doesn't mean that they were bad engines. They just needed some TLC. I bought a used complete airplane set up a while back. It is a Four Star Forty that appears to have been built from a kit. It has more than a few miles on it, but was worth the $150 that I paid for it. It came with an MDS .48 on the nose. I saw it fly a few years ago. It flew very well.
The only other engines I have "felt" by rocking the crankshaft back and forth that felt as good as this MDS has been Rossi. No kidding. It grossly overpowers this model and seldom is ran at full throttle, except for taking off and climbing straight up.
I think that MDS was not really a bad brand, but developed a nasty reputation because of folks not shimming the head to lower the compression when burning more than 5% nitro.
Did it have defects? At that price, you can bet on it, but it did have a good warranty. I'm kind of sad to see them go.
Hmmm...I just read what Ed Cregger wrote...a logical and intelligent approach....well done, Ed!!!! Frank P.S. I picked up an MSD 53, I think it is, in a box of junk r/c stuff I bought and it is running in a plane now that I fly...a real screamer, too...
I have a MDS 46 that was strong running but a bit touchy. I run 15% nitro, but I also fly at 5,500 feet altitude and the higher nitro works well for most flyers. With more flying time I noticed that the touchiness went away, meaning that it needed a longer break-in time. For this engine, given what has been said, I may try 10% nitro. Would I buy another MDS .... I don't know, I really like my Evolution 46 and 36, although I might get a GMS if I had a low cost application.
The Natural Philosopher wrote in news: firstname.lastname@example.org:
Two engines that are boat anchors are Cox .074 R/C Queen Bee and Fuji .099 R/C ABC Baffle engines.
I could never get the QB to run reliably, although I could the earlier Cox stuff, a poor finish for the end of reed valve design.
I bought 2 Fuji's from Hobby Shack back in the mid '80s for $10 apiece. However, fuel draw was very sensitive and engine was impossible to keep running no matter the fuel tank orientation. These engines seemed to be produced shortly before importation was discontinued and the small Fuji line fell into oblivion. The crankcase was filled with machine filings. Fortunately I removed the backplate prior to flipping the crank. However unfortunately they remain boxed up for their fickleness. In a way they were novel because they were baffle piston but ABC's, heavy as a .15 engine.
OS OTOH seemed to run with very little fiddling. An earlier generation .10 Max R/C Baffle and a later .15 SF were some of the easiest starting and running engines. I don't know if the latest crop of OS follow the same easy running tradition. Complaining has tapered off and they are still selling, so I guess they are okay, although I guess most would have prefered the aluminum backplate of earlier engines to the current nylon one.