ST.46 REWORKING - BILL'S P47 PLANS

Hello folks! I'm a new member from Argentina in this amazingly active forum. See if you can help me on the following topics:

- Where can I get accurate info on how to propperly rework an ST.46? (I'm one of the happy owners of a NEW IN BOX specimen I've bought back in the eighties, and I's time to put this pet to work!!)

- Anyone knows where to get a set of Mr. Werwage's P47 plans?

Many Thanks,
Claudio Chacón.

>- Where can I get accurate info on how to propperly rework
>an ST.46? (I'm one of the happy owners of a NEW IN BOX
>specimen I've bought back in the eighties, and I's time to
>put this pet to work!!)
>

NO TOUCH ST 46!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It *does not* need to be reworked in any way. DO NOT futz with head, DO NOT futz with bearings until necessary, DO NOT futz with "spraybar through middle", do not "disassemble, clean, oil", just run it straight out of box, and follow numerous previous posts as to prop/fuel/venturi/muffler.

Got to agree with Brett, If its a new 80's motor you got a gem. Dont send it off to be reworked! Order a few different venturis from Len the host and enjoy it. Dont get me wrong, theres nothing wrong with getting a custom motor. But thats what you do with your beaters! Why pay to have it set up to run as close as what you already have?

Got to love the Tigres! Bruce H

I too, am about to put a new ST 46 to work. Always wanted one as a kid, and recently came across a new one. They cost even more now - funny how that works.

Am building an RSM P-40 for it. Well, mostly an RSM P-40. The plans don't match the wood, the instructions don't match the plans or the wood, but it'll look a lot like a P-40 when I'm done. Painted, of course, to look like it flew right out of the movie Easy Rider, with Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda (I get a lot of compliments on my Cardinal done in an American flag motif - I think I'll stick with it). With my own gear (I don't know what the bent up 1/8 inch wire supplied is for, but it doesn't look like it belongs in this kit). It has a really thick wing, which I've been partial to in my own designs - but this one is seriously thick. And the tail moment seems a bit short, but I shall make it fly, I suppose. Turns out the ribs are cut for a straight trailing edge (the plans show a slight taper) which is okay by me, and the holes in the ribs worked with my trusty Adjusto-Jig. Though, if they were set further towards the trailing edge, the jig wouldn't have interfered with the spars. I'm taking notes, btw, to send to them on how to make the kit a little more kit-like. As it are, I'm glad I know a thing or two about building.

Am happy that there is a general consensus that I should do nothing to my new in box 46 (did I mention that they cost more now than when I was a kid?) except fly it. And at the current rate of building, I should be ready to fly it about this time next year. First new plane in three years (little Clayton Lee turns three next month - building and many other things in life have been repulsed for a bit).

As the spousal unit and the mother-in-law are selling the yard today (big yard sale, according to the signs), me and the little guy are going flying this morning, as a matter of fact. All day. Until the yard is gone, at least. Taking two quarts of fuel. And several diapers. Armed for bear, I are.

And the old lawn tractor had better be gone when I get home.

Clayton,

Pat Johnston designed the RSM P-40. It's a very good flying plane, but you may want to contact Pat to talk about some of the changes he made to the design following the RSM kit.

He's in Stunt News and would be glad, I'm sure, to give you additional information.

One of my Supertigre 46's is the same box stock ST46 I had since I was 14 years old! I used it recently to fly a Rich Leroy, "Miss Poppy" stunt ship which I gave to Scott Dinger. I strongly agree with everyone here. The Supertigre 46 is without question, one of the GREATEST stunt motors ever developed. Just give it a careful break-in. Always use well balanced props, and enjoy one of the smoothest and quickest starting stunt engines ever made.

I'm standing right in line with the "do not modify" group here. The engine is just right the way it is from the factory.

Brett mentions do not put the spray bar through the venturi. I have to mention that Tom Lay asked me where I wanted mine when he did an ST 60 for me, this indicating it is a matter of preference rather than difference. I ran my stock 1984 C/L .46 just as it came with the sprinkler spray bar/venturi set-up and didn't do any work to it until the case was cracked in a crash.

It is an all around super stunt engine.

Oh boy......This is a hell of a forum!!!!
More than 80 views of my message in just a matter of minutes and 4 replies (of the kind "just what I wanted to hear!!)

UNDERSTOOD FOLKS! The engine will remain untouched. It will be bolted in a Bob Palmer's "Thunderbird" (not yet built) to compete in OTS here in Argentina.

Many thanks to all of you gentlemen who took the time to answer so kindly.

If you enter www.aeromodelos.net you'll see some nice shots of the ship I'm currently flying (Trivial Pursuit-PA.61 piped).
Use the scroll bar on the main page and click on the link.

See you arrownd...

Claudio César Chacón
ARGENTINA

P.S.: about Mr. Werwage's P47 plans: I've been looking for a set of these since 2001 and nothing...It seems that I'ts a hard (or impossible) to find item (kind of a TOP SECRET issue, am I wrong??

LAST EDITED ON Jul-17-04 AT 01:58 PM (CDT)
 
Claudio,
Read these words of wisdom. This is Brett Buck's advice. I have followed it and it works. There may be other things that work also, but I have followed this and it works.

You want something like a 11.5-6 or 12-6. I flew with as much as a 13-6 at times with very strong rings. The best all-around prop I ever used on the 46 was a 12-6 Rev-Up Special Pro3, greatly cleaned up, with 5.8 basic pitch heading towards 6.3 at the tips. I could get away with 13-5's cut down to 12 and cleaned up in cool conditions at sea level, but it was not enough pitch in the summer or away from sea level.

Modern engines are great and allow good performance with small diameters and low pitch at high revs. The ST46 is not one of these engines, and the old standards still apply - 5 or 6" of pitch, and as much diameter as can reasonably be accomodated.

By the way, the ST really responds well to nitro.

Here's my baseline setup for the ST46 (unchanged since I stopped flying them in 87):
STOCK engine with STOCK COMPRESSION and STOCK HEAD
STOCK sprinkler venturi ( see other post ) with .173 diameter
Tongue muffler with 12 1/8 holes.
Rev-Up Special Pro 2 12-6 with 5.8 and washing in to 6.3 at the tips
SIG 15% nitro fuel (Omega or even Cool Power with a bit of castor will also work)
Uniflow with vent open to air
K&B Long R/C or Glo Devil #300 plug
Brett

I went to the site to see your ship. Man oh man it is beautiful, you are a talented man.

Yup, they run great stock.

Just thought I'd mention a couple of things no one has mentioned so far. One is that the ST46 (& ST60) tend to be a lot more thirsty than most modern engines, (almost an ounce per minute) so make room for a good sized fuel tank. In a TBird, you may have to put a custom sump. (a small tank soldered to the underside of the tank to hold more fuel) OR, maybe a better idea would be a plastic clunk tank, since they are taller and hold more fuel per linear inch.

Now, that being said, and we know they run well stock, IF you box yourself into a corner with say a tank too small, like a 6 Ounce tank and you really need 6 1/2 to finish the pattern, you can throw in a couple of head gaskets or hemi the head and your fuel economy will go up a fair amount. You will not change the run much, just soften the break and power a hair, but in a little Tbird, you will still have tons of extra power. The other option is keeping the nitro low. Higher nitro, less fuel economy. Don't try a 4 pitch prop and leaning it out, you won't like it, and it will shorten motor life a bunch. If that's the run you like, go buy an OS LA46.

Personally, if it was me, and I had a nice new in box one, I'm not sure what I'd do. But if has been run, even bench run even once, I'd dissagree slightly with Brett's advice here in one respect. The trouble being, it's not 1969 anymore! Many ST's that have sat around for this long in storage after being run have the wrist pin stick and not rotate in the piston or rod. I'd pull at least the backplate, shine a flashlight up in the boss and turn the engine over to see if that pin is loose like it should be. If not, you'll wipe out either the top con rod bushing or piston boss in no time.(Like the first 20 minutes of run time...Ask me how I know)

Since I became aware of this and started checking, most every used engine I've gotten off the "bay" have had the wrist pin stuck, and I'm glad to have averted disaster by the simple check I now do.

Also, looking in the exhaust port, make sure the ring isn't compressed and stuck in the groove from long term storage. Local reworkers here like Tom Lay relieve the ring groove so it wont stick after being run for an extended time with all castor fuel also. They also put in a modern hardend ring that will hold up much longer than the stock ring. And as long as I am bending Bretts rule here, some models come with a banded stuffer crankshaft, I'd definately remove the band. I've seen and heard of others have the band come off or break while running and blow out the side of the crank case. Good bye engine.

Even if one were to choose to do these few checks and minor modifications, I would still consider the engine as stock afterwards,(no timing mod's, drilling holes or grinding on the guts) just some very wise preventative maintenance has been done.

Enjoy your engine, they are sweet runners.

Eric Viglione

PS: I believe Brett's main worry about touching the engine is that most unqualified people will do more harm than good, even just pulling a backplate or head if they are ham fisted or don't know what they are doing. So I'll add a condition that I aggree with him and if you are not proficient at this, that you simply have it pre-flight checked by a pro engine guru like Tom Lay just to at least make sure nothing is stuck before running it.

>
>Personally, if it was me, and I had a nice new in box one,
>I'm not sure what I'd do. But if has been run, even bench
>run even once, I'd dissagree slightly with Brett's advice
>here in one respect. The trouble being, it's not 1969
>anymore! Many ST's that have sat around for this long in
>storage after being run have the wrist pin stick and not
>rotate in the piston or rod. I'd pull at least the
>backplate, shine a flashlight up in the boss and turn the
>engine over to see if that pin is loose like it should be.
>If not, you'll wipe out either the top con rod bushing or
>piston boss in no time.(Like the first 20 minutes of run
>time...Ask me how I know)

I never thought that the wrist pin can get stuck. Great advice!
Although my engine has never being run, I'll check for this with my other engines, you bet!

>Enjoy your engine, they are sweet runners.
Thank you Eric!
Claudio.

>
>Here's my baseline setup for the ST46 (unchanged since I
>stopped flying them in 87):
>STOCK engine with STOCK COMPRESSION and STOCK HEAD
>STOCK sprinkler venturi ( see other post ) with .173
>diameter
>Tongue muffler with 12 1/8 holes.
>Rev-Up Special Pro 2 12-6 with 5.8 and washing in to 6.3 at
>the tips
>SIG 15% nitro fuel (Omega or even Cool Power with a bit of
>castor will also work)
>Uniflow with vent open to air
>K&B Long R/C or Glo Devil #300 plug

Isn't it too much nitro for the ST Greg? I was planning to use half castor-half Klotz (23% total)and 5% nitro as I used in my St.60's.
(may be increasing to 10% in hot/humid days)
Thanks-a-lot!
Claudio.

My best ST 46 was stock except for the venturi. It started out as a Urtnowski plastic venturi but I modified it for more fuel draw. Mine would run the pattern on 3.5oz of Superfuel, and my plane was heavy.

"SAVE ALL THE PIECES"-Phil Brown

LAST EDITED ON Jul-17-04 AT 07:41 PM (CDT)
 
< I modified it for more fuel draw. Mine would run the pattern on> <3.5oz of Superfuel, and my plane was heavy. >

Wow, how did you do that?? I couldn't do half the pattern on 3 1/2 oz.

What a beautiful ship!!! Nothing left to say.

>What a beautiful ship!!! Nothing left to say.
Thank you very much! Glad you like it.
>
>SoHawaii
>Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka 'Aina I Ka Pono
Which means.....?

LAST EDITED ON Jul-17-04 AT 04:38 PM (CDT)
 
Claudio,
I have run anywhere from 5% to 20%. The amount of nitro you use is up to you depending on the performance you want. That's the sweet part, choose what works well for you. My plane is heavy so more nitro works well for me and the nice part is I still get a good stunt run in the 4 cycle mode without changing anything else. My plane is 56 inch wingspan with a thick airfoil so I like the power. Maybe even a smaller venturi would work well for you if the plane is smaller. I have not added head shims as some motors require. Hot days require on the higher side of nitro. Mostly I run 15% with no problems real regular. If you have a light plane you won't need 15% nitro. As was previously mentioned the more nitro you run the more fuel is required for the pattern. I usually run around 5 to 5 1/2 ounces for the pattern on 15% nitro. This is based on the recommended .173 dia venturi. Make sure you are around 22% on oil. Tom Lay recommends 22% all caster in his rebuilt engines. I have used all caster and 50%/50% caster and synthetic and both have worked well for me. This info is for the ST 46. The higher nitro is not necessary for the ST 60.

P.S. Welcome to the forum, after seeing your plane we will be asking you building questions real soon.

>P.S. Welcome to the forum, after seeing your plane we will
>be asking you building questions real soon.

Go ahead Greg! I'll be glad to help in any way I can.
Regards,
Claudio

Claudio,

And I love the pipe tunnel and cowl work on your Trivial Pursuit. I think it infected Ted if his new Special Edition is any indication.

I've been curious about the P-47 plans also. I think the closest you can come is to buy the "lost foam" wing setup from Bob Hunt. It must come with the wing plans, at least. He may be able to provide more, but I think you'd have to get creative. Is it worth it?

If you look at a P-47 3 view, the wing, flaps and stab for a Thunderbird II (aka 1959/1960 T-Bird) are perfect. The elevators need some work, and the fuselage. Tom Dixon has modernized versions of the T-Bird II in several sizes. With no wing offset, and a bit of dihederal, it would be a great starting point. Tom's designs fly well, too. Steve

I'm very sure there are no plans for any of Billy's P-47s. We got the first Geo Bolt lost foam set up from Bob after Bill's was cut, and there were no wing plans. In fact, there have not been wing plans in any of the lost foam sets we have! hahaha
Bill <><

>I'm very sure there are no plans for any of Billy's P-47s.
>We got the first Geo Bolt lost foam set up from Bob after
>Bill's was cut, and there were no wing plans. In fact,
>there have not been wing plans in any of the lost foam sets
>we have! hahaha
>Bill <><
>
>When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his
>friends.
>Japanese Proverb

Thank you Bill, I thought so.
Don't you think that Mr. Werwage should made this plans available to the whole stunt community as everyone does?? to "SHARE" is the name of the game......

Hi Claudio,

Billy doesn't really draw plans, so Warren Tiahart has done the ones that have been recently available. ie: '59 Ares, USA-1, Super Ares, '62 Ares, Vulcan, etc., which were done from the original planes. Knowing Billy, it's not that he doesn't want to share. He seems to just do "working drawings" to build his planes, a fuselage side view showing the root rib/tip rib, and a bunch of notes about dimensions for everything else, basically. I have built one of his pipe ships from a set of those drawings, so it is do-able! After about 50 years, I guess he just knows what he's going to end up with.

With a fully molded fuselage, etc., on the P-47s it would be a fair task to replicate the molds, similar to building one of Al Rabes' ships.
Not beyond the means of many, but not the sort of project that a whole bunch of stunt fliers would tackle.

They are really beautiful stunt ships, and I will have to build one in the future!

Bill <><

Tom Dixon has
>modernized versions of the T-Bird II in several sizes. With
>no wing offset, and a bit of dihederal, it would be a great
>starting point. Tom's designs fly well, too. Steve
>
>http://www.nwskyraiders.com/index.html

I have those plans with me. Nice.
Many thanks Steve

Claudio
Thanks for posting your question, turned up some very good information, especially on the wrist pins.
This is a link I've bookmarked <http://www.clstunt.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=7946&forum=DCForumID1&archive=#23> on cheater venturis that I found particularly useful. It makes an interesting read, plus the sketches done by Brett are very good.
Cheers John

Thank you John. This link you've posted contains a great deal of info. GREAT!!