HAVE WE REALLY COME THAT FAR?

LAST EDITED ON Jul-02-04 AT 08:24 AM (CDT)
 
Aside from the power plants has control line stunt really changed sense the sixties? Everyone thinks that the big airplane is a new thing,It's not! Remember the Shark 45?
Advantage 1 of a piped engine is in the wind you still have plenty of power. Disadvantage 1 weight a PA61 weighs 12 oz plus the pipe. Thats aprox 22oz unslung wight.Total hardware combined.As to where a fox 35 weight's 5.75oz. Hum lets see which one will turn better? If you think about it for a moment the fox for sure. But on the other hand you have to fly on a calm day.
Now lets talk about longer moments, You have more clock time, So the plane looks to turn slower and not as sharp.
If anyone has ever seen Bill fly his ARES or for that fact any one of the top 10 fly older stunt planes they appear to turn on a dime.
That's what I remember what drew me to this hobby.
Am I missing something?

> Aside from the power plants has control line stunt really
>changed sinse the sixties? Everyone thinks that the big
>airplane is a new thing,It's not! Remember the Shark 45?
> Advantage 1 of a piped engine is in the wind you still have
>plenty of power. Disadvantage 1 weight a PA61 weighs 13 oz
>plus header and then the pipe. As to where a fox 35 weight's
>5.75oz. Hum lets see which one will turn better? If you
>think about it for a moment the fox for sure. But on the
>other hand you have to fly on a calm day.
>Now lets talk about longer moments, You have more clock
>time, So the plane looks to turn slower and not as sharp.
> If anyone has ever seen Bill fly his ARES or for that fact
>any one of the top 10 fly older stunt planes they appear to
>turn on a dime. That's what I remember what drew me to this hobby.
> Am I missing something?

Well, yes, I think you are, Bob. Take your weights, for instance. I have a PA 61 here that I just weighed. 11.08 ounces. I think this one has the magnesium head, but I know it does not have the magnesium back plate. We could shave a little more off if we needed to. In fact, we could make it a 65 if we needed to at about the same weight. My Fox 35 weighs a little over 6.5 ounces. Where are you getting that light weight Fox? OK, instead of a 7 1/4 ounce advantage, it is more like 5 1/2. But it is not just double the power. It is more like three times, maybe four times. (Maybe more, I never compared them.) But we have other constants such as wheels, pushrods, control horns, fuel tanks (OK, the 61 has a bigger tank, but it is not that much heavier as the additional weight is all in the body). So we add those constants to the weight of the engine before we build the plane and the per centage difference begins to diminish even further. A Fox tube muffler weighs, Oh, about two ounces. (We can cut some more off with an aftermarket muffler) A pipe weighs about...the same. Plus the header and coupling which isn't much.

But, put all that aside, the Fox is going to power (that is a poor choice of words) a 550 square inch plane. The pipe engine a 650-700 square inch plane. The wing loading in the end won't be that much different between the two, but the power-to-weight will be tremendously different. It is the power, not only to manage the wind, but to come out of the corners, to climb in the hourglass, just to maintain speed in the maneuvers that makes the real difference.

And the longer moments, they weren't put there for nothing. There is smoothness in the flats and quickness in the turns. I am not in any way going to concede the corner to the older plane, or the smaller plane. Oh, some of these do turn very nicely...when the weather is good. But some of these new ones turn very nicely, too...even when the weather is bad. The bigger plane flies on longer lines, so it has more space in which to fly and becomes a much more comfortable package.

If there were no difference between the modern ships and the Fox powered Nobler, I am thinking we would be seeing a lot more Fox powered Noblers being flown in Open at the Nats. It has been a long time since I have seen one. In fact, I don't think I have seen one ever since Bob Gieseke put a 46 on his Nobler when the Nats were held in Reno and he never looked back. And now he is flying a 65 on a pipe with a 4-blade prop and waiting anxiously for the 77s to arrive. There is a difference. Believe me, there is a difference.

So you think these bigger and HEAVER planes turn as fast? Just the mass says no way. I wasn't trying to say that these planes are no good in any way. Its just the trend. If you file on a fox you can get it to 5.75 and my PA had the header on it when I weighed it.

Len: Actually, an early Sandcast Fox 35 is right around 6 ounces, and maybe a gram or two less. So he is not that far off. Currell

LAST EDITED ON Jul-02-04 AT 00:53 AM (CDT)
 
Thanks. And back then No muffler! So no weight. 38oz vrs 60oz humm? it wasn't half the wing area either.

Power is addictive. Matt was flying with the modified 35 FP when you last saw him and turning a 12 x 6 BY&O. We worked that up to a 12.5 x 5.5 Bolly (two-blade). He is now running the PA and turning a 13 3/4 three blade. Could go bigger but waiting for available props. The interesting thing is the line length he is using hasn't changed (maybe an inch) and lap speeds haven't changed. But power and leverage can flip that thing around. We have had to reduce the flap ratio because it can actually rise in the turn which is what a lot of the early planes did.

Still, without the power, it can be a dog. Matt refinished one of his early planes and it got way too heavy and just didn't "have it" anymore, even with the 12.5 inch Bolly up front. Switchint to the Magnum 53 on the same plane (now heavier, and with more weight in the nose) the plane came back alive. Don't discount the effect of power, even on a heavier airplane. Ask the guys running 4-strokes with their extra weight and bigger props.

There are a lot more choices these days and a lot more ways to run your set-ups. The proof, however, is in the performance of the plane/power/pilot package. (It's the three "P"s that make the flight.)

Ask the guys running 4-strokes with their
>extra weight and bigger props.

Saito 72 powered plane cuts through bad air like a hot knife through butter. Turn that nose up and my Saito 72, 77oz Backfire jumps like a rocket. Keith Trostle said my 77oz Backfire "accelerates so fast from a launch." Gordon Delaney's Saito 72 powered 69oz Tony, has as close to an "explosive jump" as I have ever seen.

Guys, at least on this forum, are going to bigger and bigger motors. Rojett 77's. Saito 91's. Saito 82's. The ability to "deal" in a broader range of flight conditions, favor the "Big Blocks". I will compete with the saito 72 for a while, but I am looking at the Saito 1.000 for a TOC style stunter.
>
>There are a lot more choices these days and a lot more ways
>to run your set-ups. The proof, however, is in the
>performance of the plane/power/pilot package. (It's the
>three "P"s that make the flight.)

4 "P"s - Plane/Power/Pilot/Practice.

Leonard, Thanks for a wonderful Forum.
Milton Graham\Proparc

"I don't know about this tuned pipe business. I practiced on that thing until my lips turned blue, and I still can't play a stinkin note."
"Homer J. Simpson"

Though I am not a 50 year veteran of PA, I have to believe that there has been significant improvements in the equipment v. the "old days".

I believe that a "flat" prop has been a huge contributor to improved performance, be it piped or non-piped. I have witnessed Expert, even Nationally reknowned pilots flying their vintage stuff....the results are frequently less than pretty.......most notable is the wind-up in very little wind. The advantage enjoyed by those earlier pieces was that they were frequently flown on tiny lines....John Miske reports that bunches flew on .010 braided, usually 75' long.

Palmer has been seen in a shirt that says "the older I get, the better I used to fly"........

An "unmuffled FOX" is still allowed in PA competition here in the US. Kenny Stevens won Advanced not long ago with a MUFFLED FOX....and by a margin. I believe that the Fox was an L&J? And used a 5 pitch prop?

Kenny is a terrific flyer.

See Ya

>Aside from the power plants has control line stunt really changed >sense the sixties?

>Am I missing something?

Big snip of nonsense...

Yes, you truly are missing something. And it's not singular. You are missing some things. Unfortunately, so are some of those posting to this thread. So at least you're not alone.

Enjoy and learn! It will be a wonderful journey.

Absolutely!! Read,Learn,Kickback and enjoy. Albiet, we may have some strange ones here, although I cant imagine who they may be--------- Er uh so yeah, ethier way you slice the pie, this is THE BEST control line forum on the net. PERIOD -- End of story. < Paul

In absolute terms, no. I don't believe we are flying a whole better then say, at least when I started watching the "stars" perform. But in relative terms, the game changes completely.
If someone like Ted Fancher built a Les McDonald Stilletto, and put a good ST46 in it, he could EASILY, REPEAT EASILY, beat most of the stunt flyers in the United States. His problem would manifest itself when he would have to go up against the top 10 flyers. That means, he has to go up against: Dave Fitsgerald and his Stargazer, Bob Gieseke and his Bear, Paul Walker and his Mustang, Brett Buck and his Infinity, Windy Urtnowski and his Green Spitfire(killer ship), Doug Moon and his modified Bear, Randy Smith and his SV22, Dan Banjock and his Bob Hunt Mustang, Bob Hunt and his new Genesis, Bill Werewage and his P47 etc. We are talking about massively skewed power to weight ratios. Ted has so much flying talent that more then likely, he could "break through" from time to time. But on consistant basis, he would have his you-know-what handed to him in a sling.

Milton Graham\Proparc

"I don't know about this tuned pipe business. I practiced on that thing until my lips turned blue, and I still can't play a stinkin note."
"Homer J. Simpson"

Being up here in the PNW, have seen both Paul and Howard flying their Impacts in amazing displays of minimal radius corners. Tho I have noted a trend toward larger rads, I guess to please the WC Judges. The lighter models, with larger horizontal tail volume, thicker wings, bigger flaps, flat pitch props, adjustability, WAY more thrust and controlled engine runs, all have helped to vastly improve the patterns flown. So, YES! Steve