rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

Paternguy, I did share your reasoning, but if you allow ST 91s then won't people just use Jett 90s. FWIW, I don't make any money at all. (I chose to get a Ph.D. in art history instead[sm=bananahead.gif])

MHester

My Feedback: (1)

EXACTLY!!!!!!!

oops....moving on now.....

-M

patternflyer1

My Feedback: (11)

I'm pretty sure at the end of the day it makes no difference if the 91 or the 61 is in the plane. It comes down to the man behind the sticks.
I remember my first advanced contest in F3A a few years ago, I was flying a 2m current ship, Scott Covey's first contest back outta retirement. Beat me with a 40 sized electric Venus.
I still laugh about it.
Of course, he did just win Fai in our district. LOL

I see everyone's point about keeping the size restricted. It makes sense to me. I also can understand why people what to go to the 91 as it's more readily available it seems.

Now, let me throw this one in.. What size electric can I put in it? My curare is hiding under about 2 inches of dust!!!!!!!

Chris

DarZeelon

MVVS and others also have the .91.
For Tai-Ji .60 and similar models, it is here (with the YS 1.10FZ) the engine of choice, coupled with the pipe, a pump and the tank on C/G...

But I believe the 10 cc rule should be applied to the BPA.

If people here want to recreate the atmosphere of the past, it is the only way to go.

No unlimited vertical, no electrics and no 3-D; just pattern at high speed.
For that an MVVS RE piped .61 is good enough and costs less to boot.

RCBuilder42yrs

In keeping with the S.O.H established by MHESTER:
"Singing my Song...Mike"

And if you look at our logo, I have found the solution to all the Engine debate and it can be put to rest. Pictured below is the "OFFICIAL" BPA Engine as established by the Logo, and is now being circulated at least 10 miles either side of Boling,TX.

If your engine looks like this, you can throw your "marbles" in the circle, if it doesn't then you are out there on the fringes where there is 'GREY' line and we all know that Competition always involved the "GREY LINE"!

These "OFFICIAL" engines are available it does involve marginal mechanical ability, a few select tools and the "NO FEAR" attitude! With these few items U 2 can have an "OFFICIAL" BPA Engine! ! ! <BOSEG>

Tony
BPA #2

nxtdoor

My Feedback: (10)

Here is my version of the correct BPA engine. A proper FIRE!

Jeff

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

---------------


I won a Pre Novice contest back in 81 or so. My plane was a Trainer 60 powered by a K&B .61 (obsolete even then). Most of the folks flying against me had dedicated pattern ships. Some with Rossi engines, other with OS or YS and who knows what else. There was some serious money sitting at the ready line for Pre Novice. None of it was mine.

I guess I prove your hypothesis. But had we all been flying Sportsman that day, you can bet that the winner list would have turned out very differently than it did in Pre Novice.

Move all of us up one more class to what would then have been Advanced and my poor little old Trainer 60 would have been laughed off the field as it rudder rolled its way through various maneuvers.

So, while flying skill is very important, having the proper equipment with which to compete is equally important.


Ed Cregger

vellum2

My Feedback: (2)

I'm a firm believer in the Size limit for the airframe and let the Pattern sequence itself dictate everything else. If I do an 8 point from horizon to horizon with a YS 60 powered Aurora or a 160 DZ powered Integral, the judging criteria is the same... I'll take the Aurora! I mean really, who wants to see that nasty landing gear dragging below the plane??? Ick.

LOL

Joe W.

roncoleman

My Feedback: (14)

"Pictured below is the "OFFICIAL" BPA Engine"

Hey I got me two of them. Now all I need to do is find a left-handed header
for that Fox Eagle and I'll be set.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

--------------


I like the Fox best with the exhaust facing forward. <G>

Word has it that if you face the exhaust forward, put a few drops of fuel into the carb and then run an adapter tube/90 degree elbow from the exhaust port to the carb intake, you'd have a perpetual motion machine...

I never got my Fox .74 Mark IV to run properly. It was a bear for about ten minutes, then it would quit running. Nope, not a fuel tank problem. Others had the same problem. Before I could get it back to Duke for his "Magic Touch", a friend swapped me my old Phoenix 8 w/Webra .61 Speed for my Hobbistar 60 with Fox .74 in the nose (I was getting back into the hobby after a few years lay-off).

Wish I had that Phoenix 8 (unfinished, but almost built) and Webra .61 Speed engine today.


Ed Cregger

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

An OPS just sold for $166 you know where. That's cheaper than an OS FX .61, but what in the world do you do for parts?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Brand-NIB-Rare-O...QQcmdZViewItem

Oops! I see you're the owner, Jeff!

nxtdoor

My Feedback: (10)

Yeah, I got lucky and none of you guys saw it before I could get it!

Will go well in one of new BPA ships.

Jeff

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

Very nice catch. Is OPS still in business?

turbo.gst

My Feedback: (8)

Try http://www.rcmarine.com/ for OPS engine and part availability.

turbo

cmgtech1

Anybody have ANY idea how a new O.S. .61 FX with pipe would peform in one of yesterday's ships? I guess my question is actually more along the lines of how does the O.S. 61 FX w/pipe compare to the old O.S. FSR (pre long stroke) w/pipe?

nxtdoor

My Feedback: (10)

Raindave, I also recently got my hands on a new in box ST 60 Bluehead ABC PDP Perry Pump engine. That is going in a recently acquired Skyglass Phoenix 5 I just got my hands on also! )

I have been lucky recently. That should do me for a while.

Jeff

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

----------------


As usual, I can't answer the question, but I'll bet that the OS .61FX does just fine when running a full length tuned pipe when compared to the old OS.61FSR engine of 25 years ago. Especially if you add another gasket or two under the cylinder head, pick a good glow plug for tuned pipe use (Rossi R4 or R5) and let the engine spin up to 14k rpm. But even if you limit the rpm to 12.5 k rpm (something you would be wise NOT to do with the old FSR) it will produce pretty good power.

Personally, I would buy a new Rossi .60 (not that much more money) that comes with a tuned pipe and header from www.rossenginesiusa.com. In the end you will probably save money buying the Rossi set up instead of the OS set up and there will be no doubt that the FSR could not keep up with the Rossi.

When you get the Rossi, any new Rossi, after purchasing it from rossienginesusa (I hope I have the name right), inspect it carefully for defects. If you spot anything out of the ordinary, do not run the engine. Make arrangements to exchange it for a good engine with rossienginesusa. While rossienginesusa can sell Rossi engines in the USA, he has no facility for repair or warranty work for the engines he sells. The engine, once ran, will have to be returned to Italy for warranty work. Normally this is no big thing as Rossi engines are first rate engines.

If I wanted something serviced locally, I would consider a Webra from Horizon Hobby Distributors. If that was too rich for my blood (and it happens), a Tower .61 (if concerned about the 10cc limit) would be the next engine that I would try. Again, be sure to add some head gaskets in order to lower the compression for use with a tuned pipe).


Ed Cregger

cmgtech1

Thanks Ed!

jquid

Hey guys,

I think we are missing the point here. Yes the BPA is to bring back the pattern planes and pipes, retracts of yesteryear. BUT let's look at what we are actually doing. We are taking planes that are 25-30 years old and bringing them back to life. Guess what? We have made leaps and bounds in our gear since then. Radios, engines, building materials to an extent. I believe the limiting factor for engine size it the airframe itself. Many people like to take a .60 size plane and throw in a .90. That is why OS came up with their .91 that fits in a .60 case. Saito does it with their .91 and 100, .72 etc. 4 strokes. When will it end? It will end when putting a larger engine in an airframe will result in failure. So you can cram a 1.2 in the nose. As soon as you open it to WOT and rip the firewall out, it is fun anymore? The airframe of a .60 can take a .91- so what? It may be that the plane is a bit heavy and this will make up for it. If you build a light .60 and use a .60 you will do better than a heavy aircraft with a larger engine IMHO.

So I guess we should not limit the engine size, my .02 worth. spend it how you like. Just becasue someone has a .91 in their nose, as opposed to a .60 how will that handicap me? Maybe he can fly the pattern faster? Maybe he will have issues with ground clearance running a larger prop? Maybe I want to change to a .91 if I see my older design flys better with it.

For instance I was looking for a Dave Brown front retract unit. Could only find the mains. I wanted to maintain the 3 gear heritage, so I found the Spring Airs. If we limit the engine size as it was back in the day, why not limit the radios as well? No computers, no digital servos, just old Kraft/Airtronics radios and eliminate narrow band receivers as well. So the older engines are harder to find, I spent months looking for mine, before deciding on the Rossi .60 W/Pipe. It should have more than enough power for me and is available from Rossi USA on e-bay. I have (2) of his engines, and a Perry carb from him. Very happy with his store.

When it comes down to it, it is a contest of skills not so much who has a bigger engine, or better radio, So if you want to show up with a Desire and a .91 OS. or Jett or TH, vintage blackhead Please do. It will make it more interesting if someone does show up with a working engine from that era, and it will be interesting for someone with a Tower .75 in the nose as well.

JEFF BPA #1

nxtdoor

My Feedback: (10)

So, by leaving engine size open you in effect leave airframe size open. What, you want to allow giant scale pattern ships? That's what it will become. Bigger is better, right?

There has to be a limit of some kind.

The degradation of ballistic pattern came about when the 1.20 four stroke was introduced which lead to larger airframes and eventually to the (opinion) dreaded turn around and the current flying guppies.

Jeff

MHester

My Feedback: (1)

First off, a lot of ACTIVE participants in this venture are current AMA/FAI pattern flyers, designers, etc. We like turnaround, and we like our large planes. So please, let's have some resect and try not to trash "turnaround" pattern while we are doing this. Ok? The pregnant guppy thing is getting a bit old. We don't constantly slam other disciplines and airplanes, please return the favor. I don't like the looks of an Extra either, but if that floats your boat, fly it!

Let's all show some respect. this shouldn't be about "us vs them", and whether or not turnaround "ruined" anything is an individual preference and opinion. I don't believe it has any bearing on this topic whatsoever.

I think Jeff makes a great point. So how bout a size limit, with exclusion to biplanes (as in NO BIPES). Something between 68-72"?

-Mike

Paternguy

My Feedback: (1)

I could get behind a 68to 72 limit, lets also cap the max wing area too.

nxtdoor

My Feedback: (10)

Mike, no disrespect or trash intended. I happen to fly a couple of guppies also; all electric though.

My point was and I think you understood that if we don't limit engine size, we will end up with a fast version of turnaround planes.

By limiting engine size, you in turn limit airframe size; that's why I suggest a 61 limit and I'd like to add a weight limit of like 10 lbs. That'll keep someone from bringing a giant scale plane.

Jeff

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

Another idea might be to put a size or area limit only on models designed after turnaround and 1.20s were adopted. Obviously, earlier models designed around sixties need no limiting regulations. Is there a magic year when the transition can be pinned down? Anything after that year is totally legal but must be 66" or under, for example.

TFF

if I remember right the,old 1.20 size was used because it was the size that could match the power of a piped 61. The old four strokes were soft on power and were mainly advertized for noise reduction. When the industry found out people would traid noise for power they starterd hopping them up. I think the old 1.20's would only equal 80's today. I know my open rocker OS 60 weighs as much as my new .91's and has the power of a medium power two stroke 40.

Tom