More power better?

Looking for input and opinions. Is more power generally better?

I have an ARF Oriental, and numerous engine choices, could go with the Fox .35 like the original, or an OS 25FP which should be plenty of power, or up the ante and use an older Max H .40, or even a modern .40 -.45.

Is there any real advantage to the increased power, enough to offset the increased weight and fuel consumption? If the engine profides enough power for good performance, will more power mean better performance?

I've never had a full fuselage / flapped stunter before, but have found that more engine on a profile doesn't necessarily make it fly better. My Ring Jr. was much easier to fly with an .09 Medallion than a .15 schneurle.

I am in the process of coverin' and finishin' an ARC oriental, and for power I'm gonna use an old Merco 40 that GMA re-did for me a few years back..
It has a good deal of TORQUE and 2-4 breaks well while turnin' an 11x6 APC or other props.
It isn't a big drinker either, about 6.5 min on 4 oz of 5% fuel..

Gil:9

The real question is controlled power. You do not want to go to the races. You want an engine/prop combo that will give you the proper lap times and that picks up a bit uphill and shuts off a bit down hill (that is the ideal). Then you can maintain constant maneuver speeds. That said, when the airplane turns a corner, there is a period where it is going to need to accelerate back to the desired lap speed. If the engine is too small it may be able to fly level at the proper lap speeds, but will slow down considerably in these maneuvers. It will also provide less tension overhead.

That said, you still need to harness the power to the proper prop (like tires on a drag racer) or the power will be wasted. If the prop is too big for the plane or the engine gets too heavy, it will become counter productive. If you end up having to add weight to the tail to counter excess weight in the nose, you will end up with a bar bell effect that hurts the turn and performance. A PA 40 and a PA 65 weight nearly the same. An FP 25 is lighter than an FP 20. But an LA 40 is a lot heaver than an FP 25, so in this particular plane it may prove counter productive.

If the plane is light and you are a sport flyer, the FP 25, Fox 35 (or something like a Brodak 40) may prove to be a better choice. If the plane gets over weight, or you are planning to (and capable of flying) in heavy winds, then the larger engine may prove to have an advantage. Contest flyers sometimes do not have a choice but to fly in heavier winds (again, if they are capable). Sport flyers always do.

Yes, as long as it doesn't really harm the balance of the plane and you then have to add dead weight to balance. A lot depends on the weight the plane can carry effectively. We started using the OS 32F (Smith rework) in place of the Fox 35 in an Ares that Aaron built about 8 years ago. The performance wasn't even in the same old ballpark. Last time out we replaced the 32 with a Magnum square head 36XL, box stock on Phil G.'s directions. There was an immediate, noticeable performance jump again. The Ares is under 40 oz.
Vertical and overhead, plus windy conditions is where you can really tell a difference.
If the Oriental is light, then I would go with a schneurle engine, even a Magnum 36XLII if you can get one. $69.95 from Hobby People plus venturi and NVA. It runs in a nice wet 2 cycle, and just pulls the dog snot out of the plane. Keith Varley has one on pipe in his Saturn, where I anm using a PA 51 on pipe. Tells you that thes new engines are strong, and need no work to perform.
Mo' Power!!!!!
Bill <><

I've been considering sending my NIB 32F to Randy for rework. Are you saying it won't be as good as a strong Fox 35?

Hi Ry,
To the contrary I meant it (OS 32) caused quite a large performance boost to the plane. Our Randy Smith 32F was considerably stronger.
And the MAgnum 36XLII is stronger yet.
Sorry for the confusion.
Bill <><

>Looking for input and opinions. Is more power generally
>better?
>
>If you are talking in general terms, then my opinion is he^& yes!! Almost ALL of the top flyers are flying planes that are for the most part grossly overpowered. This last Sunday October 3 2004, Dave Sabon won Expert at a Los Angeles contest flying a Shark 45 with, get this, a PA 65! The plane flew real good. Gene Molnar took third place in Advanced at the same contest with a plane that weighed 86oz with a home made engine that made the plane fly like a bat out of he*^. Windy Urtnowski is going to send me a video tape of his 5th place Nats Typhoon with his Saito 91. It is time for me to think about my next motor and I am looking at the 91 which I rejected years ago as a replacement for my venerable Saito 72. I have never gone down in power once I have gone up.

>Looking for input and opinions. Is more power generally
>better?
>

ARRRGH! I give up.

I think Brett's reaction may be related to the definition of power. Power does have an official definition, and it's not what folks in this discussion-- and stunt flyers in general-- mean when they use the term. I've been trying to figure out what the stunt flyer's definition of power is. I used to think it is rate of change of (actual) power with airspeed, but now I think maybe it's a more complicated transfer function of airspeed to power. Stunt flyers may even differ from each other in their definitions of power.

Stunt flyers may
>even differ from each other in their definitions of power.

I have a hard time imagining that.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-07-04 AT 09:26 AM (CDT)
 
I can understand Brett's "anguish" (to quote another post).
If you do use an engine that has way more power than necessary (whatever your definition of *power* is), there can be a lot of headaches taming that *power*.
Brett has always pointed out, IIRC, that it is the "total package" that creates a successful CLPA ship.
Even though I was one of the first to jump in with *yes* more power is best, it is because I have seen a lot of less experienced fliers under*power* their planes and that is a BAD situation for a less experienced flier.
Brett, and the rest of the *top 20* (in his case top 3)
practice a lot more than most of us, have much more experience bcause of this, and have learned much more than most of us, as it should be.
Yes, my definition of *power* might be different than others, but not as far off as I might think. It may just be a case of different semantics (sp).
I know that whatever my definition of power might be, it shows up in the vertical and overhead performance, and in windy conditions, of my ships. That is good.
I have run the VF 40 with Paul and Randy Smith's suggestions, and the PA's on randy's set ups. When we switched a VF 40 to a PA 40 in one of Aaron's planes we saw a difference (not what I would call more *power*, but a different run characteristic), when we replaced the PA 40 with a PA 61 there was a SIGNIFICANT difference in what I would call usuable *power*. They were all using good, tested set ups. Given the choice, the plane was easier to fly with the 61.
I don't disagree with Brett at all, actually, I just want to err on the *up* side for my safety's sake. I am not in the position to fly as much as the really great fliers, so I need more to help me out.
And BTW: I am finishing the repairs to an old TF Flite Streak for the S.O. 40/2 PF and can't wait to see it's performance. All set up as Brett, and Dan, suggest. But I already know (in my definition) that it has more *power* than the Fox 35 that it used to fly on.
As long as we are having fun with our toy airplanes............
Bill <><

Thanks to all for the input - sincere wishes for a speedy recovery to Brett for the mental anguish I caused him.

>Thanks to all for the input - sincere wishes for a speedy
>recovery to Brett for the mental anguish I caused him.

As far as mental anguish goes, this is "in the noise" compared to a lot of other things!

LAST EDITED ON Oct-09-04 AT 07:16 PM (CDT)
 
>>Thanks to all for the input - sincere wishes for a speedy
>>recovery to Brett for the mental anguish I caused him.
>
> As far as mental anguish goes, this is "in the noise"
>compared to a lot of other things!
>
> Brett

See other thread with archive link from Dirt's thread.

Having a nice excess of "power" is not a bad thing. Some people make very good use of the excess power (I will use this word as I do not know of a better one). Today's best setups (as far as I am concerned) use extra *dispacement* to pull the same prop loads of the old days, allowing the engine to work in its "cool mode". An OS VF for example is really more of an engine running in its constant *hot mode*, a PA 65 could pull the same prop and airplane and be more in its "cool mode". You could make the argument that one is certainly not better , on the scoreboard where it counts, in the longrun. The PA (let's not forget the RO Jett also) might allow one to have a little more breathing room if the conditions got bad. I think Ted, David, Brett, Doug Moon, Bob G., Richard, and others have proven that a little room to "step on the throttle" if need be can a very good thing if you travel half way across the country to fly.

Personally, I think more is gained from good propellors when it comes to putting the rubber to the road. I know I have simply SHOCKED at the performance of some relatively "small" and "simple" propellors. I ran the UCT Eather for about 6 months and ran it both on the Saito 72 and the RO Jett, they were really about equal in performance, with the nod going to RO Jett for useablity and flexibility. The same RO Jett 65 engine, with the same settings is simply amazing with the 12.5 FB Eather "green prop". It is simply no wonder I have been frustrated by my inability to compete with the really good fliers when the wind blows, I think many have simply had it much easier. The green prop is almost an unfair advantage in the wind with the RO Jett and the engine simply refuses to see the load or the wind, and the constant speed is like nothing I have ever flown.

The green prop does, however, cut off some of the corner, and if one were really wanting to make the corners look "impossible" going smaller, like down to 11.5 on the UCT might be the way to go. There are several factors involved obviously. I do, however see a constant right around 12" in diameter that is a definite cutoff point for the airplane "feeling the corners".

I am sure there are SEVERAL other combinations that will do exactly the same thing if the combination is found.

I have always marveled at Doug and Bob's setup in the wind. I would be hard pressed to say that a good VF 40 would be capable of pulling an airplane through 15-20 MPH winds at near 6 second laps without any signs of whip up or slack lines. I could be wrong however. Lod knows I am wrong all the time )it is called learning I guess).

Attaining enough "thrust or power" to make it successfully through some strong wind, being able to easily guide the airplane through many different conditions (turbulance and wind), maintaining near constant speed, and being able to turn sharp enough to put your corners "on the map" or beyond, appears to all have as much to do with the prop as anything else. This all of course assumes the airplane is in reasonable trim to begin with.

Keep in mind, this works for me and many others, but a good number of fliers at the Worlds successfully broke of my own "rules" and flew wonderfully.

Bill,
I would not use a Fox 35 in your ARF. The best bet may be in the following OS35FP, AT36, OS40FP or LA, Rustler .40, Brodak .40 or a engine of this size that you are familiar with. This should be a good starting point for you. I know i'll get killed on this but do not confine yourself to a small engine with screaming RPM's I do not believe this is the way to go. One of Len's OS35FP would be a great engine for this application.

Thanks Mike,
I'm really leaning toward using the OS .40 Max-H I have available. Just need to call Len and order a venturi / needle assy for it, and a tank, maybe a tounge muffler to replace the stock one.
Oh no! my wife is gonna find another box from Stuka Stunt. You should have seen the look on her face when she saw the box for the Oriental, it was marked #3 of 10, she asked if I was getting 7 more!

I asked a similar question a while back, but it was about the ARF Nobler. My question supposedly centered around whether the muffler on a Fox 35 meant that it was no longer powerful enough for the familiar combination of 4-2-4 runs with classic stunters.

I never really got a specific answer - only opinions on Ford vs. Chevy. The point being that an unmuffled Fox 35 was plenty for a Nobler (or Oriental), or any other classic - having had several versions of that combination in the past. (not to mention the majority of Nats winners from 1950-1970)

It seems to me the question is how to get that "power" - slow laps, but plenty of overhead and cornering acceleration with a muffler and modern fuel. It doesn't have to be 4-2-4, that's just the most obvious evidence that the engine responds as needed.

I have read almost every thread in the archives, and this is still not clear to me. In fact, there was a recent thread that implied that some modern motors were too powerful. Brodak 40, Double Star, AT, LA, etc. - were on the verge of so much power with some of these ARF's that props were not even made with a low enough pitch.

I second the "Arghhhh", but for different reasons.

I have been flying my ARF Nobler quite a bit. Started with OS 35 that was set up for stunt. Ran great, but, marginal on fuel. After the breadin period on the Brodak 40. It was put in the ARF. Just to see how it was going to run. Lots of power as it never got out of what I would call a four stroke until last several laps. Took it out of plane immediately to save for Olympic I am finishing. Think the thought hit me. George Aldrich flew Fox 35's in his. So that is what is in mine. Has tongue muffler and Master Airscrew 10-6 wood. Still having trouble getting uniflow in proper position. But, I am fairly happy with it. It is nothing like the Brodak Kit version of the Nobler. It flew great until pilot error got to it. Later, DOC

>It is nothing like the Brodak Kit version of the Nobler.
>Later, DOC

Hi Doc, I know you are aware that the Brodak kit is of George's "Original" Nobler, while the TF ARF is a take off on the '57 Green Box kit. Two significantly different planes.
Bill <><

Hope this question is in line with this thread. I'm going to start building a 57 Nobler (the old Top-Flite one) that I just received. Yes, I know I'm a glutton for punishment, but I like the idea of testing my craftsmanship again. Question: When I finally finish it, will the Fox 40(iron piston; bushed crank) be a good engine for it, or should I use a Fox 35, or even a 40LA? This is an old kit,judging by the fact that the mailing addresses have no zip codes.
Glen

Hi Glen,
From my personal opinion, I would use the latest L&J Fox 35, or DS 40. Basically the same engine since the DS is a Fox clone with an increase to .40 and Larry's engines are much stronger than stock..
All the others will work, also. But unless you are planning to win VSC, or fly in very strong winds, the Fox will do a great job.
I really like the Green Box Nobler, in fact the first World Champion's two planes used in 1960 were built from Green Box kits. One was used in two rounds for the FAI pattern, and the other, modified, was used for the AMA pattern round. This was from Mr. Grondal in a personal phone conversation before his passing.
George A. told me that his last plane was built straight from the box except for the nose block. All of those were powered by Fox 35s.
Steve Fitton from VA made great strides with a Fox powered Nobler in Adv.
Bill <><

Hi, Bill:
Thanks for the info. I built/totalled two Noblers back in the 60's, but can't remember whether they were 'Green Box', or not. All I can remember is that nose block! I'm thinking seriously about getting a plastic cowling so when I screw up trying to carve the wooden one, I'll have something to slap on and go flying. Also thinking about getting an ARF to fly during the months it will take me to build this one.
Thanks to you and everyone for being so helpful. I haven't run into any sarcasm in this CL forum, but it seems to run rampant on the RC side.
Glen

>Hi, Bill:
>Thanks for the info. I built/totalled two Noblers back in
>the 60's, but can't remember whether they were 'Green Box',
>or not.

If you flew them in the 1960s, and you built them from kits, they would have to be TF Green Box N's.

>Hi Glen,
>From my personal opinion, I would use the latest L&J Fox 35,
>or DS 40. Basically the same engine since the DS is a Fox
>clone with an increase to .40 and Larry's engines are much
>stronger than stock..
>All the others will work, also. But unless you are planning
>to win VSC, or fly in very strong winds, the Fox will do a
>great job.
>I really like the Green Box Nobler, in fact the first World
>Champion's two planes used in 1960 were built from Green Box
>kits. One was used in two rounds for the FAI pattern, and
>the other, modified, was used for the AMA pattern round.
>This was from Mr. Grondal in a personal phone conversation
>before his passing.
>George A. told me that his last plane was built straight
>from the box except for the nose block. All of those were
>powered by Fox 35s.
>Steve Fitton from VA made great strides with a Fox powered
>Nobler in Adv.
>Bill <><
>
Thanks for the plug Bill!

You CAN get away with a muffled Fox 35 in a Nobler, and have <good> power. Lots of people these days are used to what I would characterize as "heroic" power, which, as already pointed out, is pretty nice, but not always essential.(till expert level) And airplane design plays a huge role in what amount of power you can get away with. Bill is right about the strides I made with my Nobler -an intermediate or advanced flyer, with a straight, tolerably light Fox powered Nobler-flown within its limitations, can be competitive, and have alot of fun.
What do I mean by limitations? First, buy a quality muffler like a big art tube a good tongue muffler-keep weight off the nose and still let the engine run with some power. Keep the line length to 57-58' eyelet to eyelet. Try to keep the model weight around 42 or a bit less. 47 may have been fine in the 60's but the newer Foxes with mufflers are not making the power of an unmuffled one-unless crammed with lots of trick pieces. My Gieseke Nobler Bill mentioned started out at 38 ounces and flew very well. It was retired weighing 44 ounces, and while it still flew very well, you could feel it starting to lose some of the edge, especially in the hot weather. And fly the model alot. If you are flying some high zoot job all the time, and then jump to the Nobler, its gonna feel like having a wet dishrag on the end of the lines until you get used to managing energy and flying smooth again. And, trim is very important when you have less than heroic power. (yes gang, I know trim is always important!) A poorly trimmed model with lots of power is going to stay out on the end of the lines better until you've got the trim figured out-a less powerful model is going to have an easier time coming in on you if the trim is off. Furthermore, draggy setups like too much rudder offset or line rake don't do well on limited power.
One area where heroic power shines is turbulent air-my Nobler was awesome in the wind. Good penetration, but limited windup since the motor was already maxed out. The small size of the model meant stick forces were low even in heavy wind. But turbulent, swirling air was a real pain to fly in. If your flying site is surrounded by trees or other obstructions, maybe a Fox isn't the way to go.
One thing I liked about my Fox was that the needle setting was almost idiot proof. Once you got to the contest site and got a needle, you very rarely had to change it. You might be a tick lean in the morning and a tick rich in the afternoon, but it was mostly a tiny change in the way the motor sounded, without much detectable change in the performance of the model. An intermediate or advanced flyer can often pick up positions at the contest just because his competiton hasn't gotten his motor dialed in by the officials-he's running to fast/slow/over/underrun, and you get to grind out the same old pattern you do in practice. I suppose any engine is idiot proof if you work with it enough, but the Fox just seems more idiot proof than others.

owell, my thought for the moment, back to work

Great comments. I too, always liked the Fox needle valves. I think they get a lot of criticism because the needle is actually a pretty thick wedge - not a point. When I graduated from Cox .049's and my Fox 15 Shark, I was shocked at the needle valve setting with the Fox 35. Used to 4 1/2 turns open to start, I kept opening, and opening, and opening. Finally, at about 11-12 turns, the Fox 35 started and ran. With that much turn, it's kind of hard to get a wrong setting up or down.

About the nose block - I only remember the cowl blocks as an issue - 3 blocks glued onto a longer piece. Then you whittled and sanded forever. On my last green box Nobler (30 yrs ago) I made the mistake of gluing the wrong blocks. Like a dumba**, I held the blocks in my had while using a kitchen paring knife to slice through the glue joint.

I sliced all the way through and cut my entire palm and a digital nerve in one finger - had to have surgery to repair it a few months later. Yuck!

George just said that he had to replace that one part (nose block). Dont know why.
Bill <><

Mo' power is mo' better.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-07-04 AT 06:08 PM (CDT)
 
I really cant imagine why my Brodak Nobler would need any more power than the Fox puts out. The main challenge and lesson (After building the darned thing.), is to fly-it-like-a-Nobler.

If I wanted more power I might go to a Max-35S step up to a Rustler/Merco but why bother?

Noblers, to me, are about nostalgia and learning to fly within limits. George A. once told me that, "In the old days we learned to fly with lines slack half the time. Youre going to have to learn to trust the plane and use the wind to your advantage. It'll make you a better pilot."

If you want higher performance, build a higher performance plane.

BIGS

PS:
Steve nailed it on the head!

OK, I was being silly. Of course, I think that you need "enough" power. Usually, in my experience, the more controllable power you can get, the better. You can certainly fly planes that are marginally powered or underpowered. I flown a lot of planes that did a lot of freeflight maneuvers and did fine. But the question is, is more power better and I think the answer, depending on several factors, is yes. That's not to say that you can't fly a plane with less. You can certainly fly an Oriental with a box stock Fox 35 and chances are, you'll do just fine. But possibly not in all conditions and I think you might be happier in the end with a Brodak 40. That doesn't mean it won't fly with a Fox 35. I've watched Don McClave fly an Oriental with a hot rod Fox 35 and he does just fine, thank you.

It sort of depends on what makes you happy, what you're confortable with and what you think.

>George A. once told me that, "In the old days
>we learned to fly with lines slack half the time.

What is all this talk about slack lines? Far be it from me to dispute The Great One (GMA), but slack lines mean you run backwards as fast as you can.

That's whether it's a 1.20 or an .049, much less a Fox 35 and a Nobler.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-09-04 AT 06:33 PM (CDT)
 
Tom,

I'm not nearly as stupid as you seem think I am and I don't think George Aldrich was either.

Having slack lines has nothing to do with not having control of your aircraft. I think that most of us have found that at various times we'll have less line tension then at other times. A good example would be during a wing over or in the overhead eight.

What I learned to do when my lines go slack in a wing over, is to let the plane fly through the maneuver, knowing that it will pick up the tension on the downside. There will usually still be enough line tension to control the plane, even if the lines are alarmingly slack but control inputs at that time need to be subtle, lest we make a nerve racking situation worse.

An experienced pilot flying through the overhead eight, will sometimes experience slack lines but knowing that the plane is still in control, will successfully fly through the maneuver. It's not something we look forward to. It's a situation that we need to manage. Panic is not the answer.

This has nothing to do with "Catastrophic loss of line tension." That's when your lines are so slack that you find yourself running backwards around the circle trying to regain control.

If you are experiencing THAT phenomena, I would suggest that the plane might be substantially out of trim or that the pilot needs to pay much more attention to correct maneuver placement. This is IMHO especially important before investing large amounts of time and money, in complex aircraft.

Many many years ago, when Top Flites "Tutor" was the stunt trainer of choice, Windy referred to the advanced-beginner stage as "Working with tutor technology". That was the stage at which a developing pilot learned how to really "fly" the aircraft.

If we were talking about horseback riding I would say that the developing rider needs to understand when to control the horse and when to give the horse his 'head' and go along for the ride.

Limited size and limited power, can and will, teach a lot of lessons that a larger plane or more horsepower will tend to mask. These lessons are best learned early. That way, when you arrive at the Nats and the wind is blowing 20 knots, you can put in a flight despite the adverse conditions, instead of putting your plane back in the car.

I'm sure someone is going to put a PA-40 in Oriental and it might work extraordinarily well. I just don't think it's necessary!

BIGS,

Back in June/July 1997 SN, I wrote an article called "The Dance", talking about energy management in flying the stunt pattern. Here's an excerpt:

Watching a master stunt flier, we can appreciate the cleanliness of his corners. Though we instinctively admire such smoothness, there is more to be considered than appearance. The smoothness is clearly necessary for the ship to fly well.

Appearances sometimes deceive and cause false impressions about flying stunt. For example, it is easy to assume that some significant and comfortable amount of line tension is achievable under all or even most conditions. Or, worse, that such line tension is required to fly stunt well. The truth is that many of the very finest stunt ships have little or no line tension at times, particularly during maneuvers at elevations higher than 60 degrees.

But there's another secret: a decent stunt ship remains quite controllable, even as the lines start to bow at the point where line tension approaches zero. (If the ship is headed directly toward the flyer at 50 MPH, well, that's another matter!).

That middle paragraph immediately got me in trouble with a couple of flyers, who insisted that their (piped) ships absolutely NEVER suffered any lack of line tension. I ended up pasting in the following line:

(Objections from some fliers of piped ships, whose lines never bow, are duly noted.. )

That WOULD be a lovely situation, absolutely NEVER having any lack of line tension, and God bless whoever has achieved it. For the rest of us - we have to make do with occasional slack lines.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"The most savage controversies are about those matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." -Bertrand Russell

This has obviously devolved into semantics. Lines bowed do not mean lines slack. Bowing can be a catenary effect due to the small amount of uniformly distributed load caused by air friction. 0.018's do it more than 0.015's, etc.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

There's no such thing as "too much power",only power improperly applied, or power that carries with it a weight penalty which negates it.

hmmmm,
Under the heading if a little is good a lot must by way better...

I'm just finishing a Sig 1/2A Skyray for my new grandson, Ryan. I was planning on using a new Cox .049 but, after reading this thread, I'm thinking about pulling the Fox .59 out of the Stuntwagon hanging in my den and sticking it on the little beast.

What d'ya think?

>hmmmm,
>Under the heading if a little is good a lot must by way
>better...
>
>I'm just finishing a Sig 1/2A Skyray for my new grandson,
>Ryan. I was planning on using a new Cox .049 but, after
>reading this thread, I'm thinking about pulling the Fox .59
>out of the Stuntwagon hanging in my den and sticking it on
>the little beast.
>
>What d'ya think? }> }>
>
>Ted

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Ted:

Sounds O.K.to me,if you can keep the weight the same. Don't use the long shaft,the "nose moment"(leading edge to drive washer)will be too long. You might find you'll have to retard the spark a little. On the other hand, if you want to go real fast,get a pipe from Gary.