Largest, Heaviest model for LA46

[Chris Fretz]

I'm just throwing this out there for curiosity sake. No specific model in mind, but what is the largest, heaviest model a good LA 46 can handle to do the pattern?
Thanks for the info!

[Dane Martin]

I can't answer your question specifically.  But, if you were looking for a pretty big plane built specifically for the 46LA, look at Pat Johnston's RM 645 +P.
I got a new phone and a new laptop so I can't find pics,  but it's a 645 square ringmaster with Pat's +P airfoil. It's a total bad@$$ pattern plane!

[Mark Scarborough]

I'm just throwing this out there for curiosity sake. No specific model in mind, but what is the largest, heaviest model a good LA 46 can handle to do the pattern?
Thanks for the info!

full blown stunter, are you wanting to fly competativly or for sport>
Tim Westcott has a plane built by Paul Walker  that I think is 680 square inches but not overly heavy and it reports to fly well.
I know you can fly a 630 inch stunter at about 64 ounces on a LA46 and do the pattern, but certainly no where near as well as a properly sized airframe

I would say to be comptative, probably 60 ounces and 600 inches would be a good upper limit

[Steven Kientz]

I used a Tutor II wing and rebuilt the rest(56 oz.). It flew well when someone who could fly the pattern (not me) was on the handle. i still have  the wing, will probably try to rebuild(hopefully lighter) this winter.
Steve     

[Tim Wescott]

full blown stunter, are you wanting to fly competativly or for sport>
Tim Westcott has a plane built by Paul Walker  that I think is 680 square inches but not overly heavy and it reports to fly well.
I know you can fly a 630 inch stunter at about 64 ounces on a LA46 and do the pattern, but certainly no where near as well as a properly sized airframe

I would say to be comptative, probably 60 ounces and 600 inches would be a good upper limit

680 or 700 inches, depending on whether you listen to the full-scale "don't include the fuselage" guys or not.  64 ounces.

If you shackled me to the witness stand and demanded an answer, I'd have to say that it was working fine -- I've been doing some Weird Things with it and I appear to have lost the recipe.  I suspect that it's still fine, but between a shoulder injury and work I haven't had time to get it sorted.

If you want to be utterly safe then aim at Mark's suggestion of 630 to 650 squares and no more than 64 ounces.

[Randy Cuberly]

I have a Scarinzi Blue Angel that was built 18 years ago.  It weighed at that time 54 oz and flew very well and competitively on a strong LA46.

The Blue Angel is about 625 Sq In but looks large and is kind of "draggy with a large fin and trike gear.  Over the years and many mishaps with hanger rash and pickup mishaps it has gained a fair amount of weight in repairs and weighs in at a rather heafty 59 oz.  While it still flys fairly well it is nothing like when it only weighed 54 oz.  I flew it this last March at VSC ( the 7th time it's been flown at VSC) because my Collussus did not get finished in time due to unexpected problems beyond my control.  It still is capable of a decent pattern but not really competitive at the levels I fly at.  Over the years it has had at least 8 or 9 different LA46's in it and the one in it now is the strongest of the lot running 28% nitro with a .295 venturi on a APC 11.5-4 prop here in Tucson and it takes almost 6 oz of fuel to deliver that power.

I would tag that as about the very upper limit for a competitive stunter for an LA46 and say that you'd be happier with a bigger engine in a plane of that size and weight.  I would say a limit of about 600 sq in with about 53 to 55 oz for a healthy LA 46 to be really happy and competitive.

Randy Cuberly

[proparc]

I would tag that as about the very upper limit for a competitive stunter for an LA46 and say that you'd be happier with a bigger engine in a plane of that size and weight.  I would say a limit of about 600 sq in with about 53 to 55 oz for a healthy LA 46 to be really happy and competitive.

Randy Cuberly

Right about there is pretty close. I would say 600sq@50oz. absolute max

[Chris Fretz]

Thanks guys. So what would be the smallest lightest you could do with the LA 46? I know some say don't use it in the ARF Nobler, but it's that about the smallest kind of airplane you could put it in?

[Mark Scarborough]

I had an Oriental that I had an LA 46 in, it was awesome. I mean AWESOME, talk about power to weight ratio,, I had a massaged wood prop on it to absorb the power but the thing flew like a monster,, ( as in it flew good)
I also had LA46 in the P-40 profile, a Twister, a Vector and my Gee Bee profile( which was built around Pat Johnston/Brodak P-40 wing. The Oriental weighed 43 ounces the Gee Bee after its 5 or 6 rebuild, or maybe 8 or ninth heck I dont remember, it weighed mid 50 ounces, so high wing loading and it was solid

[proparc]

I had an Oriental that I had an LA 46 in, it was awesome. I mean AWESOME, talk about power to weight ratio,, I had a massaged wood prop on it to absorb the power but the thing flew like a monster,, ( as in it flew good)

LA46 in an Oriental is killer!!

[john e. holliday]

Basically isn't the LA 46 in a LA 40 case?   I know mine are interchangeable on the planes.  The 46 is just so much easier to work with.

[John Park]

Once again, Stunt Hangar proves its value!  I was just about to draw up a model with Fancherised Twister 'numbers', enlarged to 112.5% (span 54", area 607 sq. in.) for my .46LA, but now I think I'll stick to 100%. 

[B Norton]

I seen Doug Moon fly the bear with the center ribs out of it with a LA 46 on it. The 46 pulled it around great or seen to anyway.That was several years ago though.

[Chris Fretz]

I had a massaged wood prop on it to absorb the power but the thing flew like a monster

Can you elaborate on the absorbing power by massaged prop?

[Steve Helmick]

Once again, Stunt Hangar proves its value!  I was just about to draw up a model with Fancherised Twister 'numbers', enlarged to 112.5% (span 54", area 607 sq. in.) for my .46LA, but now I think I'll stick to 100%. 

John...DO IT! A F.Twister at 607 sq's and 50 oz would be KILLER!

FWIW, Alana Perry (Bruce's wife) sometimes flies a NoblARF with a .46LA...Bruce wouldn't put the .46 in it if he didn't think it was a real good combo. I've seen a USA-1 at 65 oz. with a .46LA, and it flew well...tho that was a LOT to ask.

TYPICALLY, an Expert flier (not me) can get away with less engine/motor than a beginner, because they can finesse a plane through the tricks. The Beginner/Intermediate can use some extra power to save their bacon when they do a trick off the wind or hit the corners too hard.  Steve

[Tim Wescott]

Once again, Stunt Hangar proves its value!  I was just about to draw up a model with Fancherised Twister 'numbers', enlarged to 112.5% (span 54", area 607 sq. in.) for my .46LA, but now I think I'll stick to 100%. 

The Twister is about the bottom of the size range for which the 46LA works.  Your enlarged Twister would be great, IMHO.  As long as you don't build it with bricks, it should have a size and weight that's about in the middle of the range for the 46LA, and the Fancherized Twister flies nice.

BTW: the Fancherized Twister construction is great if you're still crashing all the time, but if you're not you might do better to shrink an Impact, or copy the numbers and construction methods of something like a Vector 40 or a Legacy 40.  Basically, if you're not crashing, a nice rigid wing is great because it doesn't move, but if you do crash that nice rigid wing will just shatter, where a Twister wing will pop all the covering loose, break a few ribs, and leave you with something you can have back in the air in a few evenings.

[Ted Fancher]

Once again, Stunt Hangar proves its value!  I was just about to draw up a model with Fancherised Twister 'numbers', enlarged to 112.5% (span 54", area 607 sq. in.) for my .46LA, but now I think I'll stick to 100%.  

Hi John,

If I was you I'd go ahead and do the enlarged version both for taking full performance value from the engine and for the experience at simply doing the adjustments.  The LA .46 would definitely be overkill (although properly propped/fueled etc. would work just fine in the stock size).  We flew many, many Twisters and Banshees out her in "WAM" country with Veco 19BBs in Class A Stunt (an event unique to the now defunct Western Associated Modelers) and won most of the contests with similar combinations.  As an example, one of the very best flying Class A ships for many years was David Fitzgerald's dad Bill's Lew McFarland designed "Nobler sized" Dolphin (as well as a couple of Gieseke Noblers).  The capabilities of the .46 LA won't be remotely taken advantage of with the smaller version.

You will quite easily build the larger version in the high 40 to mid 50oz range which, I believe, will produce a much more easily trimmed and flyable ship than the stock sized one.

I say "go for it and post pictures and comments about its performance!"

Ted Fancher

p.s.  I would even strive to finish it in the 50-55oz range rather than join the Serengeti Safari in endless search for the zero ounce stunter.  The wing will easily carry that much weight and the engine will barely know what it weighs until it gets above 60 or so.  The extra weight will "not" harm its overall flight performance and will allow flying at slower lap times while maintaining positive line tension which is a big plus in CLPA.  Do a search on Ted Fancher's Tucker Special to read about the positive performance results of adding weight to a too light airframe.

[Tim Wescott]

+1 on the pictures & whatnot.

[Mark Scarborough]

Can you elaborate on the absorbing power by massaged prop?

to put it simply, I know the LA 46 is best with a 12.25 x 3.75 prop for a lot of reasons I have expounded upon previously, ( others do too)
so on the Oriental I did not have ground clearance for the 12.25 diameter of the prop without making it into a stork,, so I took a 14x4 prop of some orientation, reworked it to make it basically a 11.5 x 3.75 with thinned blades, and tried to match the blade area of the APC 12.25 and the airfoil as well, but The key was to maintain the load on the engine, so the blades were wider and approximated the tip shape with the wider blade. the thing would pull you across the tarmac it pulled so hard. Poor Pat Johnston at about 135 pounds almost got pulled over on his nose the first time he launched me, ( mostly because he was not expecting it) so the prop was stout at least at lower speed LOL,,