A Good Day (for flying)

Now I cant get rich quick anymore. I'll never get this blasted Honda fixed.

Sorry, John. Would you like to scan my '88 Honda repair manual and send it to you? I also can readily obtain a copy of the get rich quick chain letter and send it to you as well. :-P

Sourdough, you do than and put it in the rucksack in your kiak and paddle it on down to the PO in Halibut Guts. Address it to me in BillsBeartrap, Tennessee. Thats right across the State line from Tungincheek, Georgia.

Jon,
Let me know when you're next planning to be near Infera Landing, Oklahoma. I have friends there that I'm planning to visit in the near future. Maybe I can time my visit to coincide with yours so that we can get together for a cup o' joe. Since I no longer have the '88 Honda, I could give you my manual at that time. That would save me a lot of scanning time and effort.

By the way, is your Honda painted with Rustoleum or Krylon?

You guys are sure using a lot of "key" words, aren't you? Trying to see if some of the "crazies" will come in, are you?

I might have to put some of these words on the "forbidden" list such as they do with "ebay" at RC Online.

(Let's see, no "Kryoleum", no "Hondamaha", no....)

Hello- hello- hello !! To heck with fix'n the Hound-a
I'm checking to see if my compooter is fix'd.
Bigiron

Leonard,

I truly do not wish to involve your new endeavor in any mud slinging. I won't say anything about RCO except to state that, as is their right, they not only censor objectionable material, but anything which might be construed as competition as well. I wonder how long it will be before any mention of this site appears in the censored format, since, even though you do not show banner ads, etc., the forum is located at a commercial site.

It's the folks who don't acknowledge their competition and try to restrict access to them who often are beaten by the competition in the long run. Flightlines is a forum type "competition" for RCO, while eBay is competition not only for the Swp Shop Forums, but also for the various sponsors.

Let's hope that RCO, whose CL denizens are a generally good bunch, lightens up a bit.

Now, Hmmmmmm.....How is it that I get my signature to print automatically?

Click on the "User" icon on the top of the Lobby, then check the box on "Modify your Member profile", click "Submit" then add whatever signature you wish in the signature box. Big Box. Make like John Hancock if you wish.

will it or wont it sign my name

Guess not. We have discovered a bug that when someone uses an alphanumeric name or has a space in his name the signature doesn't work. It'll get fixed, but in the meantime, you all with spaces will have to go without signatures.

Hey John,

Could be worse. You could have a 94 Explorer with a blown head gasket and cracked head sitting in your garage. Guess you know what I'm doing this weekend.

I have a tendency to take threads in new directions. Tony Elmore was reading some threads here and there in which this modeller or that other one rated some engines "too small" for a given airframe (at least, for a beginner in the case of 20's for a Buster in Marvin's opinion). I think that British kit makers are less likely to produce lead-sled kits like so many of the Midwest, Sterling, etc. planes were, and thus rate their planes for "smaller" engines than is commonly done here.

But the Sterling P51/Yak9 pair are even less suitable for 19's than the Buster. High wing loadings on those, matched to the low lift from a skinny airfoil, so for an ordinary baffle piston type .19 those would be a poor match. But the Veco 19's were in a class of their own, with high power for their size very close to that of 20's like the FP's (that was the second case where some messager disagreed about using a 19 on a 38" span plane, with the 40" Buster and a 20 being less of a problem in my view, given a better airfoil and wing loading).

I'd like to see the neat charts that Bob Reeves has been so nice to host on his web site expanded. The motor charts presently are just physical size data; it would be great to add HP & Torque numbers (and some more engines as well!)

Then, on the stunter stats charts, add some estimated wing loading numbers for an average example, PARTICULARLY on those designs available as kits. That way, the discussions of what size engine is correct for what size plane don't have to be mere statements of personal opinion. We could have some semi- objective basis for making comparisons.

(http://www.somethinxtra.com/stunt/stats.htm)

One of the problems with this is stock and modified. Since a lot of people run modified modern engines, and they could be modified by different people, the results could be far different as to torque and power. I don't even know if people have true figures on a lot of these, either, or if that would even give us the true picture.

Size, weight, mounting dimensions, muffler dimensions are all relevant, however, as would representative prop sizes. But even on the latter issue you get different opinions. Take the PA-61 as a good example. Some are running 2 blade props, some three blade. Some are running 11.5 inch diameter, some 12, some 12.5, some 13, and now some are even running 13.5 inch diameter 3 blade props on the engine.

The 4-cycle engines produce far less horsepower than some of the modern Schnurle 2-cycles, yet will turn far bigger props and produce more thrust for our purposes. (The Schnurle will win a speed race, however.) Representative props (or maximum size props) could be listed, but it would be a monumental chore to sort it all out.

Probably should start another thread but while we are on the subject..

I have really been contemplating on exactly what to do with the StuntStats site.. Leonard is correct and Kiwi you should know as you gave me the starting data, much of the info gathering is very tedious. I have really been strapped for personal time lately.. Seems as though as soon as I got StuntStats off the ground my business took off and is demanding entirely to much of my day. I have a ton of info left by site visitors that I just haven't had time to get to and the site is in desperate need of a re-vamp..

I have been thinking of simplifying it somewhat by only putting planes and engines on the site that I have all the data for.. The basic purpose of the site was so one could compare proven models and engines. I feel this goal could be meet without listing every plane and engine ever built.

If any one has any ideas or would like to volunteer to help with the site.. Please jump right out there and be heard..