Engine Power

Sitting here pondering about what happens if you were to put a ST 46 in a 35 size airframe. Is it a power/weight issue? If you can keep the overall weight within reason wouldn't this make for a great airplane, sorta like putting a .60 in a .46 airframe? Must be some reason not many are doing it.

>Sitting here pondering about what happens if you were to put
>a ST 46 in a 35 size airframe. Is it a power/weight issue?
>If you can keep the overall weight within reason wouldn't
>this make for a great airplane, sorta like putting a .60 in
>a .46 airframe? Must be some reason not many are doing it.

ST46's in 35 planes were a very popular solution in the late 70's/early 80's. That's of course when you could still get ST46's, and you didn't have a lot of options for getting more power. It's worked well enough. Towards the end of the 4-2 break era, a lot of "serious" 46 airplanes were getting into the same area as 35 planes. I think the ultimate development of the ST46 plane was also the last - Teds "Celebration" at 610 square inches. This was the airplane that later got converted to 40VF, and then got dorked on the morning of the Walker flyoff due to the "Rossi plug flameout". But it work awfully well as a 46 plane, too. The last time I know of anyone placing well in a major contest with a 46 was David Fitzgerald flying a full-fuse Imitation (625 square inches) coming in 6th at the Team Trials in (?)91(?) - another airplane in the upper end of the "35" plane wing area. I might also note that he ran 15% Cool Power fuel, and reportedly it really woke it up, powerwise!

Putting these engines in Noblers and the like is clearly sub-optimal. 4-2 break airplane design was not like designing around piped motors. Getting exactly the right size and drag for a particular engine was a lot more important. It's not like you could build a design that would fly equally well with a 40, 46, or 60, as is quite common with piped airplane designs. A 40 plane wanted to be one size, a 46 plane wanted to be a particular size, and a 60 a still different size. They shrank over the years, but at any particular time they needed to be a particular size to be competitive.

There is a school of thought that drives you down the path to engine detuning for small airplanes, but I desperately urge everyone with a stock 46 to avoid this. Given that these are perfect engines stock for the right size airplane, and new stock parts are not going to be forthcoming, it's just seems like flogging a dead horse. Particularly so given that even when they are modified for good performance in 35 planes, they are still completely blown away by a lot of current engines you can easily buy.

If you really want to take a trip down memory lane, you simply can't do any better than an Imitation for an ST46. profile of full-fuse, it's probably as good as can be done - the right size to not require a killer motor (i.e. a completely stock motor with a good ring, which simply can't be improved upon), and darn near perfect performance characteristics.

You can still do it, if you have a 46. I have seen many airplanes that way - SIG Chipmunk being a very popular example. But, there's a lot more choices for engines that work as well or better than an ST46 in 35 planes, so you don't see it much anymore. An Aero-Tiger blows an ST out of the water for the typical mid 500 thin-wing airplanes, as does a Magnum 32 or 36, and a lot of others. A really good ST might well be better than the Tiger for the typical "scaling rule" 46 plane like a USA-1 or 720 square inch Genesis, but if you are going to build that size airplane you can still easily find something far better than the ST46.

The
>last time I know of anyone placing well in a major contest
>with a 46 was David Fitzgerald flying a full-fuse Imitation
>(625 square inches) coming in 6th at the Team Trials in
>(?)91(?)

Uh...no.

1996. Brian Kefer won Junior at the Nats and was protested after the fact and dropped to second. Kefer was flying Windy's reduced PM Sidewinder (basically a Time Machine or PM 46) with a Big Jim ST 46.

I think Kefer would have been Top 5 in Open the way he was flying.

I think Keefer also qualified for the US Team with the same type of plane.

BTW a Geiseke Nobler with a ST 46 or LA 46 is very common around Dallas. Bob even did one. The Bear is based on the ST 60 sized Nobler aand the Bear is tiny in comparison to a NE ST 60 plane.

My Oriental as an LA 46 (which is more powerful than a ST 46 BTW). Dee Rice had an ST 46 Oriental, and I have seen several Orientals with ST 46's and LA 46's. The only thing people put Fox 35's in around here is Ringmasters and such.

>The
>>last time I know of anyone placing well in a major contest
>>with a 46 was David Fitzgerald flying a full-fuse Imitation
>>(625 square inches) coming in 6th at the Team Trials in
>>(?)91(?)
>
>Uh...no.
>
>1996. Brian Kefer won Junior at the Nats and was protested
>after the fact and dropped to second. Kefer was flying
>Windy's reduced PM Sidewinder (basically a Time Machine or
>PM 46) with a Big Jim ST 46.

Uh.. no. You appear to have gotten things a little mixed up. Keiffer is the correct spelling, I think. The year he was running the small Patternmaster/Cardinal with the ST46 was NOT the year he got protested and DQ'ed. He may have won Junior that year (I would suggest going an looking it up) but he was not going to be particularly competitve in advanced. He would have done a lot better, but all his bottoms were at 2 feet. I believe this was 96.

The year after that, he had something like an SV-11, very heavy, blue, with a truly monumental amount of tip weight. I helped him trim to some extent, with something more potent than an ST46 (might have been an ST60, or a 51). Probably 97. He may have qualified in Advanced, but he didn't win. I might have test-flown this airplane ( I know I had planned to, but I can't actually remember doing it).

The year after that was when he ended up winning Advanced. Then he was protested over BOM and he got his appearance points disallowed because he was flying one of Windy's airplanes (that he had repaired) and dropped to 4th. He also "won" either junior or senior, but got disqualified (not finishing in second, DQed, technically he was not eligible to enter, so if you want to be pedantic, he didn't fly officially). He was allowed to fly in (junior or senior) after the ruling but while it was being appealed. I don't recall the engine, but there' no way it was with an ST46 in the big old V-Max Griffin.

>
>I think Kefer would have been Top 5 in Open the way he was
>flying.
>
>I think Keefer also qualified for the US Team with the same
>type of plane.

Wrong and wrong, see above. He did fly exceptionally well the year he got DQed, (was still 4th in advanced without his 14 disallowed appearance points), but that was not with an ST46, nor was it Top 5 material unless you have an axe to grind, or don't know what you are talking about. That was the year Paul won with the Impact, and David flamed out on his third flight.

<<off-topic discussions of *other* 46s - not the engine we were discussing - snipped due to irrelevance. An LA46, or other available 46s' were not the topic. >>>

there' no way it was with an ST46 in
>the big old V-Max Griffin.

I am pretty sure it was. The V-max was not a big plane.

>>I think Kefer would have been Top 5 in Open the way he was
>>flying.
>>
>>I think Keefer also qualified for the US Team with the same
>>type of plane.
>
> Wrong and wrong, see above. He did fly exceptionally well
>the year he got DQed, (was still 4th in advanced without his
>14 disallowed appearance points), but that was not with an
>ST46, nor was it Top 5 material unless you have an axe to
>grind

No axe. Best junior I ever saw.

Well,

I think the best Senior would have to go to Robby Gruber at the present time, he did beat both Brett and David at the Team Trials.
At least that's what the scores in Stunt News indicate anyway!

>Well,
>
>I think the best Senior would have to go to Robby Gruber at
>the present time, he did beat both Brett and David at the
>Team Trials.
>At least that's what the scores in Stunt News indicate
>anyway!

I think he definitively beat me in the head to head competition on Saturday (and a lot of other people too, in fact 17 other people including Bobby and other notables). He was 6th overall when the whole field was flying together. He didn't definitively beat David, in fact Dave was well ahead of him. You can't really compare Rob's Saturday score to anyone's Sunday score - different judges.

In any case, he's awfully darn good, and certainly will be competitive for qualifying at the W/C, and maybe competitive for the podium.

>>
>>1996. Brian Kefer won Junior at the Nats and was protested
>>after the fact and dropped to second. Kefer was flying
>>Windy's reduced PM Sidewinder (basically a Time Machine or
>>PM 46) with a Big Jim ST 46.
>
> Uh.. no. You appear to have gotten things a little mixed
>up. Keiffer is the correct spelling, I think. The year he
>was running the small Patternmaster/Cardinal with the ST46
>was NOT the year he got protested and DQ'ed. He may have won
>Junior that year (I would suggest going an looking it up)
>but he was not going to be particularly competitve in
>advanced. He would have done a lot better, but all his
>bottoms were at 2 feet. I believe this was 96.
>
>
> The year after that was when he ended up winning Advanced.
>Then he was protested over BOM and he got his appearance
>points disallowed because he was flying one of Windy's
>airplanes (that he had repaired) and dropped to 4th. He also
>"won" either junior or senior, but got disqualified (not
>finishing in second, DQed, technically he was not eligible
>to enter, so if you want to be pedantic, he didn't fly
>officially). He was allowed to fly in (junior or senior)
>after the ruling but while it was being appealed. I don't
>recall the engine, but there' no way it was with an ST46 in
>the big old V-Max Griffin.
>
>>
>
> Wrong and wrong, see above. He did fly exceptionally well
>the year he got DQed, (was still 4th in advanced without his
>14 disallowed appearance points), but that was not with an
>ST46, nor was it Top 5 material unless you have an axe to
>grind, or don't know what you are talking about. That was
>the year Paul won with the Impact, and David flamed out on
>his third flight.
> Brett

Sorry Brett,
The year Brian was protested WAS the year he flew Windy's V-Max. He was protested by Dondi Garrison's father. He was allowed to fly in Advanced (actually after the fact the appearance points were dropped)
and so was his placing.
I know this for a fact because the '96 NATS is the last one I attended. I was there as the discussions were going on with Dondi's Dad and some other people around the pool, I was even asked what my take was on it (I knew Dondi's Dad pretty well). I will not make a bet as to the engine, but I do believe it was an ST 46. And contrary to many people around here, I only say what I know is 100% correct.
Thanks
Bill <><

>The year Brian was protested WAS the year he flew Windy's
>V-Max. He was protested by Dondi Garrison's father. He was
>allowed to fly in Advanced (actually after the fact the
>appearance points were dropped)
>and so was his placing.

Right - and that's what I said above. But the protest was not the first trip to Muncie in 96, or at least that's not my memory.

>I know this for a fact because the '96 NATS is the last one
>I attended. I was there as the discussions were going on
>with Dondi's Dad and some other people around the pool, I
>was even asked what my take was on it (I knew Dondi's Dad
>pretty well).

I don't think it was '96, because I helped Brian a little bit in both 96 and 97, In 96 he flew a red/white BJ/Cardinal with an ST46 (first year in Muncie) with about 2 foot bottoms.

Year after, he had a blue or green SV-11 or similar that had all sorts of trim problems. Let's say it's not likely that anyone confused that airplane with one Windy made - it looked definitely kid-built. I think that had an ST51, but it might have been a PA. I remember it pretty well because that was the year I played musical engines, and almost withdrew Tuesday afternoon in frustration.

I didn't help him in 98, which is I think the year the unpleasantess happened. I'll check when I get home. I know that Brian went to more than one Muncie NATs - and I also know he never went back after the protest. Since the first year of permanent Muncie was 96 (Tri-Cities in 95), I think it was not 96.

Brett

LOL!!
Brett, my good man, it could not have been any other year than 1996.
I was there for the whole thing! Are you listening?? You're too young to be having Senior Moments! LOL!!

Don't know about any other year, but in 1996, Dondi's Dad did the protest, Brian's Dad seemed like he was going to try and fight Garrison, lots of choice language, and it was a mess. Bob Hunt, and I, had quite a discussion about it.

The airplane WAS___ Windy's V-Max. My son, Aaron, not much older than Brian and Robbie Hunt, drew my attention to it when he first saw the plane. I had been receiving tapes to review in my column for Stunt News and the V-Max was on them. The "repair" was a farce, and other than some black paint, it didn't look in the least bit damaged. Or did it appear to have ever been. If it was repaired, it was done by someone with much more skill than Brian had at the time.
It was '96, couldn't have been any other year because my only NATS in the '90s were '93 (Vincennes) and '96 at Muncie.
I always appreciate your input, but this time you are a "little" off .......
Take care,
Bill <><

>The airplane WAS___ Windy's V-Max. My son, Aaron, not much
>older than Brian and Robbie Hunt, drew my attention to it
>when he first saw the plane. I had been receiving tapes to
>review in my column for Stunt News and the V-Max was on
>them. The "repair" was a farce, and other than some black
>paint, it didn't look in the least bit damaged. Or did it
>appear to have ever been.

That's an entirely different subject that I think we ought to avoid. Leave it classified as an "unfortunate" incident that is best left to the past.

>I always appreciate your input, but this time you are a
>"little" off .......

I'll go check. But I do remember the 3 airplanes I mentioned, vividly, since I was at ALL of these NATs - so either it took more than one year, or he flew 3 different airplanes in the same NATs. Or I got the order wrong.

Brett,

I believe that you have the order wrong, I remember the V-Max controversy as the year that I began flying again - that was 1996!
Check the Sept-Oct 1996 Stunt News

LAST EDITED ON Dec-11-03 AT 05:01 PM (CST)
 
> I don't think it was '96, because I helped Brian a
>little bit in both 96 and 97, In 96 he flew a red/white
>BJ/Cardinal with an ST46 (first year in Muncie) with about 2
>foot bottoms.

Nope. I too ONLY attended the 1996 Nats for a number of years.

Baron won that year. It was my first Nats. Keiffer flew the Windy plane, it was huge controversy. Feel free to ask around elsewhere.

In fact I would be willing to bet, and I would be equally willing to bet that the Windy plane had a Big Jim ST 46 in it (because I asked).

It was smokin...

>The
>>last time I know of anyone placing well in a major contest
>>with a 46 was David Fitzgerald flying a full-fuse Imitation
>>(625 square inches) coming in 6th at the Team Trials in
>>(?)91(?)
>
>Uh...no.
>
>1996. Brian Kefer won Junior at the Nats and was protested
>after the fact and dropped to second. Kefer was flying
>Windy's reduced PM Sidewinder (basically a Time Machine or
>PM 46) with a Big Jim ST 46.
>
>I think Kefer would have been Top 5 in Open the way he was
>flying.

I did indeed get the sequence mixed up. V-Max incident was 96, Red/white BJ/ST46 was 97, and the blue model must have been 98. I stand corrected on this point.

But, to suggest it was Top 5 quality flying is really absurd, and even without the incident, winning advanced ( or maybe 30th-35th overall) is really not what I had in mind for "high placing in a big contest". Typically, last year's Advanced winner winds up in the upper teens/low 20's in Open the next year, even after having another year to prepare. Doug was an abberation in that he flew very much better the next year - not just a little bit, a lot.

It's an irrelevant detail in any case. My original point (that you could do a lot better than an ST46 in just about any size airplane) still stands. It was great in it's day, and I was among the last holdouts, but time moves on.

> But, to suggest it was Top 5 quality flying is really
>absurd, and even without the incident, winning advanced ( or
> maybe 30th-35th overall) is really not what I had in mind
>for "high placing in a big contest".

Winning Junior was all I said, I had no idea about Advanced. I understand your concern about anyone from Advanced at the Nats being considered a winner in a major contest. Ho!!!!!

Anyway, I thought Keiffer flew wonderfully...

Werwage won Classic that same year with a ST 46 also.

Baron won with a ST 60 also.

CG, for one thing.

Put a big engine in a small airframe and you move the CG forward and loose manuverability.

Put enough weight in the tail to rebalance and you have increased the wingloading. Now the entire airframe has to work harder to turn the same radius.

Certainly having more power is a wonderful thing, but I suspect the better way to increase the power/weight ratio of a given airframe is to decrease the weight where possible, not just stuff in a bigger engine. That said, it makes lots of sense to -- as an example -- replace a stock Fox .35 with an L&J .35. You get more power out of the same engine. Nothing increases except the power available (and possibly the fuel consumption).

This is, of course, just a bunch of generalities.

If you want to get into specifics the old hands on the forum can fill the page with equations.

Cy

1. larger props can cause problems..Landing, Take off, Yaw,
2. Fuel tanks may not fit. A .35 sized plane is based aroun a 4 oz tank.
3. ALL .46 are heaver than the FOX .35 so your weight goes up and then you need to add tail weight. So wing loading becomes an issue.
4. AGAIN the term "POWER" is used.
QUESTION: is power RPM? Torque? amount of fuel to air mix? HP? or how big a prop it can swing?

Go by wing sq" and weight to step up to a .46

So to answer your question..."STAY IN THE ENVELOPE"
.35 up to 600 sq and under 40 oz

Scott(hope I did ok)Riese

Hi Scott,

IMHO, it is a case by case senario. I have a Spacehound, built to exact specs, which flies extremely well with an old ST 46. Juri flew his with a MVVS 35 combat engine on bladder with a 10X4 prop. It is 54" ws.

Any engine of 35 size, or larger, is heavier than a Fox 35. Even the current .28's and .32's in use.

And I cannot explain the "power" word, nor would I care to, but I know what it is! I flew my Argus with a reworked Fox 35 (37 oz.) no muffler. I switched to a Webra .32, reworked, and there was a marked difference in the plane's performance. It was also nose heavy so after Brodak's, it came out. Now has a DS 40 set up as Tom Dixon has said. Not quite the feel of the Webra, but easier to run and the balance is back close to where it was.

Tom showed up back when the "new" ST 51 came out with one retro fitted to his T-Bird II. It won Classic that day, but it was just an experiment.

Oh yeah, Billy's Vulcan w/ST 46 which won Classic at the NATS in '96, and IIRC at least once at VSC. The Vulcan is definitely a Fox 35 plane.

So..... in my book, if it works use it.
Bill <><

>1. larger props can cause problems..Landing, Take off, Yaw,
>2. Fuel tanks may not fit. A .35 sized plane is based aroun
>a 4 oz tank.
>3. ALL .46 are heaver than the FOX .35 so your weight goes
>up and then you need to add tail weight. So wing loading
>becomes an issue.
>4. AGAIN the term "POWER" is used.
>QUESTION: is power RPM? Torque? amount of fuel to air mix?
>HP? or how big a prop it can swing?
>
>Go by wing sq" and weight to step up to a .46
>
>So to answer your question..."STAY IN THE ENVELOPE"
>.35 up to 600 sq and under 40 oz
>
>Scott(hope I did ok)Riese

After all these questions are answered, there are no absolutes. Matt's 35 powered Stuka was 570 square inches and weighed about 46 ounces. It was a very good combination. However, using the 96 airframe, still the same size, we used it for a test bed for the 10.7 ounce 53 turning a 13 inch three blade prop. It was a really nice combination. Still 570 square inches with a 53 turning a 13 inch 3-blade prop.

Matt is in the process of building a Rabe Mustang (He and Al chose the same paint schemes, would you believe, without consulting each other first) and it will be a test bed for a smaller plane powered by a rear exhaust .61. (Al's choice of power as well).

It is possible to use larger engines--even modern engines--on "smaller" planes. Just keep the weight down and make sure you can keep the gear on the ground when the prop is turning.

Bob,

You don't need an ST .46 anymore. Enter the LA .46 - not the greatest quality, but it does get ST .46 type quality runs with minimal fiddling. The LA .46 I just bought is going into my Continental when I do get around to building it!

OK now that we have the ball rolling, I have 6 or 7 ST 46's most are nib, I also have two sets of Tony Cincotta's Plasma piston/liner assemblies which will eliminate any ring issues. Have decided that my classic ship is going to be a Skylark powered by a ST 46. I was thinking about building the 35 size version but have seen the light, the 46 version at 614 sq inches puts it right in the ball park with Ted's "Celebration".

Thanks for the tips guys, this should work out well.

Bob,

Since you alread own half the world's supply of ST .46's or so it seems, The .46 Skylark and one of those sounds like a match made in heaven. Of course my Warden Continental (Similar in size around 620 Sq. In) will have the ever popular LA .46 in it's nose.

If I didn't have the Tigres I would sure be thinking about the LA 46. I had the pleasure of putting quite a few flights on a Buccaneer 740 with an LA 46 and it was really a nice combo. Rumor has it that the Tigre has a little more grunt than the LA but it's been 30 years since I have flown a Tigre so don't yet have any first hand opinions.

HI Jim. I guess at seven I have the rest of the world supply?? 1 rebuilt at the factory, 2 new in the box, 3 broken in and ready for mounting, 1 in for minor repairs. Reminds me, got to call Curtis.

Snippity, snip, snip...

4. AGAIN the term "POWER" is used.
QUESTION: is power RPM? Torque? amount of fuel to air mix? HP? or how big a prop it can swing?
Go by wing sq" and weight to step up to a .46

Scott Riese

Scott,

While there are lots of definitions out there, in my mind and in the way I prefer to think about it, to visualize what we so off-handedly refer to as "power," is instead torque.

Torque is doing the work. You can rate a specific engine as to horsepower based upon a torque reading, but it still comes down to the the twisting force at the crank, and that is torque. All else seems to confuse those of us without a degree in engineering, this confusion sometimes aided and abetted by the same folk with noted educational background.

Torque, torque, give me more torque, not less!

Power as I see it is...............The prop is the transmission and to have your engine in L-2 or L-1 or D it's determined by.

ST-51 in a T-bird 2…OVERKILL …weight issue
Don’t care if he won BUT, would YOU DO IT, I wouldn’t mine comes in at 36 oz.

“It is possible to use larger engines--even modern engines--on "smaller" planes. Just keep the weight down and make sure you can keep the gear on the ground when the prop is turning.”
Leonard Neumann

Think that was my point, You said it better.

Scott(got to go for a walk)Riese

>Snippity, snip, snip...
>
Scott,
>
>While there are lots of definitions out there, in my mind
>and in the way I prefer to think about it, to visualize what
>we so off-handedly refer to as "power," is instead torque.
>
>Torque is doing the work. You can rate a specific engine as
>to horsepower based upon a torque reading, but it still
>comes down to the the twisting force at the crank, and that
>is torque. All else seems to confuse those of us without a
>degree in engineering, this confusion sometimes aided and
>abetted by the same folk with noted educational background.
>
>Torque, torque, give me more torque, not less!
>
>Dan

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Just when you think you're free,they drag you back in again!Dan,this is what I've been trying to get across ever since I first jumped into this Forum.As far as I can tell,you're the only one to grasp it.No matter how you cut it,we need accelleration to bring the airplane back to speed(or better yet,keep it at speed) when it is slowed by induced drag in a manoever.Accelleration=TORQUE; speed=horsepower,it's as simple as that.Ergo:The more torque available,the faster the recovery.No matter how you get there;high RPM/low pitch,more cubes,a pipe,or any other strategy,it's still torque.

LAST EDITED ON Dec-10-03 AT 05:15 PM (CST)
 
Whoa pardner. Many moons ago I spent my 2 cents worth on this forum stating torque was the twisting action on a shaft. Drive shaft, axle shaft, crankshaft, whatever. Horsepower was the ability to do a given amount of work over a given distance a given time. Nothing more. HP = rpms, not push or pull. The ability to turn a given prop a certain rpm is torque. No one agreed with me then, now they do?? I taught this subject for 6 years in a private Technical College. But then I'm not an engineer nor in the top 1500.

>Whoa pardner. Many moons ago I spent my 2 cents worth on
>this forum stating torque was the twisting action on a
>shaft. Drive shaft, axle shaft, crankshaft, whatever.
>Horsepower was the ability to do a given amount of work over
>a given distance a given time. Nothing more. HP = rpms, not
>push or pull. The ability to turn a given prop a certain
>rpm is torque. No one agreed with me then, now they do?? I
>taught this subject for 6 years in a private Technical
>College. But then I'm not an engineer nor in the top 1500.

Whoa...I'm with TY. Dan's just old and needs to retire...lol
It's basic.... as TY say's in the statement above. I wounder if people think DRAG has something to do with TORQUE.

Scott(Boilermakers 83)Riese

LAST EDITED ON Dec-11-03 AT 01:30 AM (CST)
 
Ron B.
F4Fguy

Forgive me for trying to simplify the concept.HP does not=RPM .Horsepower=TORQUE X RPM
The ability to turn a given prop a given RPM is HP.The way we measure that HP is by measuring the TORQUE at that speed,and multiplying it by the RPM,then dividing by a constant determined by the measurment system. HP is the number of foot/pounds,inch/ounces,gram/centimeters,stones/hand,per unit time.Torque is an instantaneous value.
The fact remains,if you want to accellerate faster you need more TORQUE.If you want higher top speed you need more HP.As Brett pointed out above,we only need about 1/4 HP to go as fast as we want to go.But,when the airplane slows in a manoever,the more torque we have available at the lower speed,the faster we recover the lost speed.If you slow to a point where the torque is insufficient to accellerate,the speed continues to drop and a stall results.this is why it's not a good idea to look only at the HP curve,without considering the torque curve.

Ron,

Well said! Had you ever considered our props as 'fluid couplings?'

Unloaded, we run into an RPM limit from the actual prop and mixture setting, load, drag, etc. (The problem many of us can't seem to grasp is that each prop/load/mixture combination has a unique power required curve with that engine. We reach the HP(req) matches/exceeds HP(available) point for that setup without much regard for the manufacturer's quoted max HP at some near-mythical RPM.)

Loaded in maneuvering, drag "deepens" the slip in the flow through the prop disc, adding a load to slow the RPM closer to the torque peak band. That's where we get a torque (applied) increase... And the closer RPM drops toward the torque peak, the more torque is available to restore RPM.

But haven't a few already said that? The only image I'd add is that of either a fluid coupling (prop slippage) or a rubber towrope. With a rubber towrope, the tractor and trailer settle in at the same speed, with only so much 'stretch' as is needed to meet rolling and/or air resistance. Start up a steep grade, and we'd have some amount of gravity vector adding to the tongue load, right? The rubber rope stretches further.

>No one agreed with me then, now they do??
> But then I'm not an engineer nor in the top 1500.

Ty,
That's the problem around here. Ron B. knows his stuff, met him years ago. Several others do, too.
But if someone like you and me, just old guys who have done this for a while but are not consumed by it, says anything (even if it's PROVEN FACT) you are really not paid much attention to. Gotta be from the NW or something.
See ya soon,
Bill <><

>Have decided that my classic ship is going to be a
>Skylark powered by a ST 46. I was thinking about building
>the 35 size version but have seen the light, the 46 version
>at 614 sq inches puts it right in the ball park with Ted's
>"Celebration".

Hi Bob,
I have the same "plans" for my 56" Skylark, realizing that Ed's originals were powered first by a McCoy RH 35 then RH 40's!
Bill Byles (IMHO the expert on Ed's planes) uses and recommends a ST 46 for the 56" WS version.
BTW: how does Tony's plasma P/S work for you?
Thanks
Bill <><

>BTW: how does Tony's plasma P/S work for you?
>Thanks
>Bill <><

Don't know yet, hoping to have the Skylark at Brodaks next year, maybe by then I will have a good idea of how well they work. I am planning on breaking in one of the stock 46's and having it ready just in case.

DON'T THINK I READ ANY MENTION OF DAVID FITZ' USE OF THE ST .46 IN HIS SIG CHIPMUNKS IN LATER YEARS OF HIS JR/SR CAREER. FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS HE RAN ONE OF THOSE BEAUTIFUL BIG ART OS .35S'. DON'T ASK ME HOW MANY YEARS HE USED THE ST 'CAUSE MY MEMORY AIN'T EXACTLY POLAROID ENDORSED. I DO KNOW THAT THE CONSISTENCY OF PERFORMANCE SEEMED TO IMPROVE PRETTY DRAMATICALLY BECAUSE HE CONTINUED TO WIN IN SR UNTIL HE WAS TOO OLD.

ALSO, IT NEVER QUIT INVERTED WITH THE ST SO I GOT REALLY, REALLY RUSTY WITH MY NATS OVER THE SHOULDER INVERTED CHIPMUNK RUNNING CATCH. (GOT A GOLDEN GLOVE AWARD ONE YEAR FOR DOING THE SAME TRICK NOT ONLY ONCE BUT TWICE!)

TED...Turn down your hearing aid. You cracked my lap top!

scott(can you hear my now)Riese}>

ALSO, IT NEVER QUIT INVERTED WITH THE ST SO I GOT REALLY, REALLY RUSTY WITH MY NATS OVER THE SHOULDER INVERTED CHIPMUNK RUNNING CATCH. (GOT A GOLDEN GLOVE AWARD ONE YEAR FOR DOING THE SAME TRICK NOT ONLY ONCE BUT TWICE!)

Ted,

You will remember that when you snagged a bee out of the air during second-round flights at the 2003 NW Regionals, when it came time to maybe pull a Golden Glove trick for you, not a one of us moved.

He was too fast. It's that simulator training. You should see how fast those guys can react to an engine loss. You don't want to have your fingers near the throttle quadrant or speedbrake handle.

I'm still wondering how that bee got through the prop so that it could lodge in the venturi? Had the engine already quit?

Ted

Please turn off the Caps Lock.

If you can really read those all-caps posts easily, you are one of about 1.5% of all the people on the planet.

As for me, my eyes roll back into my head and my brain hurts every time.

Geoff (a professional writer and desk-top publisher)

>Please turn off the Caps Lock.

I'm sure he would be glad to - but for some reason NASA, who supplied his work computer, has locked the software to force all caps all the time. I don't even know how you could do it (at least, easily do it), but they did.

>
>>Please turn off the Caps Lock.
>
> I'm sure he would be glad to - but for some reason NASA,
>who supplied his work computer, has locked the software to
>force all caps all the time. I don't even know how you could
>do it (at least, easily do it), but they did.
>
> Brett
Wow! You guys are sensitive. Hope nobody puts peas under your mattresses. You'll get up all black and blue

Brett's right. My computer at NASA is set up as part of a network and is more or less locked into all caps. I work for a contract outfit called the Aviation Safety Reporting System. We research and analyze industry incidents and anomalies and enter the diagnoses into a data base and the search machine that harvests incident reports for inquiring minds looks for caps. Tried to point this out a couple of times in the past but nobody reads everything so some have missed my mea culpa.

We do have a couple of computer nerds who fix things and monitor for virae and so forth. I might ask if they can do something about it although I hate to advertise that I sneak onto the internet for purposes other than research from time to time. Probably the only guy in the office who does that, too.

If it's really that much of a problem I can wait until I get home to participate. Sorry it bothered y'all.

I might ask if they can do
>something about it although I hate to advertise that I sneak
>onto the internet for purposes other than research from time
>to time. Probably the only guy in the office who does that,
>too.

Yeah, I'm sure that's true. Dang slacker!

Brett

>Ted
>
>Please turn off the Caps Lock.
>
>If you can really read those all-caps posts easily, you are
>one of about 1.5% of all the people on the planet.
>
>As for me, my eyes roll back into my head and my brain hurts
>every time.
>
> Geoff (a professional writer and desk-top publisher)

Geoff,

If you think that's rare you're gonna be amazed to learn I can also read in all lower case and in literally thousands of different fonts and font sizes. Don't recall ever having a physical reaction from doing so ...at least from the reading ... maybe the content gets to me from time to time though. Good genes, I guess!

Bob,
Contrary to what many have said on this subject the St.46 can and does handle larger airplanes than one's with 600 sq. in. of wing area. The ST.46 was so versatile that you could open the engine up with a .300 venturi and tongue muffler and fly models as large as 700 sq.in. I did with the Magnum (89 Advanced Champion) and so did Billy Simon with his Scorpio and Les McDonald with his Stiletto 700 & 660 (Nats and World Champion), not to mention Billy Werwage and his USA-1 & Juno.

Having said that, the St .46 engine can be set up for just about any size model by changing the venturi size, type and size of the muffler, prop, and Nitro content in the fuel.

In my humble opinion still one of the best engines out there.

>Bob,

>Having said that, the St .46 engine can be set up for just
>about any size model by changing the venturi size, type and
>size of the muffler, prop, and Nitro content in the fuel.
>
>In my humble opinion still one of the best engines out
>there.

Mikey,

I don't recall there being anything humble about you or any of your opinions. Correct in a great many cases, true. But humble? I think not.

Dirt,
OK, maybe not all that humble buddy!!!!!

Mikey:+

For what it's worth, Karen Meador flew a Gieseke Nobler powered by a ST46 at a number of NY/NJ contests in the 1980s - I believe she even flew it at the 1983 Nats. Great flying plane with plenty of power.