Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

Hey all,

I have a newer kit of the Illusion I bought from Kitty Hawk models about 4 years or so ago. I was looking to put a saito .91 in it, or an O.S. .61-.91. Any recommendations? I like the ease of the 4 stroke, and ability to turn a larger prop. Also toyed with making it a taildragger, as it was designed for trike. Any recommendations on gear placement should I chose to?

Thanks!

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

Please don't dishonor this beautiful bird by putting a 4 stroke in it. I would recommend the MVVS 77 set up as a rear exhaust for this bird. The MVVS 90 or the JETT 90 would also work great. It should have plenty of power and will also swing a bigger prop. The one problem you will find with bigger props on this plane is ground clearance so plan ahead. Remember this plane was designed to go fast and do big maneuvers, a 2 stroke turning higher rpms is more suited to this application.

If you insist on putting a 4 stroke in it,don't, Please pack it up and ship it to me. LOL

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

The Illusion is Dave Brown's version of the Tiporare. Matter of fact.... if you bought the GP kit, they gave you the building instructions for the Tiporare with the only difference being the front page and a extra set of notes that shows a few odds and ends.

The first problem you will have is the nose of this bird is very slim. There is just enough room to get a 60 sized 2s engine in there.....yet alone a 4 stroke. I am not saying that it can not be done...... just more work then it is worth.

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

Thanks for the info.

My intention with the Saito was to reduce weight, and front retract clearance issues. Exhaust is rellatively simple with a 4. I also like the notion of a .60 with a 3 blade. From what I have read though with a larger prop you have a bigger "Disk" in front, which on some manauvers helps to slow the plane down (bottom leg of loops). A smaller 3 blade will provide better wind stability, but run it faster. Not sure how the MVVS quality is, so I was thinking O.S. .60 W/Pipe. The other option is the O.S. .90 W/pipe, but worrried that may be overkill.

Also the instructions are for the illusion, not the Tip, which I also liked, but could not find the kit.

Thoughts?

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

Go with the 60,61 size engines. A 90 2 stroke would be overkill.

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

I would skip on the OS too, the quality has been questionable the last few years.

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

How about the Rossi's? I like the .60, and they have a .67 size as well. The .67 may be overkill @ 3.9BHP as well. Any experience with these engines? Maybe a webra as well? Too bad ther are no YS's Left.

Thanks!

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

Dishonor????

Come on guys I flew Pattern in the 60's and 70's so I am familiar with these planes AND our old (new at that time) set-ups-----I would put in a four stroke in a heart beat-----!

In my eyes rather than "Dishonor" with a four stroke it would be an entire new lease on life and flying performance for any of these old Pattern aircraft designs to have the vertical ability without having to Split S (Esse if you prefer) into the box for slow rolls, figure M's, top hats etc..

Case in point-----Taurus-----designed for K&B .35 to (then big) .45. When you installed what today we call the small case ST.61 it flew much better! The last Taurus I flew had a Webra Blackhead .61 (by this time mufflers had come 'in'. If we had had the choice (and the rules to allow it) we would have put in 120 fourstrokes--we didn't.

If you want to create 'old' OK. But it's an antique!

If you want to recreate the exceptional (that is always a comparative) flying these A/C afforded all who had the inborn eye/hand coordination (no video games/computers to play with then so it HAD to be inborn) then give me todays equipment INCLUDING the four strokes.

If you really want to create the old power levels then going to a piped .46 will still be above the power levels virtually all of our .61's had at that time.

I guess 'BEEN THERE DONE THAT ---------- AT THAT TIME' is where I'm coming from. ----AND
no, I don't want to have to be 'nuts on' with my entry speed for the verticals and elongated rolling maneuvers or to have to truncate my verticals for the figure M because I didn't quite hit the entry speed right coming out of the 'Split'.

I have all the templates and plans for the original Taurus on hand and have been threatening to build one more for old times sake------I can assure you it will have four stroke power and retracts as will any of the now old Pattern designs built by yours truly.

Everyone has an opinion -----that is mine.

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

IMHO I would never hack up one of my classic pattern airframes to install a 4S. The 91 is just too physically large and heavy to fit in the classics without hacking them. I know people do it but it’s messy. Take a look at how far back the firewall must be moved back and then do the math on the balance. Just moving the firewall back will mess up the nose gear retract gear mounting and position.

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

Besides R/C I was one of the early Hot Rodders as in 1949 ------Chopped fullhouse '32 etal. Forced out of that due to Korea.

From my standpoint anything fits anything ----simply a question of engineering and application.

The Saito 91 is way too big ---power as well as size. The Saito 82a will fit ----shoehorning acknowledged.

By the way I am talking balsa not 'glass. Big difference there and that Kit was foam and glass if memory serves me correctly.

By the way I'm still all balsa------I've built and flown a few foam and glass ----simply not my cup of tea. As with all designs, it was and still can be made of balsa.

I've flown all balsa up through 45%------don't care for that either. My Ideal size is the 850 to 1000 sq.in. 9.5 to 11 lbs dry with Saito 150 power. Yes, I design my own----old habits die hard!

You do have to learn throttle mgmt. however as 'overpowered' really doesn't get the point across!

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

Do the initials JA mean anything to you ? LOLOLOLOL

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

Not really!

However these names do: The Good brothers, Maynard Hill, John Worth, Howard Bonner, Bob Dunham, Ed Kazmirzski, Cliff Weirick, Doug Spreng, Jimmy Greer, Phil Kraft, Steve Helms, Jim Kimbro, Marty Barry, Don Lutz, Chuck Hayes, Ed Izzo, Sal Battaglia, Jim Fosgate, Norm Page, Jim Whitley, Doc Brooke, Don Brown, Dave Brown, Mark Radcliff, Miles Reed, Art Schroeder, Don Lowe, Ron Chidgey, Tony Bonetti, Hanno Prettner, Wolfgang Matt, Bob Reuther, oh yeah that kid of 15 Rhett Miller and his father ----the list goes on ----my memory (at the moment) does not.

I was fortunate enough to meet, talk with or fly with each of these individuals----there wasn't a foul ball in the bunch!

What does it mean----NOTHING---- other than I feel I was privileged to have had the experience and their input------well, it DOES mean that I'm older than h***, but still flying.
For how long---you'll have to check with me each morning.

Of this group I see only Miles Reed and we still fly together several times each summer----then we "bench fly" through the winter. I needle him 'cause he is even older than I.

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

That is a true hall of fame list of people. They are the ones I have looked up to for many years.

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

The new Rossi 60 (part # 32r60) Is a screamer! It is one of the few (if not the only) short stroke 60's that are still being made. Perfect for these pattern birds. One does not need anything more then 5% nitro for these engines to perform.

Some of my favorite engines are the YS 60's and the Webra 61 racing long stroke with dynamix carbs. Sadly.....Webra no longer makes a 61. One can still find them now and again here on RCU and Ebay. I do wish that YS would bring back a Short stroke 60.

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

I would even settle for the long stroke YS.

Wasp, you take care of that donkey now. LOL

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

I like the idea of the .77 MVVS in rear exhaust.....I've flown a few and just love them...and on 0% they are as cheap to run as they come..

xanaphyst

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

Patternguy,

Couldn't possibly accept the gift of your alter ego. Thanks anyway.

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

I don't know wasp, you seem to speak the language of the donkey quite well.:D

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

I have an Illusion with a MVVS .77 rear exhaust and it flies solid as a rock , a very good
old school pattern ship, just too fast for the new patterns. The nose is very narrow and the
MVVS is a tight fit even though it's the same physical size as a .60 . With the MVVS .77 it has
absolutely unlimited vertical performance. Mine is a taildragger and I don't think there is
enough room in the nose for a retract nosewheel as the fuel tank and exhaust header take
up all available space. The engine is mounted inverted so if you wanted retracts it would
probably have to be mounted to the side. It's probably one of the best flying old style pattern
ships I have ever flown.

tommy s

PS: Don't worry about the quality of MVVS engines, I think they are the best 2-strokes available
and lots of power.

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

Tommy,

What did you use for the location of the mains in the tail dragger? The plans show for trike, and I like the taildragger version, but do not want to make it unstable. Can you give some measurements?

Thanks, and I think I am going with the Rossi .60 in it with pipe.

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

The Rossi is an excellent choice, you won't be disappointed.

When placing your retract mounts you want to set it up with the center line of the wheels even with the leading edge when extended, this is how I had my Dirty Birdy's, Tipo (very similar in lay out to the Illusion) and my UFO set up.

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

Thanks,

Any pics of your Illusion?

RE: Great Planes Illusion Q's
 

It's a retract taildragger and the centerline of the gear struts is 2"" from the leading edge
of the wing. It handles OK but would probably be better if moved forward a bit. It was done
this way so the retracts could be mounted in the thickest part of the wing.

tommy s