Dean Pappas Alert...

The new Flying Models, May 2006 issue:

Hmmm, I didn't see an ad for PAMPA. Did I miss it somehow?

Probably unrelated, I did see a review of a 60-ounce B****k Smoothie ARF. C'mon, that has to be a typo! Mr. Hubin, you are a known lurker, pass that sucker across the scales just one more time and report back to us!

(And while I have your attention, many thanks for your efforts with years of involvement in the production of Stunt News.)

Real good article on sandpaper. I've been using this stuff for many years, learned a few things, a couple "new" techniques.

And my buddy Dean dropped the ball!

Look, Dean Pappas and I have never actually met, although we have many mutual friends. And I regard his RC Pattern column as a must-read item.

In fact, it would serve one and all quite well to pay close attention to anything and everything Dean writes. After all, he--and Rich Tower, I believe--were the first to see opportunity in fiddling with pipes fitted to two-strokes, the potential application being CL Stunt.

Much more than mere cross-over technology, although something short of inventing the glow plug.

Page 32, second column, bottom: "Since the oil content in our fuel doesn't burn to create any horsepower, there is an ever-present urge to run less and less of a thinner oil to get better power."

Dean, my man! I, can, readily, put, up, with, way, way, too, too, too, many commas, this from a, like, totally, hyperactive comma key, along with other assorted awkwardness in your text, mainly because your editor is abdicating control when it come to his work product. Insert hated smiley-face icons...

But the quoted statement is wrong. The error is compounded by examples from automotive technology where windage is a challenge, although not one we face to any great degree, at least not when it comes to oil in the fuel. And there is a hint that there will be more discussion of lube, presumably based upon a flawed premise.

So, who knows why this is an erroneous assumption?

Further, while there is in fact an advantage to using light hits of oil in our fuel, what is it?

Hint: It is a minor factor in CL Stunt, although I once regarded it as worthwhile in AMA (Fast) Combat.

Okay, two hints: Such a practice is a Big Hit in F2C, although for a marginally different reason.

Disqualified, at least for a day or two, from having input: DynoDave and F4FGuy. Especially the former, as we have discussed this in the past.

Personal note to Dean: Sorry to pick on you; it's all in fun. And when one does such a good job in putting forth worthwhile information, the mistakes are all the more glaring.

Frank Carlisle
proud member of R.C.C.D.

I'll bite. This looks likew a trick question but currently I have no foot in myy mouth.

Oil in the fuel collects heat and carries away. It lubes and it smells good.

Dan, I bet you really enjoyed the Bob Hunt video where Dean suddenly realized that he had no idea how a uniflow tank works. He got that deer-in-the-headlights look, but managed to make up some nonsense and move on. A real trooper.

Mr. Dan. Thanks for your (long) article in FLYING LINES about rattle cans of paint. I'm not quite ready to trust spray cans, but your experience seems to indicate good results!

Floyd in Oregon

Oregon State Motto: "It actually rains more in Hawaii."

ok I'll bite, me being no expert on anything but trying and using what others before me have spent many hours of blood, sweat and tears perfecting so I can waltz in and get the same results.

Ummmm .. wouldn't less oil mean more methanol percentage?

LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-06 AT 02:31 PM (CST)
 
Oddly enough the windage issue has appeared quite a bit over the years. The basis is that in most engines the crank turns in a direction that would tend to spin the crankcase charge in the direction tangentially opposite of the bypass. More oil equals higher inertia and therefore is stands to reason the if you reduce the mass you can inprove the charge transfer by making it easier to reverse the charge direction.

Problem is, Torpedos and some others designed with the exhaust and bypasses on opposite from traditional sides have not enjoyed any performance improvement from it. In these "backward" engines the crankcase charge is spun in a direction that should, in theory, flow tangentially right up the bypass in which case they should enjoy a little better cylinder charging caused by the charge's inertia.

Hah!! Just don't work thata h'way.

Oh yes, less oil would mean more burnable fuel, but that's not where the article was going as far as I could tell from Dan's description.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-06 AT 08:08 PM (CST)
 
I've seen some argument on other forums that Dooling 29's run better with the exhaust on one side rather than the other. I've run K&B 4011's both ways, and, for our purposes, could see no diference. Incidentally, the Torp Greenhead 35 is set up so that the crank goes down past the bypass rather than up.

Hmmm, I guess Dean is busy sorting out Hunt's electrons.

The only application I personally have found for low-oil fuels was back when I was flying AMA (Fast) Combat.

We ran 7% total oil content in Fox Mk VIs.

The reason was a lighter fuel load for a given run time.

Oil does not "push aside" power-producing fuel ingredients.

The engine and the needle valve only "see" combustibles, which the engine needs in a very specific ratio to the air passing through the engine.

The amount of oil in the fuel does not change this ratio.

It certainly changes the needle setting, but that is a different matter.

F2C guys use low-oil fuel due to a seemingly ridiculous limitation on tank size.

Frank Carlisle
proud member of R.C.C.D.

So.............Dan,

Would that translate to less oil more mileage in English?

LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-06 AT 08:03 PM (CST)
 
Dave Gierke did quite a bit of work on HP and oil percentage in Pylon motors at one point(mid 80's). They certainly found that lower than standard %'s gave more power. With the oils they were using I think they ended up around 15%. That may be why many of the RC fuels have tended towards the lower percentages- slightly more power, less mess. But he also found that the lower the oil percentage the more narrow a range the engine had to operate in. At 25% oil the needle could be way off. At 15% it had to be spot on. And at lower percentages the odds were the motor would grenade itself no matter how it was set.

F2C also has the advantage that kerosene is a fairly decent lubricant all by itself. That's one reason a diesel can be set way off, overheat, sag, produce copious amounts of black gook, and still not get damaged. Alcohol and nitro aren't much in the lube department and wash oil out of the motor. Kero is just a very light oil.

>Dave Gierke did quite a bit of work on HP and oil percentage
>in Pylon motors at one point(mid 80's). They certainly
>found that lower than standard %'s gave more power. With
>the oils they were using I think they ended up around 15%.

If you think about it, the engine can pump a certain volume per stroke. Some of this is air, some of this is fuel. The more oil you use, the larger the fraction of the space taken up by the fuel, and therefore the less air you can get into the engine. Therefore, you'd make less power. Probably not that much less, but enough to be noticeable.

Hi Dan, Hi Phil, aw heck, Hi everybody ...
Let me throw a couple of commas in, from the git-go ,,,,,,,,,

Ahh. It's good to hear that Dave Gierke's and my experiments reproduce. I prefer to think of it as me backing up Dave. There's an authority! Ohh, and personally, I like a good run-on sentence. Think of it as a breathing exercize.

Yes, I have been busy herding Hunt's electrons around. They're light but slippery little buggers.

just a few more commas,,,,,,
Dean

Dean Pappas

>Hi Dan, Hi Phil, aw heck, Hi everybody ...
>Let me throw a couple of commas in, from the git-go
>,,,,,,,,,
>
>Ahh. It's good to hear that Dave Gierke's and my experiments
>reproduce. I prefer to think of it as me backing up Dave.
>There's an authority! Ohh, and personally, I like a good
>run-on sentence. Think of it as a breathing exercize.
>
>Yes, I have been busy herding Hunt's electrons around.
>They're light but slippery little buggers.
>
>just a few more commas,,,,,,
> Dean

Ahem! Harumph! And a good "I beg your pardon!"

It was Da Dirt who got Dave straight with the world on this issue. Whomever is second in this deal, y'all can fight over for years...it ain't me!

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Dan:

Unless I misread you (easy to do at my age), I believe you're perpetuating a myth. Any excess oil simply adds to friction losses and displaces methanol. While I wouldn't characterize it as "pushing the oil aside", it's not a bad layman's description. The main internal cooling in our engines is not derived from the oil, but from the heat of vaporisation of the methanol. If we could do without oil film separation (lubrication) of the mechanical parts the temperature of the internals, and therefore of the engine as a whole wouldn't change much relative to the same engine with oil. What would change is power. For the same mixture strength, the power at a given RPM would go up in approximately the ratio of the methanol increase, assuming a correct ratio in the first place. The main reason a lean setting causes an overheat with low oil levels is that there's less methanol i.e. fuel cooling available. The reason rich engines run cooler is that there's more "left over" fuel for cooling.

While we're on the subject of cooling, castor is no better than any other oil in terms of heat transfer, if anything the lower the vis' the better in this respect,as the film is thinner and transfer path shorter. In terms of oil cooling in the conventional sense the oil can only carry off heat if the film is constantly replenished. Again, the lower the vis the better. In an overheat situation the castor can make matters worse rather than better, since once it begins to varnish, it is no longer a lubricant but is adding to the friction, producing even more heat, and it can't flow to carry heat away. At best,it may get sticky enough to cause the engine to quit earlier, before it does as much damage as it would if it were well lubricated with a higher temp oil, which would allow it to run longer in the overheated condition. In either case the real culprit is the lean run, not the oil. I don't want to give the impression that castor is terrible. As a vis improver and film strength enhancer for some synthetics, it's not too bad but, there are better ways to get there, with lower total oil contents. Some of the newer (and some not so new) synthetics have better characteristics across the board than castor; film strength, vis stability, oxidation resistance etc.

LAST EDITED ON May-09-06 AT 10:22 PM (CST)
 
>>The engine and the needle valve only "see" combustibles,
>which the engine needs in a very specific ratio to the air
>passing through the engine.

Ya might have to run this past me again...... the engine and NV only see a mass ratio (fuel/air), are you saying that the oil content doesn't affect the fuel density? seems to me that the engine/NV "sees" everything that is fed to it.

>F2C guys use low-oil fuel due to a seemingly ridiculous
>limitation on tank size.

Why ridiculous? tank size limits are one effective way of reducing performance. F2C engines are among the most highly stressed in modeldom - and the fuel has much higher calorific value (stored energy) than methanol, not even mentioning the cooling influence of methanol v's kerosene. That they can use oil contents of about 10% is due to very good metallurgy and careful operation.

(1*) The engine and the needle valve only "see" combustibles,
>>which the engine needs in a very specific ratio to the air
>>passing through the engine. >
>
>Ya might have to run this past me again...... the engine and
>NV only see a mass ratio (fuel/air), are you saying that the
>oil content doesn't affect the fuel density? seems to me
>that the engine/NV "sees" everything that is fed to it.

*(1) It's not a matter of what mass ratio of fuel+oil/air mix the valve or the engine sees. The valve is adjusted for a combustible mixture. The oil is not ,at least in any major way, a part of that ratio. The oil content simply forces a larger "liquid" requirement to produce a combustible mixture of air/fuel,in this case methanol. The oil, is as Pappas implied "along for the ride". If we carry less oil, we can carry more fuel(methanol).

>
>>(2*) F2C guys use low-oil fuel due to a seemingly ridiculous
>>limitation on tank size.
>
>Why ridiculous? tank size limits are one effective way of
>reducing performance. F2C engines are among the most highly
>stressed in modeldom - and the fuel has much higher
>calorific value (stored energy) than methanol, not even
>mentioning the cooling influence of methanol v's kerosene.
>That they can use oil contents of about 10% is due to very
>good metallurgy and careful operation.

*(2*)As mentioned somewhere above, kerosine is, in and of itself, an effective lubricant. Also, "diesels" run mixtures considerably leaner than glow engines and also have a much faster burn, which is why they run cooler and are quieter than glows. They expend much more of the combustion energy in the power stroke than glows. Both the fuel, kerosine with almost three times the heat of methanol, and the comp. ratio two-two and a half times that of a glow contribute to this. As to oil content in "diesels", all the comments in (1) apply

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Ron,
Thanks for the clarification. Since both glo engines and model "Diesels" are compression ignition engines is the difference in (2) entirely due to the fuel? My thinking is that they really have the same thermal cycle, so the only reason for a difference is the fuel.

With F2C engines, the practical reason for the low oil content is to improve range,(more stored energy). However they have an enormous problem with overheating if set to "hard" and can be quite unstable - getting the right setting with a F2C is a skilled task...as is matching the piston/sleeve materials.

>Ron,
>Thanks for the clarification. Since both glo engines and
>model "Diesels" are compression ignition engines is the
>difference in (2) entirely due to the fuel? My thinking is
>that they really have the same thermal cycle, so the only
>reason for a difference is the fuel.
>
>With F2C engines, the practical reason for the low oil
>content is to improve range,(more stored energy). However
>they have an enormous problem with overheating if set to
>"hard" and can be quite unstable - getting the right setting
>with a F2C is a skilled task...as is matching the
>piston/sleeve materials.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Dave:

Correct, though I think it needs to be emphasized that "compression ignition" does not= Diesel. All of our reciprocating engines are Otto Cycles. The method of ignition or fuel has no bearing on the theoretical air cycle. The primary difference between our glows and "diesels" is comp ratio and the ability to control it as a timing device in the latter,as opposed to fixed timing in a glow.

The fuels are different, not because they must be,but because they can be. "diesels" use kero because it is easier to ignite with comp heat alone.Even so ,usually, some sort of ignitor and/or vaporizor is needed such as ether, amyl nitrate,and/or propylene oxide. Methanol simply cools things off too rapidly for compression heat to do the job by itself at any practical (fixed) compression ratio. As you point out, kero has a much greater heat content per pound, but it's also much more sensitive to mixture ratio. The reason "diesels" overheat when adjusted "hard" is that they are over advanced. This causes detonation and pressure spiking well before TDC, expending much energy to "braking" (for want of a better term). This heat, instead of going into torque is expended as waste heat and thus causes the overheat. Again the root cause of the overheat is engine adjustment, not lube content. Once the condition is initiated, you can throw all the oil at it you want,it will still overheat. the only cure is to back off on comp, needle, or both.

The glow engine uses methanol because it was originally designed for very high horsepower for speed and other non-fuel limited events. Methanol has less heat /pound than Kero, but you can burn it with much lower air fuel ratios. Enough so that, pound for pound of mixture, the energy throughput is higher for the glow. This, added to the fact that the rich mix is a much better coolant, allows a broader operating range, at the expense of anything resembling thermal efficiency. The "diesel" takes the opposite approach, a high energy fuel at a high air/fuel ratio, running in the most thermally efficient way.

An interesting thing is that both will overheat for the same reasons, overadvance due to lean mixture and or too high compression. Which is why the new sport of adjusting head shims in glow engines to reduce the "hard break". Lowering compression retards timing and then (the Magic word) nitro is added to broaden the ignition range and increase the burn rate. The result?, a less "fussy" adjustment, same as backing off comp on the "diesel".

>Problem is, Torpedos and some others designed with the
>exhaust and bypasses on opposite from traditional sides have
>not enjoyed any performance improvement from it. In these
>"backward" engines the crankcase charge is spun in a
>direction that should, in theory, flow tangentially right up
>the bypass in which case they should enjoy a little better
>cylinder charging caused by the charge's inertia.

Reminds me of the Cyclon PC-4, which was designed with a venturi slung underneath the engine. One of the things people were talking about at the time was the "direct path" the fuel/air mixture had from the venturi up the bypasses. The PC-4 wasn't noted for high performance, though, when compared to contemporary F2D motors.

>The new Flying Models, May 2006 issue:
>
>Hmmm, I didn't see an ad for PAMPA. Did I miss it somehow?
>
>Probably unrelated, I did see a review of a 60-ounce B****k
>Smoothie ARF. C'mon, that has to be a typo! Mr. Hubin, you
>are a known lurker, pass that sucker across the scales just
>one more time and report back to us!
>
>(And while I have your attention, many thanks for your
>efforts with years of involvement in the production of Stunt
>News.)
>
>Real good article on sandpaper. I've been using this stuff
>for many years, learned a few things, a couple "new"
>techniques.
>
>And my buddy Dean dropped the ball!
>
>Look, Dean Pappas and I have never actually met, although we
>have many mutual friends. And I regard his RC Pattern column
>as a must-read item.
>
>In fact, it would serve one and all quite well to pay close
>attention to anything and everything Dean writes. After all,
>he--and Rich Tower, I believe--were the first to see
>opportunity in fiddling with pipes fitted to two-strokes,
>the potential application being CL Stunt.
>
>Much more than mere cross-over technology, although
>something short of inventing the glow plug.
>
>Page 32, second column, bottom: "Since the oil content in
>our fuel doesn't burn to create any horsepower, there is an
>ever-present urge to run less and less of a thinner oil to
>get better power."
>
>Dean, my man! I, can, readily, put, up, with, way, way, too,
>too, too, many commas, this from a, like, totally,
>hyperactive comma key, along with other assorted awkwardness
>in your text, mainly because your editor is abdicating
>control when it come to his work product. Insert hated
>smiley-face icons...
>
>But the quoted statement is wrong. The error is compounded
>by examples from automotive technology where windage is a
>challenge, although not one we face to any great degree, at
>least not when it comes to oil in the fuel. And there is a
>hint that there will be more discussion of lube, presumably
>based upon a flawed premise.
>
>So, who knows why this is an erroneous assumption?
>
>Further, while there is in fact an advantage to using light
>hits of oil in our fuel, what is it?
>
>Hint: It is a minor factor in CL Stunt, although I once
>regarded it as worthwhile in AMA (Fast) Combat.
>
>Okay, two hints: Such a practice is a Big Hit in F2C,
>although for a marginally different reason.
>
>Disqualified, at least for a day or two, from having input:
>DynoDave and F4FGuy. Especially the former, as we have
>discussed this in the past.
>
>Personal note to Dean: Sorry to pick on you; it's all in
>fun. And when one does such a good job in putting forth
>worthwhile information, the mistakes are all the more
>glaring.
>
>Dan

Dan,
Repeat after me BRODAK not B****K. How would you like your name spelled R********D. This behavior is really too childish. Also with the name COX by others. It is time to grow up. Our host may have his differences with Mr Brodak but I don't think that he would be so petty as to do what your doing.
Dennis

LAST EDITED ON May-09-06 AT 05:39 PM (CST)
 
>>How would you like your name spelled R********D<<

You mean that's not how we spell it?

Sort of like the Linux sites I frequent. Guys are always spelling Windows, Windoze or calling Microsoft M$. OK, maybe that one's warranted.

LAST EDITED ON May-09-06 AT 08:03 PM (CST)
 
>>>How would you like your name spelled R********D<<
>
>You mean that's not how we spell it?
>
>Sort of like the Linux sites I frequent. Guys are always
>spelling Windows, Windoze or calling Microsoft M$. OK, maybe
>that one's warranted.

Randy,

You better be real careful here. I'm thinking of making a body-double posting. You and Jeff Daniels as seen in the 1994 movie, "Dumb & Dumber."

The resemblance is remarkable. The intellect is **not** a match, but physicals features are. Tell your wife. So I don't have to.

As to how anyone wants to spell my name, my nickname(s), my address, the names of my models, the name of my wife's cat, the name of my car, the name of my van, have at it.

I truly don't care.

And I am sure Brodak doesn't care about the spelling of his name or my name.

I don't think he would care even if someone were to quite erroneously spell the name "Brodak" with all capital letters.

Sheeesh...!!

>>>>How would you like your name spelled R********D<<
>>
>>You mean that's not how we spell it?
>>
>>Sort of like the Linux sites I frequent. Guys are always
>>spelling Windows, Windoze or calling Microsoft M$. OK, maybe
>>that one's warranted.
>
>Randy,
>
>You better be real careful here. I'm thinking of making a
>body-double posting. You and Jeff Daniels as seen in the
>1994 movie, "Dumb & Dumber."
>
>The resemblance is remarkable. The intellect is **not** a
>match, but physicals features are. Tell your wife. So I
>don't have to.
>
>As to how anyone wants to spell my name, my nickname(s), my
>address, the names of my models, the name of my wife's cat,
>the name of my car, the name of my van, have at it.
>
>I truly don't care.
>
>And I am sure Brodak doesn't care about the spelling of his
>name or my name.
>
>I don't think he would care even if someone were to quite
>erroneously spell the name "Brodak" with all capital
>letters.
>
>Sheeesh...!!
>
>Dan
>
Look at the front cover of his catalogue if you have one.

>>>>>How would you like your name spelled R********D<<
>>>
>>>You mean that's not how we spell it?
>>>
>>>Sort of like the Linux sites I frequent. Guys are always
>>>spelling Windows, Windoze or calling Microsoft M$. OK, maybe
>>>that one's warranted.
>>
>>Randy,
>>
>>You better be real careful here. I'm thinking of making a
>>body-double posting. You and Jeff Daniels as seen in the
>>1994 movie, "Dumb & Dumber."
>>
>>The resemblance is remarkable. The intellect is **not** a
>>match, but physicals features are. Tell your wife. So I
>>don't have to.
>>
>>As to how anyone wants to spell my name, my nickname(s), my
>>address, the names of my models, the name of my wife's cat,
>>the name of my car, the name of my van, have at it.
>>
>>I truly don't care.
>>
>>And I am sure Brodak doesn't care about the spelling of his
>>name or my name.
>>
>>I don't think he would care even if someone were to quite
>>erroneously spell the name "Brodak" with all capital
>>letters.
>>
>>Sheeesh...!!
>>
>>Dan
>>
>Look at the front cover of his catalogue if you have one.
>
>
>

Dennis,

Interesting confusion.

Tell ya what, I did look for the correct spelling in the PAMPA directory. Looked and looked, couldn't seem to come up with anything.

Are you telling me that Brodak's given name is written in all-caps, that for example he signs his checks in caps?

LAST EDITED ON May-13-06 AT 11:50 AM (CST)
 
>>>>>>How would you like your name spelled R********D<<
>>>>
>>>>You mean that's not how we spell it?
>>>>
>>>>Sort of like the Linux sites I frequent. Guys are always
>>>>spelling Windows, Windoze or calling Microsoft M$. OK, maybe
>>>>that one's warranted.
>>>
>>>Randy,
>>>
>>>You better be real careful here. I'm thinking of making a
>>>body-double posting. You and Jeff Daniels as seen in the
>>>1994 movie, "Dumb & Dumber."
>>>
>>>The resemblance is remarkable. The intellect is **not** a
>>>match, but physicals features are. Tell your wife. So I
>>>don't have to.
>>>
>>>As to how anyone wants to spell my name, my nickname(s), my
>>>address, the names of my models, the name of my wife's cat,
>>>the name of my car, the name of my van, have at it.
>>>
>>>I truly don't care.
>>>
>>>And I am sure Brodak doesn't care about the spelling of his
>>>name or my name.
>>>
>>>I don't think he would care even if someone were to quite
>>>erroneously spell the name "Brodak" with all capital
>>>letters.
>>>
>>>Sheeesh...!!
>>>
>>>Dan
>>>
>>Look at the front cover of his catalogue if you have one.
>>
>>
>>:P
>
>
>Dennis,
>
>Interesting confusion.
>
>Tell ya what, I did look for the correct spelling in the
>PAMPA directory. Looked and looked, couldn't seem to come up
>with anything.
>
>Are you telling me that Brodak's given name is written in
>all-caps, that for example he signs his checks in caps?
>
>Dan
>

Ron B.
F4Fguy

D*n,D*n,D*n,

You're allowing yourself to be drawn into their sophomoric arguments. Who gives a rat's butt how you spell br*%$k, or BRo*AK, Or Brokaw(no, wait, that's a different argument), or BRODAK? The petty action of (whoever it was) to remove the PAMPA ad from FM because of some percieved personal grievance, real or imagined, shouldn't be dignified by more petty squabbling. The ad's not there. PAMPA should make an effort to restore it (with it's original content), and move on! I just hate to see one of our sharpest knives used to whack on a bag of hammers.

I thought the original thrust of this thread was on Pappas' comments on engines. Of course it's your thread, you can take in whatever direction you wish but I was just getting interested in the engine discussion.

R*n B.
F*F Gu*

Edited for tip, er tyo,er typos, yeah! Typ*s, that's it!

I just registered to this board so the politics of the group escape me and I frankly do not want to get caught up in politics. However, I find it interesting that this entire thread has done little to address the origonal post regarding what he thought of Dean Pappas' article.

I did find the origonal post difficult to decypher what the posters problem was, was it the use of too many commas or about Deans reasoning behind lower oil content fuels, or a few other issues.
So, what is the real point of your disagreement?
If the problem is Deans reasoning behind low oil fuel or the fact it is even brought up in refrence to control line use, why has nobody contacted a CL engine designer or a lubrication specialist or a manufacturer of control line fuels for their thoughts?

I did see a refrence to Dave Gierke's article from long ago, thats a start since I hold (and hopefully many others) Dave Gierke's technical writings, analysis and testing in very high regard.

Again, I ask, what is the true issue?

>I just registered to this board so the politics of the group
>escape me and I frankly do not want to get caught up in
>politics. However, I find it interesting that this entire
>thread has done little to address the origonal post
>regarding what he thought of Dean Pappas' article.
>
>I did find the origonal post difficult to decypher what the
>posters problem was, was it the use of too many commas or
>about Deans reasoning behind lower oil content fuels, or a
>few other issues.
>So, what is the real point of your disagreement?
>If the problem is Deans reasoning behind low oil fuel or the
>fact it is even brought up in refrence to control line use,
>why has nobody contacted a CL engine designer or a
>lubrication specialist or a manufacturer of control line
>fuels for their thoughts?
>
>I did see a refrence to Dave Gierke's article from long ago,
>thats a start since I hold (and hopefully many others) Dave
>Gierke's technical writings, analysis and testing in very
>high regard.
>
>Again, I ask, what is the true issue?
>
>
>Brian Cooper
>www.cooperfuels.com

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Brian:

While I share your frustration with the petty politics, I also realize that politics are a necessary evil in any organization. You aren't required to participate in them. Just skim over them. It's like the gristle or fat, you don't have to eat them to enjoy the steak.

As to the question of oil content and the pros and cons of low/high and what kind, this has been addressed in this thread, see #10, #11, #15, #18, #19, #20 plus several other responses having to do with other aspects of engines,some related, some not.

As I remarked to Dan in my last response, it's his thread, he can take it in any direction he wants. Just read the good stuff and ignore the rest.

From Ron B.
"As to the question of oil content and the pros and cons of low/high and what kind, this has been addressed in this thread, see #10, #11, #15, #18, #19, #20 plus several other responses having to do with other aspects of engines,some related, some not."

Ron,
I looked back at #10, 11, and they had absoutly nothing to do with lower oil content fuels at all or even anything I could see that was related to the origonal post. #15, 18,19 and 20 do not exist so I have no idea what was said.

>From Ron B.
>"As to the question of oil content and the pros and cons of
>low/high and what kind, this has been addressed in this
>thread, see #10, #11, #15, #18, #19, #20 plus several other
>responses having to do with other aspects of engines,some
>related, some not."
>
>Ron,
>I looked back at #10, 11, and they had absoutly nothing to
>do with lower oil content fuels at all or even anything I
>could see that was related to the origonal post. #15, 18,19
>and 20 do not exist so I have no idea what was said.
>
>
>
>Brian Cooper
>www.cooperfuels.com

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Brian:

With all due respect, are we reading the same post (#19125) on the same forum??????????. All the above replies not only exist, all are directly related to oil content and/or engine/fuel concerns. There ars also several later replies in this thread re engine operation vs fuel/oil cooling.

Sorry Ron,
I guess the way this thread is numbered is different than counting down posts as I scroll down.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Brian:

Immediately under the main topic text at the top is a listing of all the replies in the order they're shown. This is not necessarily chronological order. The entries are numbered in the far right column, preceded by their author. You can access any single post by left clicking the item in the left column.

LAST EDITED ON May-13-06 AT 08:20 PM (CST)
 
Hello Brian Cooper. I have used your fuel, the 10% nitro, 11/11 oil mix, and have tired to find it again. Seems the local hobby shop doesn't carry it. RC Hobbies in Huntsville, Alabama. I have mixed my own using some pure stuff from a racing shop. Again, a good fuel.