Mr. Hyde on pipe is done...

Finally...

I took the opprotunity to fix all the cosmetics on the plane, wet sand the whole thing and buff it.

It looks better now than when it was new.

Wish I had a digital camera.

Flew this morning with the RO Jett.

Oh, it's on like Donkey Kong...

More details please??

>More details please??

It runs awesome. What can I say? I had all the power I need and the setup worked great. No vibes at all.

Slightly better in the wind. It was blowing pretty good by the end of the session and I can see some of the pipe effect at work.

I was mostly retrimming the plane. Just what the Doctor odrered.

MAD CORNER.

I will share more as I get it worked out.

z

I guess I'll have to fly in Texas sometime.

>Brad is coming full circle.
>
>I think it has been three years...I know at least two. From
>when the Saturn went out with a 72 in the nose at 10" There
>were many threads after that plane saying the 4s could turn
>like a 2s even with all the extra weight!

It did turn like MOST airplanes. That has nothing to do with whether it will turn like the BEST airplanes. I watched Bob G. fly that airplane several times, I would say he turned it as well as his big planes, maybe better in some ways.

Many threads
>about how the 4s will not give up in the corner like a 2s
>will.

It won't.

>Wow has time flown by and many conversations passed.
>
>Still hunting for but never really finding a cure for the
>"burn down effect" Some say we are crazy and the effect
>isnt there.(Come to Texas with your 4s and you will know it
>before your first flight is over, I promise)

I believe I have been very consistent. I have always said that the 4 cycle had many strengths and many weaknesses, just like any other setup. For the period of time I passed through it was a wonderful setup and I encourage anyone who is not specifically shooting for a Top 10 at the Nats to pursue a 4 stroke, as they are easier to fly than a marginal 2 stroke setup.

I have also been clear that the pattern qualities necessary to to fly well at the Nats as it exists today will allow nothing less than absolutely STELLAR performance in order to change "brackets". So that is what I ma shooting for. I have made this clear.

Doug Moon made a similar change and has apparently experienced brain fade. The "Nats plane" was a quantum leap over the little Bear's in capability. He also went the PA 65 over his worn out PA 61. This, tpgether with talent and determination enabled him achieve Rookie of the Year.

You took my post wrong.

My original post was simply a reflection on the past couple of years.

Oh well...

>Doug Moon made a similar change and has apparently
>experienced brain fade. The "Nats plane" was a quantum leap
>over the little Bear's in capability. He also went the PA
>65 over his worn out PA 61. This, tpgether with talent and
>determination enabled him achieve Rookie of the Year.

"brain fade" What is this supposed to mean?

When have I ever said contrary to the above? Please tell me when.

That's right, never. Therefore I have never had a "brain fade" as you have stated.

The change I made was not similar to what you did in any way. I simply built a better plane and stayed with the same amount of strokes in my engine and it worked. As I see it I went forward in the same direction I had been going.

However you are making a change that is 180 in direction. The two engine types are vastly different. As you have found out the more you have run them the further apart they are. Switching from 4s to 2s is a big change in philosophy(your word not mine)

I have always said without a doubt that the my latest nats plane has been my best effort yet. I have at times said the Furias was excellent but never got to ring it out. Again no brain fading there.

Your negative comment towards me makes no sense at all.

Why I have to defend myself I dont know. I have never stated one thing and then turned around and said the opposite was true.

I think this is a case where the facial expression and the tone of the voice is unseen and unheard. Ergo a mis-interpretation of the intended remarks. The keyboard is so impersonal. Peace brothers..Grins

>I think this is a case where the facial expression and the
>tone of the voice is unseen and unheard. Ergo a
>mis-interpretation of the intended remarks. The keyboard is
>so impersonal. Peace brothers..Grins

Oh, he'll live. We talk like that all the time.

He is a puppy dog really. He just likes to bust my balls on the Internet, I mistakenly thought that is what he was doing.

Sorry, Dougie.

I just don't want people to get the wrong impression and give up on the 4 stroke.

Sometimes you have to make changes to effect real change. Not "repeating the same thing and expecting different results". That is what I am doing.

>>>
>I just don't want people to get the wrong impression and
>give up on the 4 stroke.
>
>Don't worry Doug, Uncle Milty is "all up in it"

>>>>
>>I just don't want people to get the wrong impression and
>>give up on the 4 stroke.
>>
>>Don't worry Doug, Uncle Milty is "all up in it"

You keep saying that. Nothing so far to report?

>However you are making a change that is 180 in direction.
>The two engine types are vastly different. As you have
>found out the more you have run them the further apart they
>are. Switching from 4s to 2s is a big change in
>philosophy(your word not mine)

Hey, guys, If I can play the unaccustomed role of peacemaker...

People have to try things. Usually, when you try something new, you pick on one characteristic that you really like (and if you are smart, corrects the shortcoming you might have had in the previous system). So you get enthusiastic, and are happy with the change. But usually, the thing you liked is not the *only* change. But it takes some time to figure out what the other changes are. So you are enthusiastic for a while, and then as you get the full picture, it may fade. As long as you don't simply fool yourself into ignoring the shortcomings, and you remain objective, you may go a year or so, and then realize that it's not a *net* improvement. So you may change back. Only occasionally do you find something that's unequivocally better (ST46/60 -> tuned pipe) but it takes a while to determine. It would appear that 4-stroke --> 2-stroke is a matter of rearranging problems (no excessive power bursts, but less vertical performance, more line tension but requires props that impact the corners, etc.) For any individual, it may or may not be an improvement.

I applaud Brad for having been intellectually honest enough to admit that even after having taken 4-strokes as his "cause" and perhaps overselling the idea, there are shortcomings as well, and be willing to make a reasonable shot at something else for at least a comparison. Maybe he'll find the results a net positive with the RO-Jett, and maybe the 4-stroke will be better overall for him. Maybe it will turn out differently for someone else. And what difference does it make?

But I also see no need for finger-pointing, excuses, whatever. It's a model airplane engine, and none of you are making any money off it. If anyone made any mistakes or was wrong, so what? Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned about adopting "causes" or jumping on badwagons, but if no one ever bought another 4-stroke, what difference should it make to you and me? In a more general comment, why to we seem to want to invest ourselves in particular engines/styles/"philosophies"?

> I applaud Brad for having been intellectually honest
>enough to admit that even after having taken 4-strokes as
>his "cause" and perhaps overselling the idea, there are
>shortcomings as well, and be willing to make a reasonable
>shot at something else for at least a comparison.

The "overselling" stings a little.

I think anyone who tries to sell ANYTHING new to the stunt community is taken as a "rebel" even if just a little. I think I helped take the 4 stroke to a different level than it was previously on, and many people have benefitted from my personal sweat. If I share these ideas and are excited about them, I get the feeling I taken as being "pushy". That is the stunt way I guess.

I kind of get the feeling that there might be a lot of "told you so's" in my future if I did decide to put the 4 stroke on the back burner, which is sad. I hope this is not the case, but my guess is that there will be lot of people lining up for that job.

I think that some people may have missed the point that I intend on making the necessary changes to do well IN ONE CONTEST. This is really no different than P. Walker formulating a plan to win ONE CONTEST. I believe I know what the judges are looking for in a Nats pattern and I plan on giving it to them to the best of my ability. It's a long way to drive to Muncie to go home early every year.

Snip snip...

Doug Moon made a similar change and has apparently experienced brain fade. The "Nats plane" was a quantum leap over the little Bear's in capability. He also went the PA 65 over his worn out PA 61. This, tpgether with talent and determination enabled him achieve Rookie of the Year.

You still never did clarify what you meant by this.

AND you did mean something by this.

>Snip snip...
>
>Doug Moon made a similar change and has apparently
>experienced brain fade. The "Nats plane" was a quantum leap
>over the little Bear's in capability. He also went the PA 65
>over his worn out PA 61. This, tpgether with talent and
>determination enabled him achieve Rookie of the Year.
>
>
>You still never did clarify what you meant by this.
>
>AND you did mean something by this.

...all I meant was sometimes there needs to be change to "step up". I am just trying to the same thing. I was just reminding you.

I thought I said some nice things, this was not meant to be a dig. I always remember when you first got that plane. I said that you two "fit each other". This change was also the reason I said you should waste no further time in Advanced. The change in equipment had helped elevate you to another level.

I am just doing what you told me, taking my own advice.

>
>> I applaud Brad for having been intellectually honest
>>enough to admit that even after having taken 4-strokes as
>>his "cause" and perhaps overselling the idea, there are
>>shortcomings as well, and be willing to make a reasonable
>>shot at something else for at least a comparison.
>
>The "overselling" stings a little.
>
>I think anyone who tries to sell ANYTHING new to the stunt
>community is taken as a "rebel" even if just a little.

Short response - why are you trying to "sell" anything to anyone? And if you are trying to "sell" me on something, why should I not take it with a grain of salt?

I certainly intended no offense. But certainly, I look at least somewhat askance at people who take it as a job to "promote" something. Why do you (or by extension, anyone else) care if someone is running a 4-stroke, a 2-stroke, or a CO2 motor? If nothing else, "promotion" doesn't work, at least among serious competitive stunt fliers. Maybe with the strap-hangers and wannabes, but not the serious fliers. Particularly if the promotion starts *long before* the whole story is in - like several YEARS before the full story could possibly be in.

You must understand by now that anything having a "promotional" nature is somewhat suspect right off the bat. It's not being a "rebel", it's a matter of having an agenda,which is a good description of "promoter". You can have an agenda and still be right and possess much useful information, but you can't be surprised when people examine and question the information more carefully.

Why do you (or by extension, anyone
>else) care if someone is running a 4-stroke, a 2-stroke, or
>a CO2 motor? If nothing else, "promotion" doesn't work, at
>least among serious competitive stunt fliers. Maybe with the
>strap-hangers and wannabes, but not the serious fliers.
>Particularly if the promotion starts *long before* the whole
>story is in - like several YEARS before the full story could
>possibly be in.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

I think that most of the effort that I have expended in "selling" the 4 stroke has really been the for "strap-hangers and wannabees" as you called them. Guys like myself (since I am also a wannabee per Whitely) who just wanted a reliable package to put in some patterns with a real cool sound. (This is really no different than offering a $50 20 FP as a viable stunt powerplant). It was never my intention to say that the 4 stroke would be the next "revolution" to stunt, only that they had some particularly cool things about them that could benefit a lot of people in stunt. I know I had countless hours of practice with my 4 strokes, and I advanced leaps and bounds with them. I also have new plane that might just be the ticket.

If I admit that my goals have changed as I continue to advance as a flier, something that has nothing to do with the engine I run, and that the new goals may require a tweak in my setup ON AN EXISTING AIRPLANE, so be it.

I find it a little hard to swallow that you might infer that I should be lumped in with some group who might be campaigning for 4 strokes as the ultimate solution to all our problems(I think you might have confused with some other 4 stroke folks), as I have never personally said the 4 strokes were superior, or more successful, or did not have there shortcomings. IN FACT I HAVE SHARED THESE SHORTCOMINGS OVER AND OVER RIGHT HERE ON THIS FORUM. Also, in the spirit of fairness I shared the things I liked about them.

I have always been open and honest that I was trying to make the 4 stroke perform as well as the 2 cycle equivalents and have never achieved that level, which might be obvious from my finishes in local contests even. My Nats performances were less than stellar also. There is a lot more to making the 4 stroke work than just a prop change or a clunk tank, it will require further development in terms of airplane design. I do believe the 4 stroke AIRPLANES, if set up properly can perform with the 2 strokes(See Gordon Delaney for info). I simply do not feel I have a lot more effort left in me to make it work, as I have been developing in a vaccuum.

My question to YOU is this. Why would anybody in the stunt community, regardless of there status or whatever, be concerned about what I wanted to promote if I so choose? Especially if it is offered in the spirit of sharing. I have noticed no negative effects of sharing my findings in the use of the 4 stroke. Are there some individuals that been "led astray" (as one flier once put it) by my campaigning in the 4 stroke method? I have never said anything to the effect of "put in a 4 stroke and you will immediately win the Nats 'cause they's just betta" even though I get the impression that some people think I have said something to that effect. That is simply not true.

Also, I am curious, when will the full story be in exactly? Please set a date, as I am looking forward to that day with great anticipation.

>Also, I am curious, when will the full story be in exactly?
>Please set a date, as I am looking forward to that day with
>great anticipation.

OK, fine. I'm done. There's no point in further discussing it.

>
>>Also, I am curious, when will the full story be in exactly?
>>Please set a date, as I am looking forward to that day with
>>great anticipation.
>
> OK, fine. I'm done. There's no point in further
>discussing it.
>
> Brett

I apoligize if I seemed a bit touchy. I guess I am. Sorry.

I like flying with 4-stroke engines.

>I encourage anyone who
>is not specifically shooting for a Top 10 at the Nats to
>pursue a 4 stroke, as they are easier to fly than a marginal
>2 stroke setup.

I had to grin when I read this as I probably won't go to the Nats as I'm not planning on it. I live in So. Ca. and I just made Intermediate and promptly crashed all my planes. I am still somewhat in the beginner mode trying to learn as much as I can as fast as I can at 62 years young. I haven't even built a full bodied ship yet, but will as soon as I finish the 3 profiles I'm working on. After crashing the only thing that really bothers me is the fact that I don't have a backup plane to fly. So that's why the 3 planes on the building board. But if you were to ask my friends or my wife they would tell you I am feverishly building because I'm going to the Nats to place in the top ten or die. Kinda silly but I'm having fun!!
Think I'll buy a four stroke.......NAW, I'm going to the NATS. to place in the top ten!!!! Grins

Ok gents, lets keep this in mind when we all talk about whats going to win or get you into the top 10 or whatever...

The engine ONLY pulls the model forward. Ive never seen an engine by itself win an event.
Ive never seen anyone, fly sub level flying switch to the "latest and greatest" and dominate.
The french didnt DOMINATE with the 4 strokes, but lots of people are using them, The USA team didnt DOMINATE with pipes, but lots of people are using them.
The Chinese did DOMINATE, and the only bit of equipment they used to do so is freely avaliable to everyone and its free of charge.

Go order 1 x #practice $ 0.00