Enyas in reverse gear !

OK CHAPS,Thinking caps on. Was the reason that GMA and others flew
clockwise because the engine torque tended to make the model bank
outwards,thus increasing line tension? If so,has anyone ever flown
with this combination - anticlockwise ("normal")rotation of model,but
with an Enya engine and a "pusher" prop (the Enya with its front shaft housing rotated 90 degrees to the right,allowing it to run in
reverse)? Maybe some engine experts could give us the "stunt numbers"
for such a modified Enya.
Bob Allan.

I don't think turning an Enya 90 deg will make it run backwards, at least not very well. But Fox makes left hand cranks and I have one of those on an All American Sr. GMA was right (as usual). When a normal rotation engine is launched it tends to come in on you. Especially an AASr. So the reverse crank lets you have favorable torque (also favorable "P" factor) at launch and the rest of the flight is about the same. I am told that the K&B 40 marine version also had a left hand crank, but I haven't ever had one. I even reversed the rear rotor of a Super Tigre 40 once and it ran backward, but not very well. I would suggest a Fox with reverse crank if you want to try a pusher prop.

>I don't think turning an Enya 90 deg will make it run
>backwards, at least not very well. But Fox makes left hand
>cranks and I have one of those on an All American Sr. GMA
>was right (as usual). When a normal rotation engine is
>launched it tends to come in on you. Especially an AASr. So
>the reverse crank lets you have favorable torque (also
>favorable "P" factor) at launch and the rest of the flight
>is about the same. I am told that the K&B 40 marine version
>also had a left hand crank, but I haven't ever had one. I
>even reversed the rear rotor of a Super Tigre 40 once and it
>ran backward, but not very well. I would suggest a Fox with
>reverse crank if you want to try a pusher prop.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

John:The Enya is almost unique in modern front rotor engines in having a separate front end.Turning the front cover(which also carries the intake) 90 degrees will in fact reverse the timing,and consequently the direction of rotation.

Give me a week or so and I'll try out a Enya rotating left hand. Does anyone know if this also applies to a K&B 40, K&B 35 Ser 64 etc? Or a 1961 Fox CS with separable front end. Are there any engines still in production besides Fox that offer LH cranks? I know the K&B Green Heads did. Not much point in a LH crank for a Fox 36X since it is a deSax engine.

GMA flew BOTH WAY'S. Must be nice

Scott(never tried the other way...I'm straight)Riese}>

"Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear"-it's 1956, Gregg County Airport, Longview, Texas. Young George Aldrich is going to fly his amazing Nobler in Open Stunt. 12 year old Dale Gleason is soaking it all in. The maroon Nobler is unlike anything ever seen before. It has fabric covered fuse and empenage. The rudder is airfoiled- not offset. The tailwheel is mounted on a looong wire, the plane sits level as it begins it takeoff roll. It goes BACKWARDS! A beautiful pattern is completed, very slow, and then- inside and outside deadstick loops, followed by lazy eights!. An easy first place victory. But what's this? A SweetSweep knock-off? Transparent yellow Jap tissue covered, maroon trimmed, single wheel landing gear too short to make a takeoff, a new motor from Duke Fox called the Combat Special, and young George Aldrich introduces the Flight Streak- easily winning Open Combat flying in the normal CCW direction.(Got a clean kill on Werner Harvey of the Ruston HobbyHawks in 20 seconds- Harvey flying a Zilch Xpendable with a Fox 29). After the event is over, young George puts on a demo of his Flitestreak's strong bellcrank mounting system, breaking a set of lines rather than the bellcrank ripping out. Rumor has it that GMA flew Stunt CW because he flew in South Africa or somewhere in another hemisphere where the toilets flushed backwards. Be that as it may, young George went his way and 12 yr. old Dale went his way, never to meet again until 1996 at the VSC where George couldn't even remember his Nobler was Maroon. (Thanks, Mike K.-God, the memories! Leonard, I need a smiley face with a tear in its eye!) best regards,

Don't you want to fly inverted?

When I talked to him, yeah, he said he could fly either way. When flying "right way up", he'd apply "down" for "up".

I suspect most of us could. Perhaps not put in absolutely great patterns in either direction (I can't, even the right way up ), but one should be able to fly the mirror image pattern without crashing the plane.

It'll all been done before. Kirn Kraft used to produce a left hand shaft for the TeeDee 049 for use in speed models. Many years ago I built a clockwise stunt model to practice inverted. It had a normal motor - which should have given exactly the effect that you are talking about - and I didn't notice any great difference.
GMA flew anticlockwise with the handle inverted. He spent most of the time flying inverted, i.e. normally.

Basically, in the "old" days when people were still learning to fly control line with small wings and (for them) big props, it was thought that this was an advantage. At that time no one even thought about flying inverted or doing the things we do with them today. But some people learned to fly clockwise, and, because that was the then accepted practice, or was the way they learned to fly even when it no longer was, taught others in the same way. (Try teaching someone to fly clockwise when you fly counterclockwise). So there are a few "holdovers" yet today. But given the balance of the pattern (inverted and upright maneuvers) and the fact that you don't notice any difference while flying (does flying inverted give you a significant increase in tension and feeling of security over flying upright?) most people have moved to flying counter clockwise simply because it keeps the path that the airplane is traveling in front of them.

Ironically, left handed flyers mostly fly counter clockwise, too, but only because their teachers have taught them that way. For them clockwise flight would make a little more sense. But then, we still have the balance of the pattern, so, for the most part, it is insignificant.

One thing to ask yourself, if (whatever you are thinking) is an improvement to our flying, why aren't others doing it? Yes, there are new things to try and always will be. You may someday make a ground breaking discovery. But (obviously) this one has been tried before and now (for the most part) discarded because there is no advantage with the equipment and designs we fly today.

Besides, the engine looks funny that way

Len,
What's ironic about a lefty flying anticlockwise. Seems to me that's the logical way to go. Left-handed combat flyers seem to do quite well.

I think if the front housing of an Enya is rotated 90deg against the normal direction of rotation, i.e. anticlockwise viewed from the front, it will give excellent induction timing for reverse rotation.

On another matter mentioned on this thread?/strand?/whatever? I have been puzzled at a few mentions recently about All Americans tending to turn in on take-off. My initial thought was that with that inboard wing so much longer than the outboard, the extra inboard lift would tend to turn the model out. Offsetting the fus so much effectively moves the cg outboard, which is another way of saying the natural tendency is for the model to turn out. Anybody got any explanation for this characteristic? Maybe at low speeds the inboard drag is greater than the outboard? Would not the lift compensate? Regards

The All American, and other planes with notably longer inboard wings, tend to freeflight on takeoff. I like this because I'm an old freflighter and it is a bit nostalgic. I think the reason they do this is a combination of engine torque and the inboard wing actually being heavier than the outboard wing and not generating excess lift until the airplane is moving at some speed. Whatever the explaination, the phenomenon is real.

>The All American, and other planes with notably longer
>inboard wings, tend to freeflight on takeoff. I like this
>because I'm an old freflighter and it is a bit nostalgic. I
>think the reason they do this is a combination of engine
>torque and the inboard wing actually being heavier than the
>outboard wing and not generating excess lift until the
>airplane is moving at some speed. Whatever the
>explaination, the phenomenon is real.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

It's more likely due to the assymetric thrust from the extreme offset of the fuse and,consequently the thrust line,coupled with assymmetric drag from the longer inboard wing.If you've ever flown a CL twin you know what happens if the outboard engine quits first.Be prepared to step back!

Ron B.

OOPS sorry,I meant the INboard engine....

Great. Engage brain before opening mouth. Re my post no. 13, 90deg. against the direction of rotation is clockwise when viewed from the front.

Still engage brain - my reply was no 8!!!

Like John Wright, I have used an LH Shaft converted Fox 35 Stunt in an AA, Sr.(mid-late-1980's to early-mid-1990's). The most noticeable results:

...Asphalt burns on right hand knuckles from punching the tarmac during starting...

... NO need for tipweight or "warts" to level the wings in flight...

Reasons: There IS a slight constant torque reaction fed to the motor mounts, even in level flight. If engine turns CW, that tends to hold the inboard wing up, in the same way and for the same effect that the tip weight pulls the OUTboard tip down for a CCW engine. Also, the gyro-caused roll/yaw couples on "corners" are reversed -- the model flying CCW with a CW engine tends to nose-out on outsides. The reverse happens with a "standard" setup.

BTW, the Fox 35 Stunt converted to CW rotation runs as nearly identically to the standard setup as imaginable. Just swap shafts on a NEW engine: if the engine had run time, it still needs a second break-in -- excess wear... A rotated ENYA front end has the intake timing lead and lag reversed from what is needed, so some quirky response occurs. I haven't done that since the 1950's, and wasn't qualified to make lab-quality observations, back then.

The All American, Sr, does not drop a wing on takeoff! The flier, however, can drop the inboard wing... Whatever I fly, I take up the slack and LEAD the plane into the air with as much or little firmness as it takes. YES, the AA, Sr, needs a bit firmer lead. but it is the flier's job to make the T.O. smooth. Don't lay ALL the blame on the lopsided offset; you, too, can make it takeoff smooth and clean.

Just for interest's sake (and maybe to answer any questions) I've worked out the figures for the early Enya 6001 and 6002 models which had the same crank timings. The standard timing has the inlet opening 37 degrees ABDC (or if you prefer, 143 degrees BTDC). The inlet closes at 50 degrees ATDC. Total open time is 193 degrees.

After turning the front end 90 degrees the inlet now opens at 40 ABDC (or 140 BTDC) and closes at 53 ATDC with of course still 193 degrees total.

Now it might be thought that this slightly different timing could upset the way it runs but from other engines I've measured the crank timings don't appear to be anywhere near as critical as the exhaust and transfer ports. In fact they're all over the place so I'll list the ones I've measured and underneath I'll put what they would be IF the front housing was able to be turned. The first figure is inlet open based on ABDC, the second is inlet closed based on ATDC.

37 50 Enya 45 models 6001 and 6002
40 53

37 42 Stalker PRO61RE
48 53

43 40 ST G51 stunt
50 47

40 34 OS Max H40S
56 50

45 40 OS Max S35 (and Fox 35)
50 45

43 43 Merco 35
47 47

35 55 OS 40VF
35 55

50 50 Irvine 40RLS
40 40

If you look at these figures diagonally from top line to bottom then you'll notice that they all add up to 90 degrees (OK, I'll admit I hadn't seen it myself until I laid them out this way) but hopefully it shows the huge variations even between similar types of engines such as the Irvine and the VF.