Those things are fast. I have had a couple ducted fans but they were never great airplanes. The ducted fans were woefully under-powered. The engines used special fuel and glow plugs. They were very difficult to keep in tune. Flame outs were common. I built the white one way to heavy. I should have hung it from the rafters. Turbines solved that but I am not willing to spend the money. I would rather put that money into cars. I do enjoy the turbine meets though!

The most challenging plane I had was the Bearcats. I built 3 but after losing the first to a radio I built two to copy the Reno racer Rare Bear. I made my own canopy. Every rib and former hand cut. I had a nice one and a practice one. The nice one had a lot more detail including hand made folding retracts. The nice one weighed 34lbs with a Brison 100cc. The wings are clipped with very short ailerons like the real airplane. The airplanes REQUIRE good rudder control with such small ailerons. Many adventurous flights with them including dead sticks from lost spinners and loose spark plug wires. Still got both but will not fly them again. Just looking for more relaxing fun with the Balsa USA Phaeton 90 for now.

That Rare Bear is/was a very nice rendition of a "MODEL AIRPLNE"

Thank You

I remember seeing the Antonov there. I probably still have a photo showing the enormous tail. Prior to the shows at Will Rodgers, the best I had seen was the open house at Altus AFB. The pilots at those airshows were very approachable. I remember discussing operating costs with the owner of one of the Tora Tora Tora Zeros and chatting with a pilot of a Messerschmitt 109 and realizing he was Steve Hinton. Good times.

So many great and interesting stories shared here....thanks for sharing. I only visited a full scale air show once and it was quite a few years ago while I was on holiday visiting with friends in Florida. It was an awesome experience being able to be up close and personal with all those beautiful aircraft. Also was previleged to meet the last of the remaining 'Raiders airmen' of that famous Toyko bombing exercise.

Sun N Fun
Oshkosh
Reno Air races

Are all bucket list air shows worth seeing!

HEY MAN...I don't know who you think you're fooling but those are pictures of the real thing...not models...!
Seriously...I would put the Bearcat into the "TOO NICE TO FLY" category......!

Thanks, it does pose a problem we get ourself into. We keep building bigger better, more complicated until you find them too difficult or reasonable to use. Same with contest some times. People start a contest then people get more serious, more money more competition then one day wake up and it's too much and the contest disappears. Coming back into the hobby, I am trying to keep to less complicated and more fun projects.

We had a local DR at our club. He actually used to be my Pediatrician and I used to introduce him as such which he hated LOL. At the field, as the sun would set he would fly some weird contraption he built years ago and pulled out of the attic; nothing complicated. He was happy to get it in the air and make some slow low fly by's as the sunset when no one was around. When he was done you could see him skip like a kid to go pick it up. He has since passed, but that simplistic joy is my target in life and I shall never forget it!

Even though I'm a non scale builder I can appreciate the countless hours and meticulous attention to detail of some scale models that I've seen but not sure if I would ever trust myself to flying one.

To keep it interesting I like to challenge myself with "design objectives" that don't require much time or money.
One was a 1903 Wright Flyer powered by a single Cox .049 engine and 2 belt driven props.
I'd also like to design a .049 powered plane capable of doing the entire C/L Stunt Pattern..[with my limited piloting skills]
Getting a Cox .049 RC plane into the "100 MPH Club"
Getting a balsa and Monokote .40 sized Delta into the "200 MPH Club"

Those seem a bit challenging. Do you have existing plans or are you coming up with your own? Will the Wright Flier use wing warp?.

The powerplant for the Wright Flyer was a juggling match between pulley diameters, prop sizes, weight, belt drag on the engine, lack of cooling for the engine..but in the end I got what I think was enough thrust to make a well executed model fly....I just haven't "executed" that end of the project well enough yet.
I built a depron based airframe and a balsa stick and cellophane covering airframe..neither flew.

The best flight of the plane was a gradual glide to the ground 30 feet away with no response from the ailerons [that I shamelessly installed].
After this outcome..other projects seemed to beg for more attention.....

That's cool! I think the biggest thing for me is you have an .049 running well in a pulley system. The .049's were never all that friendly.

I use a small starter called "The Hornet" by Sullivan that makes them more friendly .....!!!
The other thing is to add an ounce [or 2] of castor per quart of typical commercial store bought fuel that is normally only 18% oil.
You have to really love Cox .049s to keep them running right. The ball socket piston rod connection needs to be peened slop free from time to time and varnish builds up on the raw steel parts. I use a gun cleaning kit with Hoppes #9 for that.
If you want a bad ass maintenance free ".049"...then get one of the Russian made C/L Combat engines like the Cyclon, Fora or Profi.
Might as well get a .061 since they are the same size case as the .049.
They are designed to run with a latex bladder system but running them on crank case pressure works great and is less hassle.
So here is your basic Russian .061 Control Line Combat engine on a RC Flying Wing.....

That sounds angry!

What's amazing are the 100s of screaming runs you'll get out of these engines.
40,000 rpm with a 4.2 x 4 prop will get you about 150 mph on a clean model.
They use Nelson Glow Plugs which is a bonus and 10% nitro is plenty/

I am guessing the power to displacement ratio is similar to top fuel dragster.

This subject comes up from time to time.
For narurally aspirated engines 2 HP per cubic inch is considered the max but 1.5 is still pretty extreme [like getting 500 hp from a 350]
I'll see if I can find one of those "factoid" presentations I've come across about Top Fueler Physics.
Here's one....TOP FUEL DRAGSTER FACTS – The Burning Platform

I think I have read some of your posts regarding this airplane elsewhere on this site. Even the full scale Flyer was a pretty marginal aircraft. I thought your drive system was very creative. I had a rubber powered Flyer that I picked up at a museum store someplace. It had a fairly clever gear drive for the props but there must have been a lot of inherent drag. It always flew farther as a glider than when under power. I guess the spinning props didn't make enough thrust to overcome the drag of the prop discs. I know it's been done but you have to have a lot of respect for anyone who can actually get a Wright Brothers airplane to fly.

Thanks.
The joke back when this project finally broke ground was that at about 1/12 scale the 30 feet that it flew was almost AN EXACT SCALE RECREATION of the original flight...
IIRC there are electric powered versions that fly pretty well.
Someday if I ever decide to quit this hobby.....I'll try electric...

Was thinking about your .049 experiments. Many many years ago, I got one of those foam 6 foot gliders sold at toy stores. I put an .049 on it with aileron and elevator servos. Fist attempt it would only go left. Taped rocks to the outer right wing until I could get it to go straight. Directing it required airspeed. Without airspeed it still went left. I had to throw it and keep the nose down. It was not very maneuverable. Raise the nose and slow the speed it goes left. On a fly by it was still very slow. I could reach out and grab the wing. I would give it full aileron. You would watch the ailerons move full deflection and it was still going straight. A turn would slowly ensue. It was certainly an exercise in aerodynamics and energy.

Fast forward to learning to fly full scale twin engine airplanes. There is a speed called Vmc which stands for Velocity Minimum Control. We fail one engine then slow the plane. There is a speed where the engine will roll the airplane and you cannot stop it with control input; just like the foam glider. Recovery requires pulling back throttle (to stop the engine rotational force) and lowering the nose to build speed adding throttle as you accelerate past Vmc.

Some time back, I was out on a trip. When I got back to the airport a motel nearby had a large smoke plume. A C-130 crew was training. The crew had failed 2 engines for training and the airplane rolled on it's back and nose dived into the parking lot taking out one side of the hotel. Some patrons were found burned in their tubs.

WOW..~~~ !
you used up all your luck for that year...!!
What you mention for flight trim can perform miracles...simply balancing an underpowered plane to a very refined level.
I was using "Drone propellors" that should have counteracted gyroscoptic torque ...with one prop turned opposite of the other.
I still have the basic powerplant and a lifetime supply of rubber belts...if my life ever settles back enough to make this project a prriority.
HAHA..!

I wonder if there is a way you could alter RMP to control the plane? A clutch to release the belt drive?