Go Back  RCU Forums > Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more > Control Lines
Reload this Page >

Control Line noob asking questions

Notices
Control Lines For all you fly-by-wire fanatics!

Control Line noob asking questions

Old 01-25-2016, 08:35 PM
  #26  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,301
Received 79 Likes on 62 Posts
Default

Hi sigrun, that engine data I gave you is from OS instructions and from Peter Chinn's engine articles on sceptreflight.net. The Schneurles are more powerful and thus one can get away with a smaller displacement engine. There are some oddities though. I found that the Enya .15-III TV put out the same amount of thrust as the OS Max .15FP-S if propped right. The Enya with a 8x6 Masters put out the same lap speeds as the .15FP with an 8x4 Masters. The .15-III will do wet-2 to fast-2 to wet-2 like it was made for it. The Enya's torque is at a lower RPM around 12,000 whereas the OS is around 15,000. Thus putting larger diameter or steeper pitched props will take advantage of the lower RPM torque curve.

I suppose one could put a 1966 OS Max .10 or about same vintage Enya .09-III on the Akro and fly on 42 foot lines. The later Schneurle .10 ABC / ABN's put out about the same horses as the better .15's of the day plus aren't as critical on fuel oil content. At least from an RC perspective, the 1966 OS Max .10R/C was no slouch. At only 3.1 ounces, it was a definite upgrade for a half-A engine. My single channel with quick blip throttle 39 inch wingspan Top Flite Schoolmaster would climb out at 45 degree angle on full throttle. Could idle the engine for long periods of time, then climb on full throttle without faltering. At full throttle it was the same loudness as a Cox .049 reedy, at half throttle or lower it sounded muffled with mufflerless exhaust baffle plate. I got 3 of those engines now. Those were the days.

Just ordered a Brodak Oriental profile kit for $54, which is a steal, Brodak is clearing out his die cut kits from what I heard. It will be my first one larger than my 42 inch span 400 square inch Ringmaster S-1. At 55 inch wingspan and 555 square inches, think I'll put my Testors Series 21 McCoy .40 Black Head in it. May have to shorten the nose a touch to get it to balance. I feel I'm in tall cotton ....

Sorry to deviate a little ...

Last edited by GallopingGhostler; 01-25-2016 at 08:41 PM.
Old 01-25-2016, 08:43 PM
  #27  
sigrun
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dunnunda, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Most of the SIG C/L kits did/do come supplied with full size plans vertical grimace. i.e. Twister, Banshee. I'd have to pull the plans out for my Skyray 35 to check but pretty sure that it does too. Pretty sure even the SIG Shoestring (I bought one for a nostalgia build) and Buster do too. It's just the SIG Akromaster that doesn't. I can understand why, and the Akro kits were actually pretty cheap. The problem as you have identified is that so is the included balsa & lite-ply, and wood selection is a contradiction in terms universal to all SIG kits of recent years IME. One certainly won't find SIG contest grade balsa or ply in any SIG kit.

When I was a kid, all the Aeroflyte kits, our poor man's equivalent of SIG aimed at the entry and youth market, were similar to avoid 'sharing' and promote the sale of their kits. They came with a plan in profile and instructions, but ommitted the horizontal stab & elevator or a wing overlay relying upon notched increments.

Someone did CAD draw and publish a proper full scale plan and post it on the net for the Akro about a decade ago, but I think SIG acted pretty fast legally and had it removed. It's easy enough to manage an ersatz plan and trace the parts or just have and use an orginal as a pattern. I have both. A double scratchbuild is in the pipeline now. Such a capable, cheap, fun sport flier, it's worth the effort. I'd still stick with a solid profile fuse or composite assembly with lightweight spruce longeron. Use thin birch ply for the nose formers instead of liteply if you can source it. A 2oz R/C clunk works well with muffler pressure although so to do any of the former Smiths or Perfect design 2oz wedges now sold under the Brodak brand that fit the available nose space.
Old 01-25-2016, 09:25 PM
  #28  
sigrun
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dunnunda, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hi GallopingGhostler. Deviating is good with me, as long as the OP and forum mod don't mind? There are so few of us now, and the SNR is low.

I love Enya engines. My fav. They certainly aren't short on thrust, but the III & IV do weigh heavy in class favouring the Smousen or Peacemaker wings. As you say, they have different power curves to the FP-S. Like any Schnuerled engine, those 15FP-S' just love to rev and will not only wind up much more quickly, but that's where they want to be. Stick a 7x6 on them if you want to go fast in a straight line and they will haul and love it. The MAX-15s are the same oversquare bore and stroke, just not as powerful nor with the Schnuerled power curve. IME neither the Enya 15 III (haven't owned a III since the 70's) or IV are comfortable with a small blade like that on it. Both run nicely enough on an 8x4, but both O.S. like a small clean light airframe and will start to slow down if the prop loads up the engine as will typically happen with too high a wing loading or too big -diam or pitch- a blade. The baffle piston O.S. is pretty lightweight, which is why it works so well in the Akro. Those two Enyas with their considerable steel piston mass have sufficient torque to throw that higher pitch or larger diameter prop without complaint at very tractable RPM, which of course is just great for the larger airframe. They'd work well enough on the Akro too if it wasn't for their mass/weight. I have X2 Enya 15 IVs still NIB, one with both C/L venturi and R/C T/V carb. I had X4. I can't be bothered running them in. Takes forever. I won't use them on Akros. Perfect Smousen engine though, and equally excellent in Peacemakers.

Not surprised at the Brodak's stock reduction. I've reached that age, and I think my mate and me are now the tail end of the very last of numbers sufficient to signifiy as a C/L generation from the days just as that Japanese upstart Futaba first entered the R/C arena with proportional radios at half the price of equivalent leading brand Kraft kit. Good bargains for you though! Nice. Similarly I couldn't resist the SIG sellout. Their prices were so modest anyway.

Last edited by sigrun; 01-25-2016 at 09:27 PM.
Old 01-26-2016, 04:40 AM
  #29  
gcb
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Port Ewen, NY
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by vertical grimmace
After reading all of the info in this thread, I think that when I build my Akromaster, I may scratch the whole thing from new wood. I think it might be a good idea to truss build the fuselage with sticks and just sheet it over with thin balsa to save weight. All of the wood in my kit feels like a brick. I bet I could cut half of the weight out of it by scratching the whole thing.
The last Akromaster I built has extended wings. The kit LE and TE have about half a rib extra that you are supposed to trim off...I opted to take advantage of the extra length to add a few square inches of wing area. It necessitated making some extra parts, but since you are building from scratch, no problem. If I do it again, I will relocate the ribs so that only one new rib on each side is needed. I would also suggest you use a 3" bellcrank. Mine is powered by a Thunder Tiger .10 (CL).

Since I originally posted the changes, others have also had success with this mod.

One of the things I do not like about some of the old CL kits, is that they do not have full sized plans. I know you can just copy the existing parts, but it is always nice to have good accurate full sized plans, to use for duplicating the parts.
I understand that isometric assembly drawings are used so you will buy more kits. I just traced the full-size parts on back of the plans so I can recreate them when needed.

Good luck with your Akromaster.

George
Old 01-26-2016, 11:35 AM
  #30  
paw080
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Corona, CA
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Hi Sigrun, The MP-Jet 1.0cc diesel is a TBR engine and it looks like a miniature Rossi 2.5 diesel.

It is quite a performer. Dick Roberts(Aero Modeler mag), measured 0.21 hp at 17,100 rpm.

I got 17,000 with an APC 7x3 sans muffler. The engine weighs 3.25oz which makes it one

of the heavier 1.0cc diesels, but, ready to fly wing loading is still good. Yes, I'm concerned

with wing loading because I used to fly 1/2A, FAI, and Fast Combat. In the USA, 1/2A

means up to .05 cu" displacement, not 1.49cc as in the UK.

Here's a link to some pics of the glow and diesel versions: http://www.freeflightmodels.com/page..._diesel_en.htm

Tony

Last edited by paw080; 01-26-2016 at 11:53 AM. Reason: more
Old 01-26-2016, 01:12 PM
  #31  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,252
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

I wonder how a little ASP .12 would do on the Akromaster? I do have a BB Fox .15 I could use, or maybe the older Magnum .15, but it sounds like if you wanna keep this plane light, you need a light engine as well.
Old 01-26-2016, 04:17 PM
  #32  
sigrun
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dunnunda, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

KISS.

SIG's Akromaster built per plan and built light powered by a lightweight moderately powerful glow engine (light case cross flow PB = perfect) is as per Mike Gretz's design intention and will fly like a miniature Twister at a comfortable pace on 52' lines. This should be the objective and ideal. If not, you've chosen the wrong design for purpose.

Schnuerled .10FP-S or a Schnuerled .12 TBR intended for R/C isn't a good sub for a PB as described. Power isn't all about claimed peak PS.

For an .09 or .10, there are simply better performers to build which will perform better on their power characteristics and output than an Akromaster, and for most of the alternative .15s, same applies. Smousen and Peacemaker to name but two venerable .15 designs are far more accomodating and flexible for similar purpose to the Akromaster. That said, any of an 15LA-S, 15FP-S or TT GP-15 will fly an Akro well enough even with muffler aboard on an 8x4 as long as you keep the combo light. But they aren't made and sold NIB any more either. Brodak's Schnuerled .15 which is available seems a reasonable sub for the latter three. Will other engines get it off the ground and rotate it around the circle? Of course they will, but not to my required aerobatic capability and handling standard on 52' wire. YMMV.
Old 01-26-2016, 04:27 PM
  #33  
sigrun
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dunnunda, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hi paw080

I've still quite a few .09s because I used to fly ½ A combat here which is .09. Also flew F2D and vintage diesel (UK) although US designs are permitted too but glow orientated. I particularly like flying Bill Netzerband's Splinter, but its a lot of building time per unit for low survivability.

For a PB .09, APS Mini-Peacemaker or KK Gazelle are better performing models for purpose than an Akromaster IME.
Old 01-26-2016, 05:30 PM
  #34  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,301
Received 79 Likes on 62 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by sigrun
Schnuerled .10FP-S or a Schnuerled .12 TBR intended for R/C isn't a good sub for a PB as described. Power isn't all about claimed peak PS.
.10FP-S is the CL/FF venturi version.
Old 01-26-2016, 07:00 PM
  #35  
sigrun
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dunnunda, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hi GG. Thanks. Aware of that, as I thought the grammatical phrasing intimated apparent?

By O.S. convention, anything FP or LA with an -S suffix was C/L. Without suffix indicates R/C carb version. e.g. FP vs FP-S, LA vs LA-S. Those specs I quoted in a prev post were from the actual spec sheets supplied with engines in their respective boxes at the time BTW.

Back in era of MAX-15 pre suffix other than annotation C/L or R/C , the engines came supplied with two venturies in the box. One for C/L, fitted, (the smaller diam) and a second for FF in a bag. In the era of FP-S they came supplied only with a single venturi intended for C/L. If you wanted a wider throat for FF, it was a purchaseable accessory.

I've tried a few engines in Akromasters, Peacemakers & Smousens amongst others in class over the years. Akro would fly on both of those engines above, or even an .09 Rossi, Cipolla and probably even an ENYA too. Just not or up to standard of my expectations in what I want the Akro to do. As per earlier, OMMV. With the right powerplant and built light, it's a fabulous airframe.
Old 01-27-2016, 08:50 AM
  #36  
paw080
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Corona, CA
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by vertical grimmace
I wonder how a little ASP .12 would do on the Akromaster? I do have a BB Fox .15 I could use, or maybe the older Magnum .15, but it sounds like if you wanna keep this plane light, you need a light engine as well.
Hi Vert, If the ASP .12 is under 3.75ozs , it should keep the wing loading at an acceptable

level. The point of all my blabbing is that wing loading is the key factor for changing

directions; in essence; the ability for the model to "pop" a tight corner. Airfoil thickness

is not the most important factor. I'll just let that point sink in for now.


As for the Fox .15BB being suitable, it is not. The engine is way too heavy and way too

thirsty, and all the power that engine delivers is wasted on the Akromaster's small

wing area(240 sq"). Before the rule change that restricted venturi intake area;

many USA FAI Combat flyers were using modified Fox .15BB with lotsa Nitromethane

to be competitive with very high performance European(and Nelsons). Tom Fluker

a Texan, used modified Foxes to win the FAI World Combat championship in the late

1980s.

My Fai Combat models were powered by the Fox .15BB, they had 400 sq" wings, and

were capable of 89-93 mph, depending on nitro %. Stock Fox 15BBs would fly the

same model design 81-82 mph. So...Lighter engine, a displacement providing adequate

power loading; yields a model with a lighter wing loading, easier to meet the proper CG

without adding much tail ballast and if a smaller displacement engine is used, then the fuel

tank capacity is also smaller. I had to shorten the nose of my scratch built Akromaster

because of the smaller fuel tank. Going back to your Fox .15BB, you might have a great

flying model if you mount it in a 390 sq" FliteStreak! Top Flite actually showed a suggested

engine range of .15 cu" - .35 cu" engines in their early magazine advertising. If you think it

cannot possibly work; a no longer with us friend, built and flew a 'Streak with an MVVS

.12 cu" plain bearing diesel.

Tony
Old 01-27-2016, 11:06 AM
  #37  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,301
Received 79 Likes on 62 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by sigrun
By O.S. convention, anything FP or LA with an -S suffix was C/L. Without suffix indicates R/C carb version. e.g. FP vs FP-S, LA vs LA-S. Those specs I quoted in a prev post were from the actual spec sheets supplied with engines in their respective boxes at the time BTW.
"S" stood for "standard" IMO.

Back in era of MAX-15 pre suffix other than annotation C/L or R/C , the engines came supplied with two venturies in the box. One for C/L, fitted, (the smaller diam) and a second for FF in a bag. In the era of FP-S they came supplied only with a single venturi intended for C/L. If you wanted a wider throat for FF, it was a purchaseable accessory.
Today in US there are a number of small cottage industry folk with machining tools, can make up a custom venturi either out of plastic or aluminum at reasonable cost. Thus getting a right sized one isn't a problem. Also there are enough NOS NVA's out there that one can match one up a venturi like it was made for it, although may be for another engine. Regarding RC carb engines on CL, have only used Enya plain bearing, but works fine for sport flying. Guess just depends what one wants to do. Fuel, tank placement, feed and props make or break.

I've tried a few engines in Akromasters, Peacemakers & Smousens amongst others in class over the years. Akro would fly on both of those engines above, or even an .09 Rossi, Cipolla and probably even an ENYA too. Just not or up to standard of my expectations in what I want the Akro to do. As per earlier, OMMV. With the right powerplant and built light, it's a fabulous airframe.
Peacemakers have intrigued me, guess that the designer made a change so could be published in mags like Aeromodeler, but the Flite Streak heritage definitely shows through.

Originally Posted by paw080
Hi Vert, If the ASP .12 is under 3.75ozs , it should keep the wing loading at an acceptable level. The point of all my blabbing is that wing loading is the key factor for changing directions; in essence; the ability for the model to "pop" a tight corner. Airfoil thickness is not the most important factor. I'll just let that point sink in for now.
There was a flier that won a major CL Stunt contest with a Ringmaster here in US last year. It has a thinner airfoil but that didn't stop the winner. I guess no one told him that the thinner wing section couldn't be a winner. No one told the bumble bee that it could not fly.

As for the Fox .15BB being suitable, it is not. The engine is way too heavy and way too thirsty, and all the power that engine delivers is wasted on the Akromaster's small wing area(240 sq"). Before the rule change that restricted venturi intake area; many USA FAI Combat flyers were using modified Fox .15BB with lotsa Nitromethane to be competitive with very high performance European(and Nelsons). Tom Fluker a Texan, used modified Foxes to win the FAI World Combat championship in the late 1980s.
Interesting factoids, Tony.

My Fai Combat models were powered by the Fox .15BB, they had 400 sq" wings, and were capable of 89-93 mph, depending on nitro %. Stock Fox 15BBs would fly the same model design 81-82 mph. So...Lighter engine, a displacement providing adequate power loading; yields a model with a lighter wing loading, easier to meet the proper CG without adding much tail ballast and if a smaller displacement engine is used, then the fuel tank capacity is also smaller. I had to shorten the nose of my scratch built Akromaster because of the smaller fuel tank. Going back to your Fox .15BB, you might have a great flying model if you mount it in a 390 sq" FliteStreak! Top Flite actually showed a suggested engine range of .15 cu" - .35 cu" engines in their early magazine advertising. If you think it cannot possibly work; a no longer with us friend, built and flew a 'Streak with an MVVS .12 cu" plain bearing diesel. Tony
Fox .15BB then could power a lightened Ringmaster S-1 then without problem, as it also has 400 square inches wing area. I am told that a CL converted K&B .20 Sporster makes a good .35 stunt aircraft engine. Got 2 of those in RC, a modeller on one of the CL forums gave me the name of a the individual who makes venturis for the Sportster. - George
Old 01-27-2016, 11:15 AM
  #38  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,252
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by paw080
Hi Vert, If the ASP .12 is under 3.75ozs , it should keep the wing loading at an acceptable

level. The point of all my blabbing is that wing loading is the key factor for changing

directions; in essence; the ability for the model to "pop" a tight corner. Airfoil thickness

is not the most important factor. I'll just let that point sink in for now.


As for the Fox .15BB being suitable, it is not. The engine is way too heavy and way too

thirsty, and all the power that engine delivers is wasted on the Akromaster's small

wing area(240 sq"). Before the rule change that restricted venturi intake area;

many USA FAI Combat flyers were using modified Fox .15BB with lotsa Nitromethane

to be competitive with very high performance European(and Nelsons). Tom Fluker

a Texan, used modified Foxes to win the FAI World Combat championship in the late

1980s.

My Fai Combat models were powered by the Fox .15BB, they had 400 sq" wings, and

were capable of 89-93 mph, depending on nitro %. Stock Fox 15BBs would fly the

same model design 81-82 mph. So...Lighter engine, a displacement providing adequate

power loading; yields a model with a lighter wing loading, easier to meet the proper CG

without adding much tail ballast and if a smaller displacement engine is used, then the fuel

tank capacity is also smaller. I had to shorten the nose of my scratch built Akromaster

because of the smaller fuel tank. Going back to your Fox .15BB, you might have a great

flying model if you mount it in a 390 sq" FliteStreak! Top Flite actually showed a suggested

engine range of .15 cu" - .35 cu" engines in their early magazine advertising. If you think it

cannot possibly work; a no longer with us friend, built and flew a 'Streak with an MVVS

.12 cu" plain bearing diesel.

Tony
Yeah, I am a competition CL combat guy, so I have a little experience with wing loading! Interesting how the OP has not been replying. I would not recommend a new CL flyer to chase wing loading too much. They would be lucky to even get to inverted flight, let alone worry about the radius of their corner. Lighter is almost always better though in CL, but not as light, will still suffice for a trainer or first plane.
Old 01-27-2016, 11:37 AM
  #39  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,301
Received 79 Likes on 62 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by vertical grimmace
Yeah, I am a competition CL combat guy, so I have a little experience with wing loading! Interesting how the OP has not been replying. I would not recommend a new CL flyer to chase wing loading too much. They would be lucky to even get to inverted flight, let alone worry about the radius of their corner. Lighter is almost always better though in CL, but not as light, will still suffice for a trainer or first plane.
Good point, probably listening in. If I had just done what I ought to have done, instead of giving in to people who saw something wrong with every CL aircraft I started building (wing too thin - kit won't cut it - design sux, use those plastic props for paint stirrers and get decent wood, McCoy you selected isn't worth the metal they are made of - get a modern OS, "wrong" covering material, and ad nauseum) I would have been out flying more and learning more on my own. You're right. First thing for a beginner is to simply fly! A skilled model builder will find out soon enough and several planes down will have it worked out.
Old 01-27-2016, 02:04 PM
  #40  
sigrun
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dunnunda, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Don't agree. A novice buiild doesn't have to be Pro perfect nor is that expected of a beginner. But once past the solid wing trainer stage, important thing is to build light and and engine right so the model will fly right. Trying that first loop without knowledge and from too low an entry before just pulling tight as so many n00bs are wont to do will result in splinters and and a loss of confidence with a high wing loading and too fast a model. A light wing loading at lower speed might just have sufficient radius to save a mistake from being 'a close run thing' to a build time again experience. I well recall my own experience as a youth. Flying the right combo was all smiles and fun. Flying the wrong one wasn't.

Last edited by sigrun; 01-27-2016 at 02:08 PM. Reason: typos
Old 01-27-2016, 02:54 PM
  #41  
sigrun
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dunnunda, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GallopingGhostler
"S" stood for "standard" IMO.
Actually, by O.S. convention hailing way back to the 1950s, the "S" suffix indicated "stunt" (C/L) being an understood. By the time of the appearance of the FP Schnuerled series of engines superseding the MAX series, C/L was arguably even past its Indian summer. O.S. continued to use the -S suffix, but by then to indicate the motor a C/L venturi and spraybar fitted circle turner. FP sans suffix fitted with an R/C carb was the "standard" FP. By then, the capacity range of C/L motors was already becoming restricted although .10 and .15 FP-S were still made.

As I recall they sleeved the.40FP down to .35 for the C/L version FP-S to fit with C/L capacity and class expectation, but the Schnuerled FP-S was never popular as a stunt motor with stunt fliers. Around this time I recall the .20 and .25 were consolidated and one or the other eliminated from the lineup. I can't recall which now. Eventually they were all superseded by the LA-S series for C/L and the line gradually rationalised. None of this was helped by R/C twin ballrace engines becoming so inexpensive relative to what they had been, that the only buyers for a PB .40 in R/C were beginners for their trainers. And of course, it wasn't long before even the .40in³ which had been the standard entry level for an aeon was superseded by the perception of a need for the .46 LA because of the success and reputation of O.S. .46 class in the TBR SF and subsequent FX.

Aftermarket proprietary venturis for conversion to C/L can be had, at a price. For a beginner not understanding the importance fo adequate suction through manoeuvre and its relevance to inner diameter, unless from a source like Just Engines, it's a minefield. Yes, a wired open R/C carb can be used, with the caveats already mentioned. More weight and usually, less effective venturi area which can result in lower peak power. With contemporary Schnuered engines, the latter usually isn't an issue. NVAs are usually an easy fix. When I could source them, I used to use standard .10FP-S N/V on my .15FP-S' and even Fox 35 Stunt classic. Cheaper, lower profile more easily protected in a 'mishap' by a N/V protector, and finer tuning.

"Peacemaker" was a redesign of Flite Streak by George Aldrich for APS to accomodate British 2.5cc diesels of the day. It's still a fabulous design off the plan and well suited to any contemporary PB glow motor for sport aerobatics. "Smousen" (Modelhob) was designed later, and is better. They are .15 sport-pattern profile models which are capable of performing the pattern if built right and engined right in adequatelly skilled hands. "Akromaster" is similar, but for motors of lesser HP output. As already iterated sufficiently, it is MTOW weight critical which is its Achille's Heel as the builder has to save weight in either the build or motor choice. Because its airfoil is thin relative to the other two, other aerodynamic characteristics not withstanding, it is also faster if overpowered which doesn't compensate for a high wing loading once you start turning.

"Flite Streak" was a great design in its day, and like "Peacemaker" still is. Sets the standard in class by which all others are judged. Flite Streak Jnr suffered by intention from the same thing which plagued Mike Gretz no doubt when he designed Akromaster. They both wanted a model which kids could afford and had an engine for which looked "just like a real Flite Streak". In the dominant US target market, that meant targeting the kid with a ubiquitous PB Fox 15, not exactly a powerhouse. Remember, back then motors weren't a virtual dime each as they are today post the Chinese market entry.

There was a flier that won a major CL Stunt contest with a Ringmaster here in US last year. It has a thinner airfoil but that didn't stop the winner. I guess no one told him that the thinner wing section couldn't be a winner. No one told the bumble bee that it could not fly.
The above is a straw argument nonsense for the obvious sake of either intended ridicule or provocation which backfires for anyone with ½ a clue thinking about it. No-one said thinner sections can't fly well. As already iterated, the Akro's does. But having a thinner section gives a model certain characteristics encumbering it with restrictions or offering it advantages e.g. Goodyear, depending upon purpose. Like mathematics or physics, aerodynamics don't lie. They just are what they are. Either one understands it or one doesn't. That said, I'm sure the 'contest winners' did and built light and engined right to accomodate that section, just as I have been advocating the importance of with Akromaster. If the end user understands and implements that, s/he'll have a first rate flier on his hands. If he doesn't, he won't. I can't for the life of me understand exactly what it is that's difficult to comprehend about that when spelled out so clearly!???

Last edited by sigrun; 01-27-2016 at 02:59 PM.
Old 01-27-2016, 03:32 PM
  #42  
sigrun
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dunnunda, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by paw080
Top Flite actually showed a suggested engine range of .15 cu" - .35 cu" engines in their early magazine advertising.
The blurb went along the lines of .35 for a hot combat ship and .15 for a trainer didn't it Tony? Caveat -capacities relative to engines of the era.

If you think it cannot possibly work; a no longer with us friend, built and flew a 'Streak with an MVVS .12 cu" plain bearing diesel.
Gotta love an optimist! Loves a challenge? And lives where the wind don't blow?

Long outdated even as a slow combat ship, as I perceive it purpose for this model today generally would be a profile sport-'stunter'. Wouldn't you agree? Like SIG's Skyray 35, pretty much the optimum engine capacity today for that purpose for an original Flite Streak would be in the .20~.25in³ range depending upon whether TBR/PB, stroke, induction and port timing. Pretty much all available two-stroke IC engines today R/C orientated rev like 'ell Schnuerled which can't be avoided, and generally oversquare with high RPM timing although there are some more favourable to our purpose than others.

I use a .21A ASP (TBR) in mine (Skyray) in lieu of the LA .25's (PB) unavailability. Works quite well for purpose, but one can't escape the fact that it's Schnuerled and wants to rev.

FAI F2D Combat kit early 90's - a sample of two types of a batch of half a dozen still operational. All scratch built includign cutting of the LE foam cores. Too much of a handful for me now in comp. rig. Power by F2D .15 TBR glow - various Russian & Italian (Cipolla Combat).
Vintage diesel combat kit late 60's - now there's definitive flat section. Under restoration. .15 P.A.W. TBR Diesel powered.
Old 01-27-2016, 05:04 PM
  #43  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,252
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by sigrun
Actually, by O.S. convention hailing way back to the 1950s, the "S" suffix indicated "stunt" (C/L) being an understood. By the time of the appearance of the FP Schnuerled series of engines superseding the MAX series, C/L was arguably even past its Indian summer. O.S. continued to use the -S suffix, but by then to indicate the motor a C/L venturi and spraybar fitted circle turner. FP sans suffix fitted with an R/C carb was the "standard" FP. By then, the capacity range of C/L motors was already becoming restricted although .10 and .15 FP-S were still made.

As I recall they sleeved the.40FP down to .35 for the C/L version FP-S to fit with C/L capacity and class expectation, but the Schnuerled FP-S was never popular as a stunt motor with stunt fliers. Around this time I recall the .20 and .25 were consolidated and one or the other eliminated from the lineup. I can't recall which now. Eventually they were all superseded by the LA-S series for C/L and the line gradually rationalised. None of this was helped by R/C twin ballrace engines becoming so inexpensive relative to what they had been, that the only buyers for a PB .40 in R/C were beginners for their trainers. And of course, it wasn't long before even the .40in³ which had been the standard entry level for an aeon was superseded by the perception of a need for the .46 LA because of the success and reputation of O.S. .46 class in the TBR SF and subsequent FX.

Aftermarket proprietary venturis for conversion to C/L can be had, at a price. For a beginner not understanding the importance fo adequate suction through manoeuvre and its relevance to inner diameter, unless from a source like Just Engines, it's a minefield. Yes, a wired open R/C carb can be used, with the caveats already mentioned. More weight and usually, less effective venturi area which can result in lower peak power. With contemporary Schnuered engines, the latter usually isn't an issue. NVAs are usually an easy fix. When I could source them, I used to use standard .10FP-S N/V on my .15FP-S' and even Fox 35 Stunt classic. Cheaper, lower profile more easily protected in a 'mishap' by a N/V protector, and finer tuning.

"Peacemaker" was a redesign of Flite Streak by George Aldrich for APS to accomodate British 2.5cc diesels of the day. It's still a fabulous design off the plan and well suited to any contemporary PB glow motor for sport aerobatics. "Smousen" (Modelhob) was designed later, and is better. They are .15 sport-pattern profile models which are capable of performing the pattern if built right and engined right in adequatelly skilled hands. "Akromaster" is similar, but for motors of lesser HP output. As already iterated sufficiently, it is MTOW weight critical which is its Achille's Heel as the builder has to save weight in either the build or motor choice. Because its airfoil is thin relative to the other two, other aerodynamic characteristics not withstanding, it is also faster if overpowered which doesn't compensate for a high wing loading once you start turning.

"Flite Streak" was a great design in its day, and like "Peacemaker" still is. Sets the standard in class by which all others are judged. Flite Streak Jnr suffered by intention from the same thing which plagued Mike Gretz no doubt when he designed Akromaster. They both wanted a model which kids could afford and had an engine for which looked "just like a real Flite Streak". In the dominant US target market, that meant targeting the kid with a ubiquitous PB Fox 15, not exactly a powerhouse. Remember, back then motors weren't a virtual dime each as they are today post the Chinese market entry.


The above is a straw argument nonsense for the obvious sake of either intended ridicule or provocation which backfires for anyone with ½ a clue thinking about it. No-one said thinner sections can't fly well. As already iterated, the Akro's does. But having a thinner section gives a model certain characteristics encumbering it with restrictions or offering it advantages e.g. Goodyear, depending upon purpose. Like mathematics or physics, aerodynamics don't lie. They just are what they are. Either one understands it or one doesn't. That said, I'm sure the 'contest winners' did and built light and engined right to accomodate that section, just as I have been advocating the importance of with Akromaster. If the end user understands and implements that, s/he'll have a first rate flier on his hands. If he doesn't, he won't. I can't for the life of me understand exactly what it is that's difficult to comprehend about that when spelled out so clearly!???

Good info there. I would like to add that one of the primary issues with these OS offerings is they were R/C engines with the carb removed and a venturi added. The important matter here is that they were time for all out RPM's. Where the stunt guys wanted that 4-2 break. Not possible stock from the FP line because of the port timing. I have never been much of a stunt flier. Combat, and pylon racing mainly. Now in my advanced age I fly mostly RC scale. But I am flying CL combat again of late. SO I always wanted the full bore tuning you get with a bladder. In fact, I am not sure I have an engine that will run a 4-2 break. I have an old Sig Magnum, with an OS SF .46 installed. But again, I could never get it to hold the 4-2 the whole flight. But it is box stock.

Not knowing the experience of the OP, I am going to guess if he builds his Akromaster box stock, and just throws a .15 on it, he will be fine. His biggest concern will be completing all of those laps without hitting the ground. Turning radius concerns are gonna come a little later.
Old 01-27-2016, 05:51 PM
  #44  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,301
Received 79 Likes on 62 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by sigrun
Don't agree. A novice buiild doesn't have to be Pro perfect nor is that expected of a beginner. But once past the solid wing trainer stage, important thing is to build light and and engine right so the model will fly right. Trying that first loop without knowledge and from too low an entry before just pulling tight as so many n00bs are wont to do will result in splinters and and a loss of confidence with a high wing loading and too fast a model. A light wing loading at lower speed might just have sufficient radius to save a mistake from being 'a close run thing' to a build time again experience. I well recall my own experience as a youth. Flying the right combo was all smiles and fun. Flying the wrong one wasn't.
I recall the OP was an experienced RC pilot and builder. Thus, his CL build should be all right, he just needed a feel for the right sized engine. First attempts will be to control the aircraft, there will be crashes and repairs. So if life isn't perfect, no big deal. I think he'll catch on quickly.
Old 01-27-2016, 06:24 PM
  #45  
paw080
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Corona, CA
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by sigrun
The blurb went along the lines of .35 for a hot combat ship and .15 for a trainer didn't it Tony? Caveat -capacities relative to engines of the era.



Gotta love an optimist! Loves a challenge? And lives where the wind don't blow?

Long outdated even as a slow combat ship, as I perceive it purpose for this model today generally would be a profile sport-'stunter'. Wouldn't you agree? Like SIG's Skyray 35, pretty much the optimum engine capacity today for that purpose for an original Flite Streak would be in the .20~.25in³ range depending upon whether TBR/PB, stroke, induction and port timing. Pretty much all available two-stroke IC engines today R/C orientated rev like 'ell Schnuerled which can't be avoided, and generally oversquare with high RPM timing although there are some more favourable to our purpose than others.

I use a .21A ASP (TBR) in mine (Skyray) in lieu of the LA .25's (PB) unavailability. Works quite well for purpose, but one can't escape the fact that it's Schnuerled and wants to rev.

FAI F2D Combat kit early 90's - a sample of two types of a batch of half a dozen still operational. All scratch built includign cutting of the LE foam cores. Too much of a handful for me now in comp. rig. Power by F2D .15 TBR glow - various Russian & Italian (Cipolla Combat).
Vintage diesel combat kit late 60's - now there's definitive flat section. Under restoration. .15 P.A.W. TBR Diesel powered.

Hi Again Sigrun, I think Aldrich was actually thinking of the Oliver Tiger mkIII when he suggested using a .15 cu" engine for stunt training.

Yes, my friend did love a challenge. When 80mph Combat was in it's beginning life here in Southern California, my other friend(Bare) who

started the event; used 2.5cc BB diesels powering late 1950s and early 1960s Combat designs. They flew really well on the regulation 60' lines.

So, I started flying smaller 280-300 sq" designs, also powered by period 2.5cc diesels. Bare went to 400 sq" models using a Nelson,

Rossi and MVVS 2.5cc engines. He found that they lapped several mph too fast: 81-83 mph sans streamer with 8' X 6" props..

So I blew up the early 1980s FAI "Tamerlane" fro 320sq" to 370sq" and it was just legal for the event, lapping (sans streamer)

78-79mph with a cut down Graupner prop(7.75" X 6"). The model slowed down to 75-76mph when towing the streamer. I was using

a Super Tigre G.15 RV diesel, that was modified for 1980's Fai Team race. We were matched against .35 cu" powered models.

Our advantage was the lighter wing loading , hence quicker turning models. They do fly speed limit Combat still, but usually the

speed is restricted to 75 mph. I haven't flown Combat in 18 years, especially since 1/2A Combat(USA) has been practically

abandoned.

Tony
Old 01-27-2016, 08:31 PM
  #46  
sigrun
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dunnunda, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by paw080
I think Aldrich was actually thinking of the Oliver Tiger mkIII when he suggested using a .15 cu" engine
Confirm it was Tony. Well documented in Aeromodeller Feb '58 which included the printed plan in the article -which wasn't a full size lift out BTW. You had to order it if from APS you wanted the full size plan. I'll never forget the first time as a youngster I saw one fly in the local park in the very early 1970s. It was .15 diesel powered, but not by anything special as I particularly recall. I recognised immediately that it was the design for me. Prevously I'd had built up airframes of Aeroflyte kit origin. Like most of us self starters without mentors in those days, I had to discover through trial and error the importance of building light and relevance of wing loading, which in the time pre-dating iron on plastic coverings, also included doping and painting skills as both weigh heavy.

I had bought a Gordon Burford Taipan TBR diesel, Series 13 I think, but the web lists that as '72 and I bought mine NIB in mid (?) '71. Mine was identical to the one pictured sans the black head colour. The head on mine was polished aluminum. Web isn't always accurate. I didn't appreciate it for what it was at the time. My first, and for a while only engine which I'd bought influenced by one of the Scott brothers an ex-Brit now resident in AU who co-owned the local hobby shop. Cost significantly more than any 2.5cc glow at the time.Those same TBR Taipans are highly collectable stuff of legend now although I didn't know how to compression tune a diesel optimally in those days, and some of the cheap home brewed fuel I bought from a source with no amyl or IPN that had had the ether bottle waved across the lid that I bought didn't help that situation either. Aeroflyte brand diesel fuel sold in tiny cans in the hobby store was excellent quality diesel fuel for sport flying, but expensive. I was too youthfully naive to realise cheap diesel fuel could only be cheap for a reason given the cost of the necessary ether constituent. The "Peacemaker" saved me.

Nelson motors. What more need be said. Yum. Rossi as well. I still have several Rossi .09s intended for ½ A pylon which found their way into my ½ A combat box. MVVS I like too, but they got chunky in the 80's and 90's.

Now long FAI uncompetitive "Tamerlane" and its later miniaturised .09in³ Aeromodeller free lift out plan sibling are both great fliers. I have flown both and have plans for both. Responsive to fly and tighter manoeuvreing than the earlier generation 'whale tails', they're worthy vintage combat design to fly in fun competitions or friendly jousting. I like flying both a lot, especially the .09 variant.

Super Tigre G.15 RV diesel, that was modified for 1980's Fai Team race.
I'll take a pic and post tomorrow. Sans original box, guess what I have here, case exhaust port modified for the same purpose. Still runs hard. Single flick starts hot or cold and holds tune as any good diesel should. From the days when an Italian ST cost an arm and a leg and were thoroughbreds. That said, it doesn't quite run as hard as my '90's P.A.W. .15 TBRs I deploy for combat in those "Warlords" et al -kudos to the Eifflanders, and that weeny diameter crankshaft of the G15 RV isn't combat impact friendly. If I ever redeploy it, it'll likely be in that nostalgia inspired SIG "Shoestring" kit I bought.

Last edited by sigrun; 01-27-2016 at 08:32 PM. Reason: usual typo corrections
Old 01-28-2016, 07:54 AM
  #47  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,301
Received 79 Likes on 62 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by sigrun
Actually, by O.S. convention hailing way back to the 1950s, the "S" suffix indicated "stunt" (C/L) being an understood. By the time of the appearance of the FP Schnuerled series of engines superseding the MAX series, C/L was arguably even past its Indian summer. O.S. continued to use the -S suffix, but by then to indicate the motor a C/L venturi and spraybar fitted circle turner. FP sans suffix fitted with an R/C carb was the "standard" FP. By then, the capacity range of C/L motors was already becoming restricted although .10 and .15 FP-S were still made.
Please note my comments are merely personal observations with my limited knowledge and am really enjoying this conversation, sigrun. My knowledge is limited to the historic engine model tests, majority performed by Peter Chinn and H.R. Warring on http://www.sceptreflight.net/Model%20Engine%20Tests/ . In their articles, I thus observed not to see an "S" designation until the FP series, although it is possible. One advantage those in Australia have is being closer to the Orient, you probably have dibs on engines that aren't marketed in the US. Also it is possible that marketing differs from US. (When I worked in Japan, even car names were different. US Infinity G3 is Nissan Avenir, station wagon version is not available in US. I also found that BBC Australia news coverage on US was less biased and more informative than the US news agencies, LOL.) There are a lot of nice European engines, but IMO in US these are less seen due to their higher importation costs and availability back then.

As I recall they sleeved the.40FP down to .35 for the C/L version FP-S to fit with C/L capacity and class expectation, but the Schnuerled FP-S was never popular as a stunt motor with stunt fliers. Around this time I recall the .20 and .25 were consolidated and one or the other eliminated from the lineup. I can't recall which now. Eventually they were all superseded by the LA-S series for C/L and the line gradually rationalised. None of this was helped by R/C twin ballrace engines becoming so inexpensive relative to what they had been, that the only buyers for a PB .40 in R/C were beginners for their trainers. And of course, it wasn't long before even the .40in³ which had been the standard entry level for an aeon was superseded by the perception of a need for the .46 LA because of the success and reputation of O.S. .46 class in the TBR SF and subsequent FX.
Yes, better and more consistent fuel feed by a smaller neck venturi is done over here also. Aside from the traditionals favoring such as the venerable Foxes and I don't know about the popular end of CL flight in Australia. Here in US, current fliers consider the FP series favorable for stunt. A number favor the .25FP-S over the .25LA-S because of the metallic engine crankcase back versus the plastic one on the LA. LA is a wee touch less on power. With the right prop, tuning and setup (head shims for compression adjustment, venturi tweaking, etc.) they have been able to get the engines to do the familiar 4-2-4 break in stunts. A .20 - .25 Schneurle is substituted for the legacy .35 cross scavenge. Another engine that has a cult following is the K&B Sportster, referred to as the poor man's 4 cycle. Properly treated with the correct oil content (requires oil more than the modern ABC's due to is AAC (Aluminium cylinder with an Aluminium piston that is Chrome plated, easily ruined by lean running on lower content oil) construction, which can turn larger props with ease. Of course there is a large crowd that swear by the venerable Fox .35 Stunt.

Aftermarket proprietary venturis for conversion to C/L can be had, at a price. For a beginner not understanding the importance fo adequate suction through manoeuvre and its relevance to inner diameter, unless from a source like Just Engines, it's a minefield. Yes, a wired open R/C carb can be used, with the caveats already mentioned. More weight and usually, less effective venturi area which can result in lower peak power. With contemporary Schnuered engines, the latter usually isn't an issue. NVAs are usually an easy fix. When I could source them, I used to use standard .10FP-S N/V on my .15FP-S' and even Fox 35 Stunt classic. Cheaper, lower profile more easily protected in a 'mishap' by a N/V protector, and finer tuning.
Yes, it is not a good feeling to snap off a needle aircraft noses over on landing and flips over. Some have been using Enya NVA's for their Foxes and McCoys. Actually here in US, venturi price is relative, not bad. I gather some that make these do them more out of a motive to help a fellow modeller than make a strong profit. Recently I found by accident an Evolution .40-.46 rear NVA was a perfect fit on my Testors McCoy .35 Red Head. The 25mm mounting pattern matches the McCoy's backplate bolt spacing. It's fine machine thread makes mixture adjustment a pleasure and gets my fingers away from the prop. Used a 2-56 screw to blank off the needle valve side of the OEM spray bar.

To the horrors of some, after engine clean up, I did not repaint the head "red" leaving it in plain metallic finish (for better cooling. I got comments that it didn't look right, LOL. )

"Peacemaker" was a redesign of Flite Streak by George Aldrich for APS to accomodate British 2.5cc diesels of the day. It's still a fabulous design off the plan and well suited to any contemporary PB glow motor for sport aerobatics. "Smousen" (Modelhob) was designed later, and is better. They are .15 sport-pattern profile models which are capable of performing the pattern if built right and engined right in adequatelly skilled hands. "Akromaster" is similar, but for motors of lesser HP output. As already iterated sufficiently, it is MTOW weight critical which is its Achille's Heel as the builder has to save weight in either the build or motor choice. Because its airfoil is thin relative to the other two, other aerodynamic characteristics not withstanding, it is also faster if overpowered which doesn't compensate for a high wing loading once you start turning.
Yes, there are a lot of positive comments about the Peacemakers here. We don't see but occasional use of diesels. Diesels just never caught on in US, I gather by the low cost availability of nitro for glow.

"Flite Streak" was a great design in its day, and like "Peacemaker" still is. Sets the standard in class by which all others are judged. Flite Streak Jnr suffered by intention from the same thing which plagued Mike Gretz no doubt when he designed Akromaster. They both wanted a model which kids could afford and had an engine for which looked "just like a real Flite Streak". In the dominant US target market, that meant targeting the kid with a ubiquitous PB Fox 15, not exactly a powerhouse. Remember, back then motors weren't a virtual dime each as they are today post the Chinese market entry.
I am familiar with those days. Back then, I was elated when I bought a Testors McCoy .19 Red Head on clearance for $6 from America's Hobby Center, also was elated when ordering an OS Pet .06 non-R/C and Hobby Shack substituted an OS Max .10R/C since they were out of stock.

The above is a straw argument nonsense for the obvious sake of either intended ridicule or provocation which backfires for anyone with ½ a clue thinking about it. No-one said thinner sections can't fly well. As already iterated, the Akro's does. But having a thinner section gives a model certain characteristics encumbering it with restrictions or offering it advantages e.g. Goodyear, depending upon purpose. Like mathematics or physics, aerodynamics don't lie. They just are what they are. Either one understands it or one doesn't. That said, I'm sure the 'contest winners' did and built light and engined right to accomodate that section, just as I have been advocating the importance of with Akromaster. If the end user understands and implements that, s/he'll have a first rate flier on his hands. If he doesn't, he won't. I can't for the life of me understand exactly what it is that's difficult to comprehend about that when spelled out so clearly!???
Forums take on a life of their own here in US. Arguments about airfoil sections have been hotly debated as much as guns, knives and motorcycle oil in motorcycle forums, and we have our share of grumpy senior citizens, LOL. In this case the skill of the pilot was the key element and used to counter such who insist on wing sections. There is merit to a thicker airfoil section, but professional tools in the hand of an amateur do not a professional make.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	McCoy35RH No2 w-RNVA Running.jpg
Views:	1761
Size:	61.6 KB
ID:	2143882   Click image for larger version

Name:	McCoy35RH No2 w-RNVA Back.jpg
Views:	1779
Size:	78.6 KB
ID:	2143883   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ringmaster w-McCoy35 Mod.jpg
Views:	1882
Size:	47.9 KB
ID:	2143884  

Last edited by GallopingGhostler; 01-28-2016 at 08:07 AM.
Old 01-28-2016, 08:38 AM
  #48  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,252
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

On the topic of Speed limit combat, It is alive and well. So is 1/2 A. While the engines for 1/2 A may be a bit tricky to source, they can be had. The performance of them is kind of insane really. These 2 examples spin around 34,000 rpm. This is my latest 1/2 A combat design, the Super Attitudinal, a slightly larger version of the original. The new one was blown up in size to accommodate the more powerful engines.
Also, you will see my speed limit plane, the Fast Nimbus. The old Fast foamies make great speed limit planes, and mine are around 500 sq. in. I am converting them all to the ASP .25, which has become the engine of choice. We put a screw in the venture, so we can fine tune the speed. The engine on this plane in the pic is an old Mk 4 Fox combat special. It is a little too powerful for this event though.

Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	atitudinal.jpg
Views:	2039
Size:	470.2 KB
ID:	2143904   Click image for larger version

Name:	Fora.jpg
Views:	1922
Size:	323.2 KB
ID:	2143905   Click image for larger version

Name:	Nimbus.jpg
Views:	1873
Size:	204.8 KB
ID:	2143906  
Old 01-28-2016, 12:14 PM
  #49  
sigrun
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dunnunda, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Nice pair of Foras. Lubbly jubbly. I wish I could still do FAI or even (our .09) ½ A justice. Alas tempis fugit & waits for no man. Envy. Smart quick build design there for mass production vertical g. I like them.

On the ASP .25. I bought one for a sport Goodyear profile class racing event we have here as my motor of choice. Brilliant performer for the money. ASP have really lifted their game from where they were a couple of decades ago. Their metallurgy today vs yesteryear is like night and day.

Last edited by sigrun; 01-28-2016 at 04:11 PM. Reason: usual typos
Old 01-28-2016, 12:20 PM
  #50  
sigrun
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dunnunda, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GallopingGhostler
professional tools in the hand of an amateur do not a professional make.
By the same token, having the right tool to do any specific job will invariably work better than the ubiquitous bigger hammer. I gave the pragmactic example of this as applicable to learning to fly C/L earlier in the simple first loop. In clumsy hands especially, the point of entry and performance of the model (turn rate & speed = radius) can be the decider between cheers or tears.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.