Trying to finalize my engine choice...

Here is my situation. I have an Oriental underway. It will be heavier than most, but not terrible. I have a NIB Fox. 35 and also a NIB SilverFoxx .40 (BB). I would suspect that the .40 will run great, but the bone stock .35 could be "interesting".

I get the feeling that the SilverFoxx would be on the verge of overkill, but what if I purposely went a little heavy? I.e., didn't hollow blocks too much etc...

Keep in mind that this ship will be used in Beginner! When (if) I make it to Intermidiate, I would build another ship.

Wouldn't a slightly heavier plane (with tons of power) be better in the wind and easier to handle in general versus a super light plane with adaquate power?

Again, I'm talking Beginner stunt here so please keep that in mind. No matter what I do, at this stage, the plane WILL turn out to be heavier than most anyway.

Thanks for thoughts.

The Oriental was designed around an un muffled Fox Stunt 35. The Fox Stunt 35 is a fine engine and for a time, "ruled the roost" in US stunt. I still like mine and have many more of them than airplanes to put them in. There were some who flew ships up to 600 sqi with the Fox Stunt 35. That they did is a tribute to their fine flying and building abilities.

The fact is, though, that adding a muffler adds nose weight and decreases power. As a beginner, you will find that power can get you out of trouble. Get out of trouble means your ship lives to fly another day. Experienced flyers know when to back off or how to handle adverse conditions. You are admittedly low on experience. There will probably be times that if you get in trouble, the Stunt 35 might not have the grunt to keep the lines tight until you recover and you end up with a bag of balsa to bring home.

Since you have asked for recommendations, I would say go with the Silver Foxx 40. If you have to add some weight to the tail, so be it. Keep the finish light and you will still have a good flying ship that will have the power to get out of trouble if (and when) you get into it.

If you are unsure of using the Sliver Foxx 40, you might want to try an OS LA 46. It is a little lighter than the LA 40, can be had for about $75 from Tower, and seems to be a good match for ships around the size of the Oriental. These engines are precisely made, break in very easilly and run well. If you destroy one, it is not as big a loss as a Silver Foxx 40.

Best of luck whatever you chose.

V/r

Or, I suppose I could hold off and see what the finished (non-covered) airframe ends up weighing?

My biggest concern is being under powered or being in a situation where the powerband is not flexiable enough. As a newer flyer my favorite engine has been my OS .35 FP. It seems to run in almost any RPM range with no comlpaints.

Screw the Beginner Stunt thing. Saito 72 or wait for the new Saito 82 just in case. Trust me, the weight issue will be irrelevant!!
Just joking. No doubt, the replies to this post will steer you in the right direction.

I have a Brodak Oriental kit with a hemi Fox .35. It weighs 43 ounces RTF and flies just fine with a 10-5 prop, 7 1/2 percent nitro, 24 percent castor, and 59 foot lines.

Someone recommended an LA 46. Sorry - that would be way too much for that plane, plus you would have to fly it on .018 lines. I'm hoping it was a typo and the person was actually suggesting an LA 40. That would be better, but is heavier and bulkier than the Fox.

I don't have any experience with the Silver Foxx 40, but I could recommend a Double Star 40. It's a little pricy, but is a direct drop in for the Fox 35. I can also recommend the Brodak 40. Both of these engines are lighter and shorter than the LA 40 and would fit the Oriental front end better.

Finally, do not try to purposely build anything heavier. I guarantee the plane will come out heavier than you planned anyway.

Enjoy,

Ron King

De;

Good point. I will never question whether the Fox Stunt 35 has the ponies to pull the Oriental. It did and it does and it will. There is not a large reserve of power, but as long as things are going well and the pilot knows what he/she is doing, they will do just fine.

Therein lies the rub. A low time flyer doesn't always know what he or she is doing. They make mistakes. When mistakes happen, lines can go slack. When that happens, you have problems. Power is neither the alpha nor the omega, but it can help when things go wrong. Having that extra bit can save a new flyer's ship if they start their maneuver in the wrong location with respect to wind or bleed off speed too quickly or make a myriad of other mistakes that new flyers (and some of us more "experienced" flyers) make.

I don't plan on scrapping out any of my old Stunt 35s any time soon. At the same time, there are ships out there that can fly well with the Stunt 35 in the nose, but can also benefit from the extra grunt of a more powerful engine.

V/r

Bob Krruger

Bob,

The Fox weighs about 7 ounces. When you install a heavier engine in an airplane that was designed for a Fox, you have to add tail weight to balance it. If a beginner has already built a slightly heavy airplane to start with, the new heavy engine and the tail weight make it a really heavy airplane. Real heavy airplanes do not fly all that well if they are .35 sized.

Again, at this year's VSC, in sunday's wind that that most people refused to fly in, Joe Gilbert (an intermediate flyer) flew his Fox .35 powered ARF Nobler in it and survived. Several airplanes with modern powerful engines flown by expert flyers crashed.

If you don't know where to do the manuevers in the wind, and how to fly in the wind, you will crash. I don't care how big your engine is.

>The Fox weighs about 7 ounces. When you install a heavier
>engine in an airplane that was designed for a Fox, you have
>to add tail weight to balance it. If a beginner has already
>built a slightly heavy airplane to start with, the new heavy
>engine and the tail weight make it a really heavy airplane.
>Real heavy airplanes do not fly all that well if they are
>.35 sized.

Again, no disagreement in principle. The Oriental has a generous wing area of 550 sqi. Airfoil is thin by today's standards, but that still adequate. The ship needs the lift during maneuvers, and additional lift can be dialed in via the flaps. It is the old tradeoff of power versus weight. The bigger engine weighs more which requires more lift which creates more drag which requires more power.... .

>Again, at this year's VSC, in sunday's wind that that most
>people refused to fly in, Joe Gilbert (an intermediate
>flyer) flew his Fox .35 powered ARF Nobler in it and
>survived. Several airplanes with modern powerful engines
>flown by expert flyers crashed.

My hat is off to Joe. I learned to fly in an area that often times had strong winds - you could see the ocean from the flying field. Power and thrust was the name of the game. There were even days when I set the Fox Stunt 35 to run a continual 2 cycle just so I could make it through the upwind side of the circle. Going to bigger engines often helped.

>If you don't know where to do the manuevers in the wind, and
>how to fly in the wind, you will crash. I don't care how big
>your engine is.

Again in principle, I agree. If you muff any maneuver badly enough, your ship is going in. But, there is that gray area in which a flyer will get into trouble that is recoverable if he/she has enough power and that ship can live to fly another day. I think this important with new flyers, as a bad crackup will often discourage them and they go on to other hobbies.

In the past few years, I have become somewhat addicted to fatter airfoils and raw power. When I look back 30 years and see how ships not much smaller in wing area than we have today were flown in all conditions with Fox and Ox Max 35s, I realize those guys were very skilled flyers. Again I tip my hat.

BTW - I have an Oriental with a Max-S 35 in the nose. Keeps me honest...

V/r

Bob Kruger:)

Not with 4-2 break motors, that's for sure. But you don't seem to be accounting for the effect of proper power in the corners keeping the airplane from stalling, and this can trump some pretty absurd wing loading issues. Or in other words, you'd likely do better with a Magnum 32 and a 10-3.5 prop than with an ST60 and a 13-6 prop, even if you ballast the airplane up to the same weight. At least in a Oriental or similar

Within reason, picking an engine based on *weight* is a rather absurd exercise. Pick engines based on *power delivery characteristics, and within reason, the weight really doesn't matter.

>Again, at this year's VSC, in sunday's wind that that most
>people refused to fly in, Joe Gilbert (an intermediate
>flyer) flew his Fox .35 powered ARF Nobler in it and
>survived. Several airplanes with modern powerful engines
>flown by expert flyers crashed.

And how were those flights scoring, up to that point? An expert flier with a strong engine and an airplane in good trim is going to still go for it in bad air, thus putting themselves in more dangerous situation, than an intermediate flier with moderate power. The only way you win against other experts is by going for it, and if you crash, you crash. Even if you get a better score by taking fewer chances and making it through, you still can't compete with those who went for it and managed to make it.

That's one of the biggest changes over the years I have been flying competitively - bad air flights are no longer considered "survival" contests. If the wind is 20 MPH, you still have to fly shapes, sizes, etc., to be competitive. Used to, only a few top guys managed this, now *everybody* has to at least try.

>If you don't know where to do the manuevers in the wind, and
>how to fly in the wind, you will crash. I don't care how big
>your engine is.

That's true, as far as it goes. Plus, once again, it's not the engine *size* - it's how the power comes out.

Then make sure your engine is running right before you stunt. If you get off to a bad engine run, fly it out and get it right. But if you already have the 40, use it. And, rather than spend a lot of money to rework the Fox 35, sell it and get a better engine to start with. The Brodak 40 is the same weight as the Fox 35 and will outrun it any day. I would say run the Fox 35 stock, or sell it. But use the 40 on the Oriental.

>Leonard Neumann

big snip...

I am considering building my second Oriental next winter.

Most unfortunately, I sold my last ST 51 several months ago.

Bummer, dude.

I have a ST .60 that I'll sell you for your Oriental project, Dan.

you can never have too much power!

You have a valid point concerning weight, air speed, and "shake". If the engine is a real shaker, that could cause a major problem and the whole structure would need to be beefed up accordingly. The ST 60 comment, I am sure, was "tongue in cheek". Even though this is called a "light case" it is a big case. And it is a shaker. Probably not appropriate.

Speed is another subject. Too many people equate larger engines with greater speed. Not so. Just because a semi truck has a bigger, more powerful engine than a VW Beetle, doesn't mean that this truck, with or without a trailer behind, will go any faster. It is all in the gearing. Take the truck cab (whatever we call it) without a trailer, and a small "economy" type car and run them together. The engine on the truck will be loafing at highway speeds. The economy car's engine will be whining its little head off. If you come to a steep hill, the speed of the economy car will fall off, while the truck will just keep going. This is the advantage of having a little more power in the nose of the airplane. Add a bit of a headwind to either or a little more weight for each to tow, and the more powerful engine really begins to shine. Just remember, changing to a more powerful engine should never equate to highter lap speeds. If anything, it should allow you to fly at slower speeds because the speed of the plane won't need to fall off in maneuvers.

On weight, yes, again a valid consideration. It is weight that is the killer, not the power of the engine. But the Magnum 53 I mwentioned is lighter than the Magnum 40, and about 3/4 of an ounce heavier than the Fox 40 mentioned above. With a tongue muffler aboard it added less than an ounce additional weight compared to the 35FP previoiusly used on the plane with a lightweight tube muffler. The package is actually lighter than a 35 FP with a stock RC muffler which many will use on their planes without ever thinking about the weight. Oh, and it "shoehorned" right into the same mounts.

In this area Mike Haverly initially fitted a square-head Magnum 36 to his new Oriental and a lot of us were surprised that he thought this much motor might be needed.

Mike has now flown the model. And dropped back to a Thudder Chicken (Thunder Tiger) 28. He's quite pleased with the model/engine combination.

Incidentally, our local Oriental guy, Don McClave, has built all of his five or six Orientals as designed. Which means no plywood doublers or reinforcements in the front end. Yes, L&J Fox 35s for power.

I just could not bring myself to do this, opting for as-designed construction with all the balsa blocks arranged just so around maple motor mounts, slipping in some 1/64" ply where Don (so far) has not been able to see it. In my case, power from GMA ABC Fox 35s in the past, currently the model is fitted with an L&J Fox 35 w/High Zoot crank from Randy.

Overall, my advice--and that from Mr. McClave--is to be really, really careful in the choice of engine selection for an Oriental. A top-of-the-line Fox 35 is very hard to beat, I am told the Brodak 40 works well. Having seen several O.S. 35FP and 40FP Orientals flown locally, I am not impressed, even if Mr. Rice himself is using just such a powerplant.

Anything bigger and/or heavier will certainly further hurt the overall package, even before factoring in flying on chains, otherwise known as .018 lines.

I read you latest post with great interest. Does this mean that you have no desire to use my ST .60 for your Oriental project? I also have an OS FP .60 that I would sell you. It would have less vibration that the ST .60.

De,

I have given your offer very serious thought, which of course is well deserved considering your reputation as a likable bomb-tossing back-bencher.

Regretfully I must decline. But only because I cannot figure out how to get a 6-ounce tank between motor and bellcrank.

But, hey! If not for that minor inconvenience it would be a Killer Combo. Not to mention the enchancement to my reputation in that I would be flying an honest-to-God gift engine from De Hill. Minus the mounting board, of course.

Thanks again,

>In this area Mike Haverly initially fitted a square-head
>Magnum 36 to his new Oriental and a lot of us were surprised
>that he thought this much motor might be needed.
>
>Mike has now flown the model. And dropped back to a Thudder
>Chicken (Thunder Tiger) 28. He's quite pleased with the
>model/engine combination.

I would be interested to read Mike's setup for the TT 28 in an Oriental. I have both a TT28 and an Oriental, and would be interested to try his setup. If you can get that, please post it.

>Incidentally, our local Oriental guy, Don McClave, has built
>all of his five or six Orientals as designed. Which means no
>plywood doublers or reinforcements in the front end. Yes,
>L&J Fox 35s for power.

But herein lies the rub. Notice how when anyone mentions a Fox 35 these days in an Oriental, it is one that it reworked and tricked out. If Larry Fosters' figures are correct, and I have no reason to doubt them, then his tuned Fox 35 is putting out about .4hp - about the same as a box stock Brodak 40. A box stock Fox 35 is about .25 - .3 hp. I haven't seen anyone say "I bought a new box stock 50th Anniversary Fox 35, broke it in on a stand, put it in my Oriental with a muffler, and went flying. Man, it was great. Plenty of power for bad conditions"

So, what are the options for the novice flyer to get something "over the counter"- especially as we are going to see more Orientals out there because of John Brodak's ARF effort. Brodak 40? Well, if John can keep them in stock, perhaps. LA 25? Not big enough. LA 40 or 46? Naysayers claim they are too heavy. I am not so sure about that. Converting RC engines? (Probably beyond novice flyer capabilities). Fox 40CL? Or, spending a tidy sum on getting an admittedly nice L&J 35 or some other custom engine. The well made and easy to break in LA 40 and 46 become very attractive in this light, albeit it would still require moving the NVA to the venturi and getting rid of the backplate mounted NVA.

I am going to wait and see on the ARF Oriental as far as weight is concerned. I remember seeing a lot of "heavy" green box Noblers from my youth (built a few myself) - many in the mid 40's oz area, that still flew reasonably well. Now we have the ARF Noblers, and they are consistently lighter. So, does putting an LA 40 or 46 in the nose and some weight back in the tail to get the point of balance right make an ARF Nobler a dog if it is still lighter than many of the GB Noblers from 20-40 years ago? If John can keep the weight of the ARF Oriental low, I expect the same will keep.

Bob,

Mike is on this site regularly, although I suspect he is none too thorough in perusing each and every thread. Might want to begin a new one which specifically adresses both Mike and the TT 28

>
>But herein lies the rub. Notice how when anyone mentions a
>Fox 35 these days in an Oriental, it is one that it reworked
>and tricked out.

Agreed, lots of input from those using custom-built Fox 35s, as such an engine bolted into an Oriental is, for many of us, quite the satisfying package. But I have no doubt there are many out there doing quite nicely with a Fox 35 which has received no more care than a decent run-in and good fuel. Until this year I have run engines which I always referred to as GMA ABC Fox 35s, but the whole story is that George fitted several of the ABC piston/cylinder sets I was importing for him--and which he had the exclusive for sales--and I assembled the motors. They were/are essentially stock Fox 35s, albeit carefully tuned and cared for.

>If Larry Fosters' figures are correct, and
>I have no reason to doubt them, then his tuned Fox 35 is
>putting out about .4hp - about the same as a box stock
>Brodak 40. A box stock Fox 35 is about .25 - .3 hp. I
>haven't seen anyone say "I bought a new box stock 50th
>Anniversary Fox 35, broke it in on a stand, put it in my
>Oriental with a muffler, and went flying. Man, it was great.
> Plenty of power for bad conditions"

I have no real idea how the Brodak 40 compares to either a stock or custom Fox 35. I suspect there to be an advantage with the 40, but have not yet seen this fully realized. One would think a clean-sheet 40, with modern materials and a $100.00 price tag would just sink a great many Fox 35s, yet Larry can't seem to keep up with demand for the latter.

>
>So, what are the options for the novice flyer to get
>something "over the counter"- especially as we are going to
>see more Orientals out there because of John Brodak's ARF
>effort. Brodak 40? Well, if John can keep them in stock,
>perhaps. LA 25? Not big enough.

A friend is building an Oriental for a 25LA. If it's weak he'll just hit it with more nitro. Pat Johnston once had a really nice, very competitive Nobler with what I believe was a 25LA, may have been a 25FP.

>LA 40 or 46? Naysayers
>claim they are too heavy. I am not so sure about that.
>Converting RC engines? (Probably beyond novice flyer
>capabilities). Fox 40CL? Or, spending a tidy sum on
>getting an admittedly nice L&J 35 or some other custom
>engine. The well made and easy to break in LA 40 and 46
>become very attractive in this light, albeit it would still
>require moving the NVA to the venturi and getting rid of the
>backplate mounted NVA.
>

I am obviously giving advice from my own perspective, based upon personal experiences, a satisfactory (if not sterling) track record in Classic Stunt in the NW. Personally, I would not consider a 40LA for an Oriental, the 46LA is totally out of the question simply due to need for .018 lines. Others feel differently; in fact, for certain people, certain applications, the 40LA might very well be a good choice.

Again based upon personal experience, my recent epiphany concerning the box-stock 20FP fitted to both a couple ARF Flite Streaks and now to a new SIG Skyray has lead me to believe that in casting about for alternatives to the Fox 35 we ought be looking very carefully at 25s and 28s and whatever other small-bore motors are out there. We are merely wasting our time in dealing with 40s and 46s, at least when it comes to models such as the Oriental *and* when looking for maximum performance versus some sport flying coupled with the odd contest or two per year.

Hey, due to adding LE sheeting, and a bunch of other stuff, getting rid of a pile of 8-pound-and-up wood, my Skyray 20 came in (nearly) trimmed at 34.5 ounces. While I would "feel" better about the model if it had come in at the hoped-for (and projected) 32 ounces, when flying the model only rarely gives a hint of its porky weight.

Please note, this is with a stock 20 on 10% fuel, breathing through an air filter and into a stock muffler. While straight-line projections can be misleading, it is hard not to fly this model and then think, "In order to move up, all I need is a 25 or a 28, the Oriental has another 150 square inches to pack along what ought (with some luck) be another four or five ounces, plus it has flaps to help lighten the burden."

It is in that light that I look down my nose at 40s and 46s, an attitude I might not have displayed a few short months ago.

Doesn't Len offer a reworked 28 of some kind? Sounds tempting, considering your needs...

>I am going to wait and see on the ARF Oriental as far as
>weight is concerned. I remember seeing a lot of "heavy"
>green box Noblers from my youth (built a few myself) - many
>in the mid 40's oz area, that still flew reasonably well.
>Now we have the ARF Noblers, and they are consistently
>lighter. So, does putting an LA 40 or 46 in the nose and
>some weight back in the tail to get the point of balance
>right make an ARF Nobler a dog if it is still lighter than
>many of the GB Noblers from 20-40 years ago? If John can
>keep the weight of the ARF Oriental low, I expect the same
>will keep.
>
>Bob Kruger

You are welcome to compare today's equipment with that of yesteryear, but as we are currently flying in 2004 it seems rather pointless. I'm not saying it in that way to be a jerk, but at some level I would kinda like to think we can replicate the old days less the misery of kit-built models, recalcitrant motors and so on while taking advantage of improved 50-years-in-production powerplants and/or modern 25-28 motors, quite lightly constructed ARFs. Without even considering motors in excess of a lightly-constructed 35.

>>If Larry Fosters' figures are correct, and
>>I have no reason to doubt them, then his tuned Fox 35 is
>>putting out about .4hp - about the same as a box stock
>>Brodak 40. A box stock Fox 35 is about .25 - .3 hp. I
>
>I have no real idea how the Brodak 40 compares to either a
>stock or custom Fox 35. I suspect there to be an advantage
>with the 40, but have not yet seen this fully realized. One
>would think a clean-sheet 40, with modern materials and a
>$100.00 price tag would just sink a great many Fox 35s, yet
>Larry can't seem to keep up with demand for the latter.

Again using Larry's numbers, the Brodak 40 out of the box is about par with the L&J Fox, which I consider very interesting. It not only speaks for the viability of the Fox 35 as a design, but also Larry's close attention to what is necessary the wring max performance out of the engine and his meticulous workmanship. No doubt this is also helped by a great fondness for the Fox 35 in a lot of our hearts. At the same time, we need to remember that GMA also did the timing and some of the design work for the Brodak 40, and we all remember how he liked a soft 4-2 break and a detuned engine.

>A friend is building an Oriental for a 25LA. If it's weak
>he'll just hit it with more nitro. Pat Johnston once had a
>really nice, very competitive Nobler with what I believe was
>a 25LA, may have been a 25FP.

My two remaining LA 25s do not have the ponies my FP 25s (both iron jug and ABN) have. Pat flew his Nobler with an FP 25. Apparently, it flew quite well until it lost a fight with a flight box.

>getting rid of a pile of 8-pound-and-up wood, my Skyray 20
>came in (nearly) trimmed at 34.5 ounces. While I would
>"feel" better about the model if it had come in at the
>hoped-for (and projected) 32 ounces, when flying the model
>only rarely gives a hint of its porky weight.

My latest Skyray is built with cast off wood and the tail moment is shortened just a bit (about 1.5 inches), and slightly larger stab and elevator. That nice thick airfoil pulls it along just fine with either an FP 20 or 25.

>>I am going to wait and see on the ARF Oriental as far as
>>weight is concerned. I remember seeing a lot of "heavy"
>>green box Noblers from my youth (built a few myself) - many
>>in the mid 40's oz area, that still flew reasonably well.
>>Now we have the ARF Noblers, and they are consistently
>>lighter. So, does putting an LA 40 or 46 in the nose and
>>some weight back in the tail to get the point of balance
>>right make an ARF Nobler a dog if it is still lighter than
>>many of the GB Noblers from 20-40 years ago? If John can
>>keep the weight of the ARF Oriental low, I expect the same
>>will keep.

>You are welcome to compare today's equipment with that of
>yesteryear, but as we are currently flying in 2004 it seems
>rather pointless. I'm not saying it in that way to be a
>jerk, but at some level I would kinda like to think we can
>replicate the old days less the misery of kit-built models,
>recalcitrant motors and so on while taking advantage of
>improved 50-years-in-production powerplants and/or modern
>25-28 motors, quite lightly constructed ARFs. Without even
>considering motors in excess of a lightly-constructed 35.

We are not comparing equipment. We are looking at a design or designs that are a constant through the past three or four decades and how they will respond with different powerplants. The laws of physics applied in 1964 just like they do in 2004. A 45 ounce Oriental has the same challenges, whether it is powered by an LA 40 or a Brodak 40 or a Fox 35. Hence my point that if the ship is trimmed up properly, it will fly well regardless of the powerplant - within reason. (I don't plan on mounting a Quadra on my Oriental any time soon ) So, if weight is the same or close, and you can control the speed with the propeller pitch, the lap time with line length, then the additional thrust is good, especially when things go wrong.

About two years ago I had an interesting exchange with Al Rabe when talking about the Mustunt II and Oriental - both of which I have built and flown. Al made the comment that a stunt wing in level flight is just loafing in terms of generating lift. It needs lift in the maneuvers, and that lift can come from the flaps. Notice his scale ships have high AR wings with quite large flaps. If the ship is porky but has sufficient thrust, dial in more flap deflection and you get back the lift - within reason. Deflecting the flaps to 90 degress obviously won't work.

One final thought. In the late 1970s, Bob Gieske took his basic Gieske Nobler design and swapped a ST G21-46 for the Fox 35. I don't recall he went back to the Fox. Doug and Steve Moon can probably verify this, but if memory serves, his first foray with the ST G21-46 was in the same ship or same size ship that he had run his Fox 35s in. Had he seen a drop in performance, no doubt he would have put FT Smith's finest back in the nose of the GN. In that light, if an Oriental's overall weight it kept down, I see no reason why it would not fly well with the OS LA 40/46 or FP 35/40 if properly retrimmed. I suppose I may build another with removable engine mounting plates and try some different engines to verify this.

>So, what are the options for the novice flyer to get
>something "over the counter"- especially as we are going to
>see more Orientals out there because of John Brodak's ARF
>effort. Brodak 40?

That would be my suggestion, all right. Or one of the clones of the FP 25 from Thunder Tiger. I also thought I'd seen someone advertise Fox 35's already equipped with all the (mostly Fox supplied) goodies, perhaps including a tongue muffler? Doesn't Brodak sell some of those that way?

> ... LA 25? Not big enough. LA 40 or 46? Naysayers
>claim they are too heavy. I am not so sure about that.
>Converting RC engines? (Probably beyond novice flyer
>capabilities).

What's so hard about opening up an ordinary paperclip and using it to wire a throttle wide open? I have to disagree there.
>
>I am going to wait and see on the ARF Oriental as far as
>weight is concerned. I remember seeing a lot of "heavy"
>green box Noblers from my youth (built a few myself) - many
>in the mid 40's oz area, that still flew reasonably well.

I witnessed decent flying offered by some Noblers in the HIGH 40's of weight, with ordinary Fox 35's, pre-mufflers. The Orientals I have had the most exposure to were built from plans, prior to the publication of the magazine article, flown with all manner of late 1960's 29's and 35's, unmuffled, but on average 6-8 Ounces lighter than an average Nobler. It has been my contention ever since that Orientals should be easier to build at a "light/medium" wing loading than to achieve that with Noblers.

P.S. I have never made a serious attempt to calculate an Oriental's actual wing area. I know it must be slightly less than the suggested "550", since it has an average wing chord of 10" and a span of 55", but the tips are rounded. On the other hand, I did calculate with some care one or the other of the early Noblers at about 530 squares, not 550 (advertised figure). I think it was the TF Green Box one.

.

Kiwi

>What's so hard about opening up an ordinary paperclip and
>using it to wire a throttle wide open? I have to disagree
>there.

Nothing really, just with a full fuse ship, mixture control with a NVA mounted on the backplate is a pain in the posterior. On some of my profiles, I have wired the throttle wide open and adjusted the mixture with the NVA, and it worked just fine.

>P.S. I have never made a serious attempt to calculate an
>Oriental's actual wing area. I know it must be slightly
>less than the suggested "550", since it has an average wing
>chord of 10" and a span of 55", but the tips are rounded.
>On the other hand, I did calculate with some care one or the
>other of the early Noblers at about 530 squares, not 550
>(advertised figure). I think it was the TF Green Box one.

Funny you should mention that. I have the Oriental wing in CAD. One I did, and other was done by Pat Johnston. Minor difference in the tip outline, but when I say minor it is within 1/8". Autocad allows you to calculate areas. Inboard wing, including the flap, came in at about 268 sqi. Outboard wing with flap came in at 260 sqi. Infantry math says that is 528 SQI. You were right, Kiwi... .