15cc (.92ci) F2B

I’m going to try again to stir up a discussion on the 15cc motor displacement rule for F2B. To me this looks like a compromise to an initially inane proposal. Correct me if I’m wrong, but browsing the web the other day I bumped into references to the F2B working group.

I initially thought that there was some noise reduction logic driving this proposal. It doesn’t look that way. I just recently stumbled onto a reference to the “F2B working group” and found that in November 2001 they proposed that, ‘to allow future experimentation and encourage new blood’, that the maximum stunt engine displacement should be increased to 35 cc.! ….. That’s 35 cc! ……… Maybe they really meant 3.5 cc? That would be a 0.21 ci engine. That might make sense. But no…the F2B working group proposal was for 35cc engines ….. THAT’S 2.1 cubic inch displacement! We’re talking Weed Eaters here. Now that seems like a proposal by someone who just doesn’t have a clue about stunt or c/l in general.

Then, from other web postings, it looks like the F2B representatives said that “there was “strong opposition (to the 35cc recommendation) due to safety. A reduction to 15cc was welcomed”.

So is this the genesis to the 15cc recommendation? … A COMPROMISE TO AN INITIALLY STUPID PROPOSAL? We’re calmly looking down the barrel of a 50% increase in engine displacement. There is zero experience with 15cc stunt. There wasn’t anything wrong with a 10cc limit.

Maybe Dan is right, that the web forums take away from discussion in print, like Model Avaition or Stunt News. Why haven’t we seen several years worth of discussion in SN about this? Was it there ? Did I just miss it?

Is there any way to put the brakes on this change, to allow for a more thorough discussion?

Frank Williams

There has been considerable discussion here earlier on this subject--not the one for 35 cc, but just the current one. I think the proposal has more to do with 4-cycle engines. Originally (or at present) larger displacement is allowed for 4-cycle engines than for two. Then it was "discovered" that a modern 56 4-cycle will propell a 60 size ship and that maybe we don't need to distinguish between 2-cycle and 4-cycle. So the proposal was written more or less to include the present 92 4-cycle engines with the thought that there will be others coming along in this range. And, however, implausible it may seem, there are larger 2-cycle engines on the way as well. Keith had introduced the proposal in the US to match the proposal in the FAI so that we will have the same limits in both sides of the pond(s). And, should the proposals pass, as I expect they will, there is nothing saying you or anyone will need to use that large of an engine any more than you are required to use a .65 or a .61 or a .50 or a .... today. Size, weight, will always set a limit for our planes no matter what is ruled as the maximum displacement. Just because we would be allowed to use a 2 cylinder Briggs & Stratton engine on our wee little planes, doesn't mean we have to. It just means we can use larger engines that become available for our purposes--if we desire.

Frank,

Agree that 2.1 cu in is not suitable on max (metrify this) 70' lines, but as Len and many others may note: 15cc is "ONLY" ~.90 cu in.

If we do away with the displacement differential between 4-cycle and 2-cycle, why not allow a "MAX" disp of ~.90 cu in. We don't run stunt engines at ultimate max HP anyway... That could allow a bit stronger response to maneuver loads at less burden to the engines.

Where we are now, and maybe into the next AMA rules era, the differential allowed by firing cycle already allows .90 or thereabouts, doesn't it?

LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-04 AT 11:59 PM (CDT)
 
>So is this the genesis to the 15cc recommendation? … A
>COMPROMISE TO AN INITIALLY STUPID PROPOSAL? We’re calmly
>looking down the barrel of a 50% increase in engine
>displacement. There is zero experience with 15cc stunt.
>There wasn’t anything wrong with a 10cc limit.

Well kind of. The initial proposal I saw was 250CC - that's right, two motocross bikes. I think the idea was to remove engine restrictions entirely, which actually seems OK to me. I can't immediately see why you need to restrict the engine at all. The 70' lines seem to be more than sufficient to limit anything you need to limit.

There's some experience with 15cc stunt - Windy had the Typhoon, and I have heard of others using 91 4-strokes. This is the REAL reason behind the change - to allow 72 and 91 4-strokes even if someone decides to get rid of the "60% rule". If you get rid of the 60% rule, and keep the 10cc limit, the biggest engine you could use is a Saito 56. This would tempt people to use those evil, noisy 2-strokes.

I might also note that a Saito 56 is just about the same noise level as my relatively noisy 2-stroke. Several of the OS models (52 for instance) are MUCH noisier at least on the meter in the worst orientation. I have had my flying PA61 model completely drowned out by an OS 52 Surpass running in the pits. They might be more mellow to listen to, but by objective measure they are not any quieter than a tuned pipe 2-stroke.

>
>Maybe Dan is right, that the web forums take away from
>discussion in print, like Model Avaition or Stunt News. Why
>haven’t we seen several years worth of discussion in SN
>about this? Was it there ? Did I just miss it?

I didn't see any, either, or rather I saw just a few snippets on the topic. I really think that SN is really not a common forum for competition matters any more. We have a majority of members who are mostly sport fliers (and for that matter, now, a president who is a sport flier (although obviously John was not around when this would have happened)), and that's what gets published. Technical data/discussion is either met with mute silence (like the excellent dyno testing article I read a while back) or someone complains about it.

I just don't think that highly technical (engineering or legislative) information is welcomed by the average PAMPA member, nor is it likely to be showing up in SN. Most anything that gets sent in gets published, but not many people send it in anymore, given the tepid-to-hostile response

I knew more-or-less what's going on from internet and email. But asking me didn't help in this case, because I don't see much problem with the 15cc rule. I did have a pretty big problem with some of the other aspects of the rules package, and put in my two cents, and got pretty decent response - about 50% of my input wound up in the rules.

As far as notification of the process goes, there were a few posts here about it, but nothing very comprehensive.

I have to say, I think that the proposed new rules seem to be a HUGE step in the right direction (although not really all the way, in my opinion):

Got rid of K-factors (never made any sense given that the pattern was the same from everyone)
got 0-100 scores (to give more resolution than 1/2 a point on a 10 point scale)
got rid of the majority of the engine control restrictions (like shutoffs are now allowed),
cut off the possibility of RF controls (licensing and frequency control problems)
made it legal to use more than one circle (although not mandatory, AS IT SHOULD BE)
starters
and a new judges guide that attempts to address some points of complaint we (US) have had for years.

A few missing elements are:

mandatory use of multiple circle format for W/C (required to provide
reasonable length rounds) ; or more exactly, why in the world should the rule book specify things like how many circles there are - why not let any fair method be used so that you can accomodate the various site and manpower availability

still unnecessary engine restrictions (like fuel injection and/or active control)

I think, that given the very strongly-held and differing opinions, that the result was a very good compromise. I think we owe the spearheads of this effort, Andy Sweetland and Peter Germann, a big thanks

>Is there any way to put the brakes on this change, to allow
>for a more thorough discussion?

I think the vote is essentially right now, so, no, it's too late. I don't know the date or the status of the proposal - it may have already been voted on one way or another.

> I just don't think that highly technical (engineering or
>legislative) information is welcomed by the average PAMPA
>member, nor is it likely to be showing up in SN. Most
>anything that gets sent in gets published, but not many
>people send it in anymore, given the tepid-to-hostile
>response

I think that it stinks that the the higher tech stff doesnt get as much pub as before. However, I dont know what I could add. I haven't really come up with much on my own. Just take others stuff and tweak it a bit. Is there really any more to write about? The aft CG setup is in command and has been for along time. The tuned pipe has been setup and resetup to death. 4s setups everywhere you turn. What else is there to write about?

> Got rid of K-factors (never made any sense given that the
>pattern was the same from everyone)
>got 0-100 scores (to give more resolution than 1/2 a point
>on a 10 point scale)

Each maneuver from 0-100! I like that. The scores should start to seperate out. Unless everyone flies in the 80-84 range like here where all the tops fly 34-38 then you get the 2 point spreads.

>cut off the possibility of RF controls (licensing and
>frequency control problems)

GOOD! RF RC OR INFRARED IS NOT CL!!

>starters

No brainer!

>and a new judges guide that attempts to address some points
>of complaint we (US) have had for years.

Wonder if it will stick. The current good one doesnt!

>
>A few missing elements are:
>
>mandatory use of multiple circle format for
>W/C (required to provide
>reasonable length rounds) ; or more exactly, why in the
>world should the rule book specify things like how many
>circles there are - why not let any fair method be used so
>that you can accomodate the various site and manpower
>availability

I dont get that either. Makes no sense!

>
>still unnecessary engine restrictions (like fuel injection
>and/or active control)

To many restrictions.

>
>I think, that given the very strongly-held and differing
>opinions, that the result was a very good compromise. I
>think we owe the spearheads of this effort, Andy Sweetland
>and Peter Germann, a big thanks

THANKS TO THEM FOR SURE!!

> We’re calmly
>looking down the barrel of a 50% increase in engine
>displacement. There is zero experience with 15cc stunt.
>There wasn’t anything wrong with a 10cc limit.

On this topic, what do you see as a problem with 15cc engines? That we will be forced into them?

Brett, Igor, Leonard, Lou
Thanks for your responses.

What do I se as a problem with the 15cc limit?
Mainly, 'cause, Yes I'll be forced into them. True no one going to make me buy new motors and pipes and props, but I will and many others will also. Leonard, you guys had some of the nicest .40's running, but now you're running a .60. Why did you do that? because the increased power made flying easier. To compete at a top level you had to do it. The $1000 worth of carbon props that you have will be useless on a 90. The pipes for 60's won't be right for 90's. The cost of a 90 from one of the stunt factories will probably be at least 20% more than the current 60/65 price. This proposal is a "dream come true" for the Randy and Richard.

True, Windy ran a 90 4c at the Nats and Europeans run some 90 4 cycles. The 15cc experience I was talking about was for 15cc 2cycles. Has anyone other than Bill Wererage flown a 90 2cycle stunter? I initially thought that the 2c/4c matchup was the driving force behind this proposal. getting rid of the 60% rule. It's become clear now that this really had nothing to do with it. Just open up the engine limit and let nature take its course. (The 250 cc limit of the origional proposal) That was behind the working group's logic. In my opinion not a good idea.

Granted a 90 or 60 or 40 or 35 all are going to be set up to give reasonable lap times, reasonable speeds. A 90 isn't going to be 50% faster or have 50% more line pull than a 60. But what about the case of a piped 90 that ingests a "fuel bunny" and goes dead lean. I bet the runaway speed of a 90 is going to be significant. But will the lines take his delta? What about lines? F2B doesn't care. Just pass the pull test. AMA, who know's.

I think the 90 2cycle is questionable just from the safety standpoint of the runaway condition. No one knows what it's going to do, but we're buying into it blindly. Are there any other controlline events that use 90 2cycles? Speed, racing, carrier, scale? Nobody had flown a 90 2cycle in stunt ever and we're rushing headlong into it.

The rest of the working group proposals are fine with me. Just wish they had left the engine definition alone. It's gonna cost me a lot of money and I don't think its good for controlline in general and stunt especially. I think we're going off "half cocked".

Frank

Do the current piped .60s "run away" like the old 4-2-4 setups used to do? I'd think they're run fairly lean already, and the pipe would keep the RPM down anyway, since if they go faster, they'd fall off the pipe.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-04 AT 11:57 PM (CDT)
 
>What do I se as a problem with the 15cc limit?
>Mainly, 'cause, Yes I'll be forced into them. True no one
>going to make me buy new motors and pipes and props, but I
>will and many others will also.

Well, that's what Al mentioned before - and I still don't see it. I think 60 planes are already bordering on too big, like driving a formula 1 car around a go-cart track ( you ought to see what's on my drawing board right now). I can't see anyone making them significant bigger. I also can't see anyone throwing on a 16" 3-blade on a current airplane and accomplishing anything except improving the Australian GNP. Heck, I don't even like how my airplane flies with a 13" prop.

I could be entirely wrong, but I just don't see a mad rush to go grab 90 2-strokes. I won't say I'll never try it, but I can't see how it's better to run a 90 at 5% than it is to run a 61 at 10% or a 40 at 25%.

You may have a point about the safety issue, but even then, a lean run on a TP 60 doesn't result in outrageously fast laps, and so I don't see why it will be a lot different for a stunt-tuned 90, either. It's not like a leaned-out 60 cranks up to 20000 rpm - but you already know that. More like 12000 before it quits lean. I've had lean runs that sped up to the point of quitting, and it certainly didn't go exceptionally fast nor did it pull exceptionally hard - firm, but certainly nothing like it pulled at the NAT this year.

I respect your point, but I really can't see the problem the same way.

I'll concede the point about the lack of experience with these types of models. It certainly would have been better to have tried it in a separate event for a while first, instead of just jumping in.

BTW - while the 35cc thing might have been how it started, there's NO DOUBT that once it was decided to pick something smaller, the "60% rule" and it's potential demise and effect on existing engines was a principle consideration. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if at least some of the supporters picked something absurdly high (250, or 35cc) as a tactic to get it raised to 15! Before you assume I am being conspiratorial and paranoid - well, I talk to A LOT of people and heard this as a plan about 5-6 years ago. I don't know if this was an element, or not, but once you get over the psychological "hump" and decide to change it somehow, might as well change it to something that matches up with currently available engines.

Of course, the 60% rule is still in effect, so in reality we may all be forced to "1.50" 4-strokes, if we take the "keeping up with the Joneses" theory to it's logical conclusion. Are we going to see a B-25 with 2 Saito 72's. I sure hope so...

Frank, I think you are right with one thing. If I can choose between two engines of the same weight/size/timing and different volume, I would definitely take the bigger. Three years ago I did smaller clone of my relative large model dedicated for LA .46 with pipe. The same model I flew on WC in Sebnitz. I used the same BE 12x3.5 3blade UCT prop at the same rpm as I use on my piped .50 as well on my piped .61 (Jett or PA). The LA was not happy, but still able to work. The difference between those setups is only the run character. While the LA works hard, the .61 is happy at smooth and QUIET 4 cycling – in my eys, the logic “bigg volume = silent flight” could work.

My new model is exactly the same just it has back piped .61. So you are right, if I can choose bigger engine, I will. However it is definitely not hunting for power. It is hunting for reliable setup. If I look back to WC in Sebnitz, I think Todd Lee has smallest engine OS .40; I had LA .46, my buddies Alxander Schrek and Juro Vejmola had .50 (he placed 2nd) I do not remember all others, but I think there was no model over .61. If the bigger volume would be an advantage, we would see all models in final at max limit.

I want to say I do not thing that this 15ccm rule will change something “on top”. But there are also inexperienced flyers, and there is risk that a beginner comes with 35ccm engine in not so well done model or wrong constructed lines or …

So I really do not know if 15ccm is a good way, but I really think, that 15ccm 2C engine is smaller risk than 15ccm 4C engine as 2C engine is easier to regulate. Also everyone who tried 4C engine – even .50 – knows, that starting is more danger than starting of 2C engine. I mean if nothing else, I do not see reason why to distinguish between 4C and 2C.

Didn't Todd have a 46? Even so, I agree with your premise here. The maximum limit we are going to see with present size cases is maybe .80. After that, size and weight of the engine goes up. So expect engines in the .70-.75 or slightly larger to appear when (if) this thing goes through. They will fit in the same airplanes (with the possible exception of the need for a wider pipe) and the size of the envelope and weight won't be much different.

this thing about weight, though, is interesting. I have had several people inquire about the FP .60 or LA .65 for stunt. They are thinking of cheap and not of weight. Those things are boat anchors. But heavy engines are already out there (including some 4-stroke). The cost difference between a .40, .51, .61, .65 built on the same case is about $10 for each step up. So I wouldn't expect a great increase in cost, either, in moving up.

Those who don't fly a lot will probably stick with what they have. Those who need a new engine, or who want the latest whatever, will opt for the larger engines as they become available. And there will be those who snatch up their "cast off" 60's and 65's. But, just as Todd (and several others) were able to compete at the world's with a .46, so the influx of larger engines will not suddenly obsolete or make non-competitive those using the "smaller" engines of today. Didn't Bob just decide to go back to a 40? Isn't Randy coming out with a new light case .40 (not to mention the RO-Jett that is already in production). The smaller engines will be around for a while. Who knows, maybe the trend will go back in that direction even with the availability of larger displacement possibilities.

As Brett mentioned, the original idea was to transfer current limit from volume of engine to other restrictions like line length, model size and especially noise limit. It means original rule had to be without any volume restriction, because a model of given size (which is limited) will need SOME power – delivered either by screaming .15 engine or patient 1.5. So the real volume limit was only by General FAI model definition, which applies to all models not only F2B (35ccm).

I really do not see any reason why to put 35ccm engine to existing model and I do not see reason why to go to bigger models – I personally did little downgrade and plan to do further steps this way.

However, there is risk of “power hunter” who could really think that the 35 ccm will push him to first place and who could do such a combination. It could be an inexperienced guy and that is source of that safety issue and final compromise is limit 15ccm explicitly stated in rules.

BTW, the actual proposal is available on:
http://www.rcmodely.sk/Controlline/

A runaway .91. What a beating that will be. It is likely to have at least 10oz of fuel in it and run for 15 minutes, at least. Now where are those illegal shutoffs?(AMA)

I like the idea of no limits. This is an Open contest so open it up all the way. Engine pull doesnt break the lines. High winds and loss and sudden gain of line tension does. Pull tests based on weight as opposed to engine size is much more logical.

The only thing that will change airplane wise when the larger motors come will be the Fuse numbers. They will most deffinently become much more in line with real airplanes and our RC brothers. Much shorter noses and much longer tail moments with smaller tail areas.

The wings can already carry the extra few oz that will come along with the motor and extended fuses. There really isnt an issue like we are all going to have to build sweepers. The impact wing with a new fuse will be the order of the day.

Brad and I were talking about props when this goes through. The prop diameter wont change much. A little longer but not much. Maybe a wider balde for load reasons. To many bad factors when the props get to long no matter how strong the motor is. I have seen a Saito 72 swing a 14.5" prop. Seen that same prop on a YZ DZ supercharged 1.40. Needless to say the 1.40 is loafing along at all attitudes and never even thinking of getting hot. Meanwhile the Saito is working hard. The new large 2s motors will have so much more umph that you can run them real tame and they will never wear out.(wishful thinking huh??) No replacement for displacement! Like big block vs small block the tame bb will be easier to take care of last alot longer than the hopped up sb. Yet the BB makes more power.

So if the working group wanted to remove limits by proposing 250cc why didnt they just propose the removal of an engine limit all together. I dont understand this thinking towards limiting everything. They limit wingspan and everything. I dont get it. Limit the handle to the centor of the plane and go with whatever the pilot can fit in there.

I also dont understand the idea that rule changes are a such a huge deal. I think it would be fun if rule changes could happen more often. It's just aeromodeling. If a rule change stinks then just change it back. The way it is now it takes many years just to get to propose a change let alone get it through.

I want to propose that the Overheads be extended down to 5' bottoms at opposite ends of the circle with the intersection still being directly over the pilots head. Any time I mention this people get all "You cant change the Pattern! That would be wrong or awful or ruin the event!" I keep thinking it would be a fun addition to the pattern and use more of the hemisphere and the pilots skills. They are very hard to fly this way and alot easier to judge. Judges can see a flat spot in that maneuver a mile away. At any rate it would take forever for me to get something like this through. Heck NASCAR, NHL, and the NFL change rules all the time and they got big money. They make a wrong a change a people lose bigtime.

Oh well enough for now. I like the big motor limit just wish there wasnt one at all.

Well, I forgot to mention the reason why to limit size and not the power. New rules allow also different than piston combustion engines. For example the electric power is limited by maximal voltage (42V) but not the current. You can take 10s3p LiPoly battery (typical R/C combination) giving 37V and 30A and you have (less efficiency) ~1000 Watts on shaft what is enough for 13rpm on 12x6 prop = racer, not stunter. But in reality the power is unlimited.

The same goes on with gas turbine. The limited is static thrust 10N. If you convert it to power at 22m/s you have power: 10N x 22m/s = 220W. It looks like very low number, but it is plenty to maintain that speed. The power grows with speed.

I want to say that it is difficult to limit the power. (even 4C and 2C is difficult to compare), so I think the limit should not be based on power or on power train itself. It should be based on another parameters. … It could be that the current proposal will have some “debugging” changes soon when we try it. J

I think that it stinks that the the higher tech stff doesnt get as much pub as before. However, I dont know what I could add. I haven't really come up with much on my own. Just take others stuff and tweak it a bit. Is there really any more to write about? The aft CG setup is in command and has been for along time. The tuned pipe has been setup and resetup to death. 4s setups everywhere you turn. What else is there to write about?

Doug Moon

Doug,

I shouldn't be taking thread off main topic, but at least one answer to the question posed above is readily available in referring back to what took place after a couple Stunt News columns on four-stroke engines were published.

Details not now, but those who are interested should note that I truly did not care what the wankers and small-minded folk thought or did, right up to and including a petition-based effort to get a specific column kicked out of our newsletter.

I did care **greatly**, and still do, that an attempt was made to put a lot of pressure on Tom Morris. It was wrong then, it is still wrong and I am not likely to forgive those responsible for such conduct. Especially the fellow slotted to begin doing our Safety column again and his friend who is now coordinating a T-shirt design competition to benefit our FAI Team. (A good thing, one which I support.)

As to your direct question, and not to brag, but only a few of us have egos so well-formed, skin so thick as to just blow off the cretins amongst us. So the vast majority have made, and continue to make, a valid decision based upon past experiences, neatly avoiding any controversy, discussions of same.

I can assure you there is puhlenty of high-tech material to write about, even after all these years. Agreed, this sort of material is sorely missed from our beloved Stunt News, Noel Drindak's excellent column being an exception to the rule. Refer to previous paragraph. On a personal level there is little to be gained in sharing new technology; and if the right person or group feels tweaked, wrongly or rightly, they can and will try to make one's hobby life as difficult as possible.

Dan,

It's to bad that such a column like yours really got Tom so much grief. On the one hand I dont think anyone should be censored in SN unless they are making accusations and things we all know shouldnt be there.(Doug Dahlkes column sparked off a few huh?) On the other hand I wonder if you knew ahead of time if your column would cause such heat on Tom and decided to publish it anyway. If so I dont think that was fair of you to do that. But I am not pointing fingers at you just wondering if you thought of it from that point of view. Oh well I liked the column and thought it was funny.

I think I may have something I could write about as far as design and setup ideas go. It has been kicked around on the net here. I think there is alot to it. My style is a little more bland and to the pont and propbably wont mention many names and wont put it in a way that should cause Tom and more grief than he already has.

You dont support Bob Z., imagine that. A petition to get someone removed from writting in SN. What a crazy world we live in. You would think people had better things to do. I dont get it. It really is just aeromodeling. If I were pres and that got handed to me it would have been all I could do to keep from laughing my butt off.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-12-04 AT 03:04 PM (CDT)
 
You Dudes are going to grow your stuff so big that you might as well quit and get into ultralights- at least you can ride around in those.
Next you are going to have to start breeding bio-genetically engineered Stunt jockies with the strength of Conan and the reflexes of Tarzan just to fly this happy garbage...

Jake

Doug Moon wrote: "Now where are those illegal shutoffs?(AMA)"

Wrong. AMA has no rule banning engine shutoffs. FAI does. Or did? I think it's a dumb rule. Shutoffs can only speed up the contest, how can that be a bad thing?

I see this new rule being mostly a permanent way to allow the extra displacement for 4 strokes, which is more sensible than the 60% rule. Allowing a Saito .56 to fly on .015" lines is dumb. Allowing them to use the same pull test as a .40 is dumber yet, but that's what the rules allow. The nice thing is that our team can use those PA and RO-Jett .65's at both the NATS and the WC. Steve

Dan,
It's to bad that such a column like yours really got Tom so much grief. On the one hand I dont think anyone should be censored in SN unless they are making accusations and things we all know shouldnt be there.(Doug Dahlkes column sparked off a few huh?) On the other hand I wonder if you knew ahead of time if your column would cause such heat on Tom and decided to publish it anyway. If so I dont think that was fair of you to do that. But I am not pointing fingers at you just wondering if you thought of it from that point of view. Oh well I liked the column and thought it was funny.

Doug Moon

Doug,

You raise an interesting point, one I had never considered.

I suppose if there had been any hint at all that Zambelli, Peabody, Windy and so on would go berserk on us it would have been a nice gesture to mention this possibility to Tom. And I would have done so.

The problem is there was just no way to predict the reaction of these guys, which says I am a total whack job with no sense of reality. Or the description fits them.

Each is encouraged to make his own judgment, but many of us remember what was in Stunt News and Zambell's responses on this very web site. From Bob's input there was very little way to tell if he had actually read the article or had someone read it to him over a bad cellphone connection, "Can you hear me now?" in the process missing some really important details.

By the way, there is every indication Tom Morris is a big boy and just shrugged off the whiners. Which is exactly why the petition was ciculated, a letter-writing campaign having failed.

Still, when we lose Morris as editor of Stunt News, I will always wonder how much of an effect those grousing about this and other articles had on Tom's decision.

That's the bad news. The good news is that when I asked, a great many people took the time to let Tom know they were backing him all the way. So thanks to those who did.

Say, I see where you are flying some wee model with a screaming O.S. on the front end, this having benefitted from a Brett Buck-style tune-up. They are cool, aren't they? I do so wish I had been smart enough to have one or two of these models back when beginning to fly Stunt, could have cut years off my (protracted) learning experiences.