Pipe, 60's or 4 cylces.

I don't want to start a battle between the folks who prefer the pipe setups or conventional, but in my opinion and I think some others, that if you cannot consistently fly your aircraft you are not going to win. I think Windy, by his shear willingness to try many different setups has proven one thing. It really does not matter what engine you use (4 cycle, pipe, or conventional)but it depends truly on your ability as a pilot to fly the pattern accurately. I would like to get everybodies input on this.

Aircobra,

Any kind of reasonable equipment can be made to work well in benign conditions. What really seperates things is the bad to impossible conditions. The equipment that works best in these conditions more often than not will come out ahead of the game. Sometimes in benign conditions something that doesn't seem to be the equal of modern setups can and does come out on top. Take the 2000 Austrailian Nats for instance. A 1959? Design Coy Lady and a Fox .35 won! Myself, I would like to try a four stroke at some time, simply because they have great potential. I don't think that four strokes will take over the world of stunt competion however. The two cycle and pipe systems works extremely well and has a proven track record in winning. It will take quite a lot for four strokes to prove themselves as better than the two stroke and pipe system for reliability and consistenceny.

Just my $1/50th on the subject

I've been flying the PIPE set up for the past three years. I'm running the GMA Jett 50 with an Aldrich pipe at 17.6 inches. works very good. I have the time to put into setting up the pipe runs. It take alot of time and runs to get one to run the way YOU want. Cost is high. HOWEVER, the rewards are super. My next ship will have a PA-61.
NOW for flying FUN planes nothing beats the OLD McCoy on my All American. It's a dumb engine, fuel it, flip it, fly it!

I'm not for sure what you mean by benign conditions Jim. If you are stating that the pipe handles these conditions best, once again I would have to disagree. What I do beleive, it makes no diference whether you fly a pipe, 4 cycle or conventional. Based on what I have witnessed, I think it lies soley on the pilot. Maybe there are pilot preferences, but certainly, in my opinion there does not seem to be any advantages or disadvantges simply pilot prference.

Airacobra,

Benign = 3-10 knots wind no to very light turbulence

Bad = 10-20 knots wind, light mist, light rain, moderate turbulence.

Extremely Bad = 20-40 kts wind, heavy turbulence, moderate rain, snow, ice.

.
>It really does not matter
>what engine you use (4
>cycle, pipe, or conventional)but it
>depends truly on your ability
>as a pilot to fly
>the pattern accurately. I would
>like to get everybodies input
>on this.

You are missing the most important factor, that is, trim/setup. This is more important than engine type and at least equal to piloting skill in importance, in my opinion. The reason that most top pilots can be competitive with any system is only partly piloting skill. The rest of it is ability to optimize the equipment.

I would also add that you really have to have nearly mastered trim and setup before you can even start talking about the relative merits of different designs or systems. Otherwise, the trim differences swamp the tiny differences that one design has over another. Inherent in the trimming process is developing the feel for what a good-flying airplane feels and looks like, which is what separates the top experts from the rest.

I'm the poster boy for this. I can come close to being competitive at the highest levels, but my inherent piloting skills are very mediocre. You can see this easily when something in the system is just a little off. If I end up with some minor trim or power issue, the quality of the flight drops off dramatically. Others can make up for minor problems much better than I can.

The converse is also true. I fly a large number of other people's airplanes. I usually hear that the airplane is pretty good, but the rookie pilot can't do it justice. This is almost always wrong. Most of the time the airplane has some significant problems. When these are fixed, the pilot's skills miraculously improve 100 points worth.

If you could clone Howard's Impact, or my airplane, or most of the top pilot's airplanes, and pass them out to every stunt flier in the country, things would shake out much differently than they do now.

So in one sense, you may be right, the same guys win all the time due to skills they have. But it's not really piloting skill, it's skill at making the airplane work.

The conventional vs. pipe argument is long over, by the way.

Brett, Very well said and a very good point that I have failed to recognize. I agree totally with your assessment. I am not trying to fire the coals , so to speak, of the pipe, no pipe set up, simply, I am attempting to say that no matter what you have, you can be successful at all levels.

>Brett, Very well said and a
>very good point that I
>have failed to recognize. I
>agree totally with your assessment.
>I am not trying to
>fire the coals , so
>to speak, of the pipe,
>no pipe set up, simply,
>I am attempting to say
>that no matter what you
>have, you can be successful
>at all levels.

Aircobra,

Mr. B. (as usual) pretty much summed up the various parts of this puzzle. The only thing I'd add pertaining directly to your original question is that essentially none of the so-called "top pilots" has gone back to conventional exhaust four-two-four style engines after giving the piped engines a real try. Until the recent resurgence of quality 4-2-4 style engines from the old iron curtain countries the need to adapt high rev intended schnerle ported RC pattern engines to our needs pretty much eclipsed any nostalgia fueled desire to force these engines to do other than their designed function...lots of H.P. at very high revs (and, ergo, high speed).

Windy is, of course, the apparent exception although it must be remembered that he is pioneering yet another new concept that...functionally...is not all that different from what the better tuned pipe set-ups are producing. That is very steady constant speed flight with loads of torque. Windy's developments, as we all know, are with the four cycle. Although Windy's current efforts far outstrip my own from many years ago (mid '80s with Enya .46 4-C) the reasons we were both attracted to them is pretty much the same reason so many of us were later attracted to the tuned piped schnerle engines. Very controlled RPM at high torque.

I applaud Windy's efforts because I feel when finally fine tuned to our needs the four stroke will provide better such control and greater torque than the piped set-ups currently provide. The other big advantage (surprisingly) will be a lighter overall weight. This is the result of both less powertrain mass (no header, tuned pipe, pipe mount etc.), much less fuel on board and the fact that the greater raw weight of the engine itself will require a shorter (thus lighter) nose and this can be done because the room for three or four ounces of gas for a seven or eight minute flight can be easily accomadated in that shortened nose.

If you want a prediction, I'd say that in ten years whatever "pro-stunt" is still being done will be predominantly four stroke powered. We shall see.

Ted, surely you are anticipating a four stroke diesel with a pipe? I understand that some years back Bob Davis made a successful diesel head for a four stroke. Anyway I hope we all still care 10 years from now.

Jim,Bob Davis converted a Saito 65 at the time. It is a high compression 4 cycle. He didn't persue it not because it wasn't successful, it was, but because the world simply wasn't ready for it. It simply outperformed everything available at that time.

Denlip, that's literally incredible.

Imagine, the sound of a four stroke and the smell of a diesel-- the worst of both worlds.

Geez, what size prop would such a beast turn?

Brett was right agian. The trim is what makes the plane really fly. As Bob Gieseke has said before "Once the trim is in and the motor is set I can make all those adjustments. Until then dont watch my patterns" Here is where it gets crazy. When I watch his plane fly it looks in trim and flying well. He comes down and cries about something being off that is not noticeable to the rest of us. He is so in tune with the plane he can "feel" it when it is off. Well the plane finally came in and the prop was working. He looked at me and said "You fly it next time" I didnt even answer him I just headed for the handle, quickly before he changed his mind. Wow what a lesson on how far I have to go. I got the handle when 50+ years of work and trim were coming together for a great day of flying. After that I flew my plane and instantly I went to work on a setup I had not touched in two years. I retrimmed the whole plane and I am getting better results all the time. The real key for me was less tail weight and more handle.

Trim is the key.

However the correct motor run will take just as much time and effort to make all that good trim work show how well the plane really can fly. A hard break at the top of the verticles can kill your shape no matter how well the trim is. Getting that smooth transition during manuvers can take hours and hours and many prop changes just to get it close. Then the wheather changes and it is back to the drawing board. Windy was able to bring that 91 in because he has so much time to fly and figure out a new system. That is what has to be done for the rest of us to benifit. He doesnt seem to mind all the work. His four stroke is getting much praise. Please do not forget he had a throttle on his plane making his setup in no way shape or form the same as you will try without a throttle. I would like to see him do it without a throttle. That way I can really learn how to set it up. I dont have the time to put into that. Nor do I think there is an advantage to putting a 91 in your plane over a 65. The weight of a 91 will not lower the overall weight. The plane will have to be built with some pretty big motor mounts to take 91. They may be shorter in length but they will be bigger and thicker therefore negating any weight gain. when the motors start getting this big the planes will need to be bigger also to accomodate such a plant. Maybe not that much bigger.

I guess it all comes down to never ever being satisfied with what you have. Always strive for a better motor run whatever style you choose. Always look to trim out any funny quirks in your flight characteristics. Dont forget to write down the stuff that works. It gets confusing for sure. As you do this you will become a better flier because you will be able to really "feel" when even just the smallest setting is out.

Doug Moon

I have watched over 100 4-stroke flights and believe that there is a key missing somewhere. All seem to do something "funny" at some point in a flight..... Winfred certainly possesses the skills to "fly through" the "hiccup". The strange thing is that there seems to be little that really suggests any commonality to the problem. Reading a bit in the Carrier Newsletter, about achieving success with a Perry Pump that relys upon the rattle of the motor to work. Joe Adamusko, too, believes that the secret lies in the fuel delivery system.

Simply boring the muffler seems to ad a huge amount of predictability, too.

They are sometimes very pleasing, but I have seen several become frustrated.

See Ya

Rich,

I too had that problem until I went to the fixed venturi setup. It now works perfect, i.e., no funnies.

For all the non-believers out there, stay tuned for next year!

You know, a few months ago, there was a fairly nasty dispute on one of the forums about changing the rules for PA, and how the strong pilots were dogs in the manger, etc. I, for one, would not change anything about PA. The charm and challenge of it is that there are no fixed answers to any of the questions....It is at the point of perfect imperfection......

So Paul, can we expect a 4-Stroke with Johnston intake and a B-17 like fuel system?

<Grin>

Randy

>I too had that problem until
>I went to the fixed
>venturi setup. It now
>works perfect, i.e., no funnies.
>
>
>For all the non-believers out there,
>stay tuned for next year!
>

I don't know. I go with what I read from Bill Werwage about 1980. Find a reliable, predictable power delivery system, stick with it and just work on building a straight, relatively light plane. Lern to trim it and practice.

This is pretty much what other's are saying. Build a straight, light plane, learn to trim it and fly.

I've watched guys that use a 4-2-4 run with great success...even now. If you can get a dependable set up, you're 90% there.

Oh boy, this is such a great subject.

Yes, yes, yes, as Aircobra and several others have noted, an extremely good stunt pattern can be flown with a plethora of different types of power plants. Perhaps this is why there have been "great" debates regularly about the subject of stunt powerplants but almost never anything remotely as contentious about stunt model design.

We've all seen comments about "great" patterns flown by a variety of different combinations. Some that come immediately to mind are Paul's flight at one of the "hurricane" Lincoln Nats which drew a standing ovation...the wind might just as well have stopped for all the effect it seemed to have on that Impact: Todd Lee's little Sig Mustang with Fox .35 plowing through similarly difficult winds at yet another Lincoln Nats: Bobby Hunt's several comments regarding a flight I flew at VSC with a Johnson .33 powered Chief as one of the two or three best flights he'd ever seen: a personal favorite was the 1976 performance of New York's Gene Schaeffer with his ST .46 powered "small" stunter with a Tornado three blade 10 X 6 which sounded like a sewing machine from beginning to end and flew its burden with geometric precision all week: and one would be unfair not to recognize the consistent superiority of flying produced by Les McDonald at three World Championships with his K&B .40 powered Stilettoes. Great flying all...and powered by a veritable rainbow of different mfgrs and styles of powerplants.

Yes, there are awesome flights notched in the handles of pretty much any powertrain system one wants to champion. Obviusly, they are all capable of excellence, ergo, why does it make any difference what any individual chooses to mount in the nose of his latest contender? Logic would say it doesn't matter. Yet, when one seriously leaps into the search for an advantage which will propel him to stunt nirvana, it is almost always done in search of a powertrain which will allow more and more consistent such "memorable" patterns.

I can think of no better evidence of Brett's contention regarding the importance of accurate construction and flight trim than the foregoing. Under conditions particularly friendly to a given powertrain system a well trimmed airplane in the hands of a very good (not necessarily great...which is interesting) pilot is capable of excellence which makes the peer group stand in admiration. Thus, a well trimmed plane in the hands of a stunt Mozart will beat most who vie against him. Give that well trimmed airplane a superior powertrain and that Mozart will be beyond reach. Billy Werwage at this year's team trials comes immediately to mind.

Thus, Aircobra's question is , in fact, a great one. Close examination makes obvious that finding the proper powertrain to produce excellence in a greater variety of conditions is the holy grail of the search for stunt immortality. Clearly, there is not yet an undisputed candidate for such immaculate performance.

This is one of the variables that makes control line stunt perhaps the sole C/L discipline with the "magic" to make it a forever challenging endeavor. We don't have to alter the requirements of the event to make it forever demanding. Nature does that for us.

As Billy Werwage noted longer ago than I like to be known I can recognize; the powertrain is the single most important variable with which one must contend in order to make his or her CLPA excellence a matter of record. As I've stated on numerous occassions, the ability to so excel is the predominate reason that the names Paul Walker and Bill Werwage are icons in the tiny world of stunt. I look forward to the apparent upcoming confrontation between the two as Paul endorses the new wave, the four stroke, and Bill stands steadfast in the lists for the current champion, the tuned pipe two cycle. It should be a great fight.

Quite a few people have heard of that Fancher guy too. I've actually seen him fly some pretty snazzy looking Sky Squiggles as well

What are YOU going to be running next season Ted?

All this 4 stroke talk has me wondering who's going to be the first with a throttled 4 stroke horizontally opposed twin. They're making them small enough now. There might even be some outfit making .91 or smaller three cylinder radials now. I don't know about them for sure, I haven't looked at an RC catalog in quite a while. The only 4 stroke twins I've seen run so far have been on R/C airplanes. They seem to run very smoothly & they sound WAY COOL!
Can you imagine how a three cylinder radial & some dummy cylinders would look & sound in something like Kirk Mullinex's gorgeous Corsair pictured in the new SN? WOW!