While not a high priority, several times we have discussed how best to define "power." Quite frankly, I have been waiting for Brett or Howard or Derek to come up with a definition of this term as it applies specifically to CL Stunt.
While it sidesteps the real issue, indeed uses a word we are trying to define, what about POD, Power On Demand?
Or possibly better, POT, Power On Tap?
To me, either describes what we want. As we know, getting enough power to fly virtually any viable CL Stunt model in level flight is a no-brainer; just about any motor can handle that task and it does not need any tweaks of consequence.
Almost the same thing when flying back down toward the ground. There are some tweaks required to keep things in check, but raw power is not the issue.
We only need extra grunt--GOT, Grunt On Tap? As to Grunt On Demand, please don't go there!--when we place a load on the engine, whether banging a hard corner and then going vertical or even a relatively smooth corner, again grabbing altitude.
Of course, one of the problems in actual practice as well as in defining what we are after is getting too much of a good thing, this kinda yanking the model around by the nose when load applied results in EGOT, Excessive Grunt On Tap, leading to what Brett refers to as "charging" out of corners.
And then we come up against the four-strokes, as while typically they offer POT in many places in the pattern they tend to go on their lips in at least two spots. Not an actual deal-killer, more of an annoyance than anything else, but I tend to fixate on this as annoyances during flying are things I try real hard to eliminate from my program.
To wit, my extensive and continuing use of the 21FP ABN with BB T-U.
So, the definition of "power" as it applies to CL Stunt is...?
Dan