Author Topic: Super Ares and USA 1 (Read 4342 times)

James Mills · « **on:** September 23, 2008, 06:53:03 PM »

What modern powere plants (I have been running PA's for a while and like them) for the Super Ares and USA 1?

Thanks,

James

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #1 on:** September 23, 2008, 07:07:11 PM »

PA 51 or 61. They are pretty big models.
Chris...

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #2 on:** September 30, 2008, 06:33:23 PM »

I'd say be careful about OVERpowering these. They have thin airfoils, somewhat flexible structures and need to be light. I remember Billy had trouble with the USA-1 that way. He won the NATs with it with a ST 46. Some years later he was flying ST51's and went back to the old bird - it would not fly well until he went back to the 46.

I saw the Super Ares fly with some TERRIBLE sounding K&B 45's, that's less power than a Evolution 36!

If you like the PA's you have great taste! I'd say stick with the 40 - and make a special effort to keep the final weight no more than maybe 54 oz.

EddyR · « **Reply #3 on:** September 30, 2008, 09:46:26 PM »

Dennis is right on about these planes. I built a USA/1 and powered it with a ST/46.It was light at 52 ounces. I felt it was underpowered by todays standards but it was very flyable. I have seen them fly really great with a ST/51 for power. One ounce heaver that the .46 but a lot more usable power. A PA/40 -51 on a pipe would be great.
Ed

Randy Powell · « **Reply #4 on:** October 02, 2008, 01:39:26 PM »

I built the USA-1 at about 53oz and used a Magnum 53. Later I tried an ST60. Both worked fine, but the 53 was a lot lighter for about the same power.

Bill Little · « **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2008, 01:22:47 AM »

I used a T&L ST 51 in my USA-1 at 54 oz. My little buddy, Derek Berry, said it was one of the best airplanes he had ever flown. It was as good of a plane as I have ever flown, and in some ways easier to fly than any other I have flown. The last word I got from Billy was to try the PA 51, muffled, which is what I will use in my next one.

Mongo

Randy Powell · « **Reply #6 on:** January 27, 2009, 02:35:32 PM »

Bill,

If I built another, I'd go back to the Magnum 53. This was really a great combination.

Matt Colan · « **Reply #7 on:** March 21, 2009, 08:32:29 PM »

I am just dying to build at least a USA-1 styled plane. I have the plans for it, just need the wood...and the time

Bill Little · « **Reply #8 on:** March 30, 2009, 12:56:45 AM »

Another USA-1 is my third plane in line to build now.

Mongo

Brett Buck · « **Reply #9 on:** March 31, 2009, 12:35:59 AM »

Quote from: Dennis Adamisin on September 30, 2008, 06:33:23 PM

I'd say be careful about OVERpowering these. They have thin airfoils, somewhat flexible structures and need to be light. I remember Billy had trouble with the USA-1 that way. He won the NATs with it with a ST 46. Some years later he was flying ST51's and went back to the old bird - it would not fly well until he went back to the 46.

I saw the Super Ares fly with some TERRIBLE sounding K&B 45's, that's less power than a Evolution 36!

If you like the PA's you have great taste! I'd say stick with the 40 - and make a special effort to keep the final weight no more than maybe 54 oz.

I would suggest that you can pretty freely use whatever piped engine you want to. Of course, I haven't done it (although building USA-1 to the upper 40's has an appeal in a certain sense...), but one thing we have noticed is that matching the engine to the airframe is not at all critical with low-pitch/high rev piped engines, certainly not as critical as it was with ST46's, etc. David's new airplane is pretty close, dimensionally, to the Imitation, which flew well with and was perfectly matched with an ST46. But it has a piped 75 - and even a weak piped 40 (OPS, etc) is tremendously more powerful than an ST46. I've seen guys run the same airplane with anything from a piped 36 to a piped 75 and it hardly made any difference other than the sound.

The weight *might* be an issue if you aren't careful, but if you can build a low-50's airplane with an ST46, it should be easy to hit the upper 50's - low 60's with, say, a PA65, and the better speed stability will more than make up the difference.

If you want to stick with period motors, then, sure, I think you need to be a lot more careful about engine selection. But I would make sure you had a *very strong* 46 and a lot of 20% nitro fuel if you are going to go up against current airplanes with it.

Brett

RandySmith · « **Reply #10 on:** March 31, 2009, 10:09:05 AM »

Quote from: James Mills on September 23, 2008, 06:53:03 PM

What modern powere plants (I have been running PA's for a while and like them) for the Super Ares and USA 1?

Thanks,

James

Hi James

A lot of people have built several of both planes with PA 40s in them both the regular 40 and the Merlin 40.
They both have plently of power as both of those engines will put out more power than any ST 46.
Jim Lynch won the NATs in Classic with a Super Ares in pretty high winds with a PA 40 SE powered Super Ares. He built a new Super Ares for last year with a Ultra Lite Merlin 40 and had more than enough power, He finished 2nd to A Merlin powered FW 190 of Keith Trostle. Bob McDonald is building a USA-1 with a Merlin 40 in it now.
If you want to use a period engine, I would suggest a HP 40 or ST 46, other contenders would be the new ENYA 40XZS, or the ST 51. If you use a period engine keep both planes in the mid 50 ounce range.
There are of course many other engines that you could use

Regards
Randy

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #11 on:** March 31, 2009, 11:04:59 AM »

I would concur with Randy 100% on this. Remember the Super Ares was flown with some of the WORST sounding K&B 45's ever witnessed. Even an LA 40 would out pull them. That speaks to the fact that the Super Ares was not power-hungry airframe; the USA shared that attribute.

The PA-40's are a solid power-up without incurring any weight penalties.

Of course there is always an Axi or Turnigy - but that is another story..!

Matt Colan · « **Reply #12 on:** April 01, 2009, 04:10:48 PM »

If I built a USA-1 with a modern powerplant (PA, Ro-Jett) would the weight still have to be in the mid 50 ounce range?

John Miller · « **Reply #13 on:** April 01, 2009, 05:17:48 PM »

Matt, you could certainly run that PA if you want to, but at VSC there was a 65 ounce USA-1 flying very well on a LA .46. It ran so well, that a firend of mine who was planning on using a large PA on his, has changed his mind in favor of a lighter engine.

Matt Colan · « **Reply #14 on:** April 01, 2009, 05:42:01 PM »

John, I was just curious because I was going to build it this winter but Dave Midgely told me not to, because it better be light he told me. I still half drool over the plans when I look at them. Maybe next winter.

Was that 65 ounce USA-1 the green one? I know Jim Hoffman's has an ST .60 in his.

John Miller · « **Reply #15 on:** April 01, 2009, 06:23:45 PM »

Yes, it was the green one, Carlton flew it well.

Brett Buck · « **Reply #16 on:** April 01, 2009, 08:31:03 PM »

Quote from: Dennis Adamisin on March 31, 2009, 11:04:59 AM

I would concur with Randy 100% on this. Remember the Super Ares was flown with some of the WORST sounding K&B 45's ever witnessed. Even an LA 40 would out pull them. That speaks to the fact that the Super Ares was not power-hungry airframe; the USA shared that attribute.

By design, of course! Billy was one of the first people that seemed to fully appreciate the value of "power", and if all you have is an ST46, you had better make the airplane either efficient and large and very light, or relatively small with a thick wing and light. Just like you needed a pretty efficient and light airplane for a Fox (i.e. Ares), with proportionally feeble "power".

It's my considered opinion that the small/thick airfoil approach is better than large and efficient for an ST46. But I don't think anybody really figured that out until the early 80's. It's my considered opinion that one of the very last serious airplanes designed for the ST46 - Ted's Temptation - was the best of the breed, and the ultimate expression of the small/thick/low 50's weight approach. But that came along after 25 years of development effort. And was, no offense to Ted, made obsolete almost immediately by the advent of the 40VF.

Although it worked well with a 40VF, too. Well enough to make us try to "blow it up" to carry and handle the extra "power" and propulsion weight, i.e. Trivial Pursuit and Infinity. They are different airplanes in all respects, but made to implement the same basic idea that Ted, Keith, and I worked out at one of Shareen's Thanksgiving parties in, maybe, 1990. Seems to have worked out pretty well, although David has since taken the next step and reduced the airfoil thickness to something more reasonable for low-pitch props.

Brett

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #17 on:** April 01, 2009, 09:20:15 PM »

Actually Brett - one other angle. The USA-1 was structurally challenged - it needed to fly slow in order to keep the wing flex from softening things up.

CF wasn't discovered for another 20 years or so!

BTW the FIRST really thick winged bird to win a NATs (twice, albeit Sr age group) was Alan Adamisin's 1973 Apogee V. A TRUE 18.3% airfoil flying very well on an S35. You should have seen that thing fly...

40VF's and OTS style fast flying didn't occur for several years after that.

Shultzie · « **Reply #18 on:** April 01, 2009, 09:23:20 PM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on April 01, 2009, 08:31:03 PM

Ted's Temptation - was the best of the breed, and the ultimate expression of the small/thick/low 50's weight approach. But that came along after 25 years of development effort. And was, no offense to Ted, made obsolete almost immediately by the advent of the 40VF.

Although it worked well with a 40VF, too. Well enough to make us try to "blow it up" to carry and handle the extra "power" and propulsion weight, i.e. Trivial Pursuit and Infinity. They are different airplanes in all respects, but made to implement the same basic idea that Ted, Keith, and I worked out at one of Shareen's Thanksgiving parties in, maybe, 1990. Seems to have worked out pretty well, although David has since taken the next step and reduced the airfoil thickness to something more reasonable for low-pitch props.

Brett

Brett..
Here is a slide from Les McD that looks an awfully lot like Ted's designs but the ama # doesn't appear to be his. Plus look at all those hinge points on the wing? Wow!
Hey Les...if you are lurking...who's belongs to this stunter with the really coooooool looking wingtips? Your slide appears to be 1974?

Brett Buck · « **Reply #19 on:** April 01, 2009, 09:54:33 PM »

Quote from: Shultzie on April 01, 2009, 09:23:20 PM

Brett..
Here is a slide from Les McD that looks an awfully lot like Ted's designs but the ama # doesn't appear to be his. Plus look at all those hinge points on the wing? Wow!
Hey Les...if you are lurking...who's belongs to this stunter with the really coooooool looking wingtips? Your slide appears to be 1974?

I'm not Les, but I have seen a lot of AMA #1828 over the years, usually when I was launching the airplane. That's Ted's, I think the first Moby Dick. Why United Pilot Ted had a Delta Logo, I don't know.

Brett

Shultzie · « **Reply #20 on:** April 02, 2009, 11:08:25 AM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on April 01, 2009, 09:54:33 PM

I'm not Les, but I have seen a lot of AMA #1828 over the years, usually when I was launching the airplane. That's Ted's, I think the first Moby Dick. Why United Pilot Ted had a Delta Logo, I don't know.

Brett

Brett!
I know you aren't LES by a long shot... but for the past few days , and THANKS to his wonderful carepackage of slides shown here on SPARKY'S....McD has been "lurking" on stunt hanger...and since both of you know Ted's beautiful models up close and personal, I thought I would get a response about the owner of this Stunt model with the panty pink lace trim on the wing.
It appeared to be one of Ted's design concepts...but due to the Victoria Secret lace trim on th wing panel, I thought it might even be Dawn Cosmillo's stunt ship?
I have always be shy about using lace trim on models.
Humm?
The word "Wussie" always seems to come to mind' when I see lace paint jobs on stunt ships....
except for Bill Werwages beautiful USA-1 that we were so blown away back at the nats.

Bill's work on this model was WAAAAAY up onto another level of expertise in lace trim.
Although from a few feet away...that pattern effect was hardly noticable...but up close and under the overhead lighting in those navy hangers.
DID THAT SILVER PATTERN EVER POP! OR WHAT! WOW!

Bill Little · « **Reply #21 on:** April 07, 2009, 03:26:02 AM »

Hi Matt,

I will be the first to admit that I know almost nothing about these Stunt Planes when compared to Randy, Dennis, Brett, etc., but I know what the designer of both those planes DROVE into my skull for over a year:

Don't build a USA-1 near 60oz. if you want it to fly as it was designed to fly.

That is from Mr. Bill Werwage, himself. He really, really stressed that the plane needs to be in the mid 50oz.'s to fly correctly. This was all pertaining to the USA-1, and he didn't mention anything about how much power was involved. You can power a brick to fly, but it won't fly like Billy designed his models to fly. He used a fairly thin airfoil, and reduced drag (or whatever) to make it able to fly on his ST 46 and modified 51, even a ST 40 at one point. I don't have access to nitro so I can't do it! He would keep tipping the nitro bottle until he got what he wanted. 20%, and more, was not uncommon according to him. And talking to him was the main reason I got unlimited long distance!

Now I am positive that many will say I don't know enough about any of this to say things, but I didn't say it. I am quoting the *Man*. Mine was 54oz. ready to fly, and regardless of who is flying a model, a 54 oz. USA-1 that is properly set up will fly better than a 60oz. one if all else is equal. Ask Mr. Werwage, I did, often.

Bill Little

Matt Colan · « **Reply #22 on:** April 07, 2009, 02:49:40 PM »

Quote from: Bill Little on April 07, 2009, 03:26:02 AM

Now I am positive that many will say I don't know enough about any of this to say things, but I didn't say it. I am quoting the *Man*. Mine was 54oz. ready to fly, and regardless of who is flying a model, a 54 oz. USA-1 that is properly set up will fly better than a 60oz. one if all else is equal. Ask Mr. Werwage, I did, often.

Bill Little

I would, but there is no number or email address in the PAMPA reference manual. The only thing there is is a mailing address.

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #23 on:** April 13, 2009, 04:52:19 PM »

Hi Matt,
You can write Bill a letter, he'll probably answer.
I bought the very nice USA-1 plans from Warren Tiahrt and spoke to Billy at a long past VSC and he gave me the same advice as he did Bill Little.
Don't build it over 53 oz (that's the number I remember, pretty close to Bill's 54). It is a big model for a 46, which I plan to use, so make sure it's light.
He also told me to use the lightest wood I can get because it really has a thin wing and needs to be light. Billy also advised me to use 7mm carbon strips on top and bottom of the spar to keep the wing from flexing (a problem on his after many years but seen on some new ones too) under high loads.
Keeping it light will make this effect less of a problem.
Light weight is the theme with the USA-1.
As an aside that may help your cause, Bob Whitely and I bought USA-1 short kits from Eric Rule of RSM and Bob's flew very well. Mine still sits in the box, yet it would be worth it to contact Eric as the kit was laser cut from a file derived from the Warren Tiahrt plans.
Hope this helps,
Chris...
P.S. Hi Big Bill, how are you doin' these days?

Matt Colan · « **Reply #24 on:** April 13, 2009, 05:02:30 PM »

Quote from: Chris McMillin on April 13, 2009, 04:52:19 PM

Hi Matt,
You can write Bill a letter, he'll probably answer.
I bought the very nice USA-1 plans from Warren Tiahrt and spoke to Billy at a long past VSC and he gave me the same advice as he did Bill Little.
Don't build it over 53 oz (that's the number I remember, pretty close to Bill's 54). It is a big model for a 46, which I plan to use, so make sure it's light.
He also told me to use the lightest wood I can get because it really has a thin wing and needs to be light. Billy also advised me to use 7mm carbon strips on top and bottom of the spar to keep the wing from flexing (a problem on his after many years but seen on some new ones too) under high loads.
Keeping it light will make this effect less of a problem.
Light weight is the theme with the USA-1.
As an aside that may help your cause, Bob Whitely and I bought USA-1 short kits from Eric Rule of RSM and Bob's flew very well. Mine still sits in the box, yet it would be worth it to contact Eric as the kit was laser cut from a file derived from the Warren Tiahrt plans.
Hope this helps,
Chris...
P.S. Hi Big Bill, how are you doin' these days?

Chris, is RSM still making the short kit?

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #25 on:** April 13, 2009, 11:21:25 PM »

Hi Matt,
I think he just made them to order so I'd drop him a line.
Chris...

Bill Little · « **Reply #26 on:** April 29, 2009, 12:42:17 AM »

Hi Matt,

The USA-1, built right, is as good an airplane to fly as there is. I did the complete pattern UP WIND (the judges couldn't really move 180*) on an official flight at Huntersville once. The plane didn't mind it at all. Mine was powered by a T&L ST G51. The key is building the USA-1 LIGHT!

I sincerly doubt that there is anyone who knows more abut an I-Beam airplane, and especially World Championship I-beam planes (the USA-1), than Mr. Werwage. Billy has notebooks on everything dating back close to 50 years. I learned a long time ago that I can steal knowledge from the greats in this hobby much faster than I can figure it out on my own, and once I learn it, I am good to go.

Hi Chris,

Things have been better, but I am still kicking!

Bill <><

Allan Perret · « **Reply #27 on:** April 30, 2009, 08:01:40 AM »

Quote from: RandySmith on March 31, 2009, 10:09:05 AM

If you want to use a period engine, I would suggest a HP 40 or ST 46, other contenders would be the new ENYA 40XZS, or the ST 51.
Regards
Randy

You included the Enya 40XZS with the period engines ?
I would have thought it is more with modern type of engine ??

RandySmith · « **Reply #28 on:** May 01, 2009, 11:35:27 AM »

Quote from: Allan Perret on April 30, 2009, 08:01:40 AM

You included the Enya 40XZS with the period engines ?
I would have thought it is more with modern type of engine ??

HI Allan

The HP 40 and ST 46 were the period engines, notice I said "other" and "new" when I said the Enya 40 and ST 51

Regards
Randy