Hello all,
I am a novice and returned to control line after a 44 year lay off. Back then I was only ever a sport flyer. I returned to the sport, in ernest, in October and am trying to learn the pattern, which I will eventually achieve.

I fly a Ringmaster with an Enya 19 to learn new maneuvers. When perfected I have a Top flite Nobler ARF with an Evolution 36 and a Griffin Imitation with a Randy Smith LA46 that I try to streamline the trick with.

My question is this. What engines should I be buying, for the future, to perform a competitive pattern?

I read a small piece by Brett recently suggesting that, today, Schneurle ported engines with a pipe are the way to go. Is that the general consensus of opinion, bias withstanding?

I have a couple of new LA46, a Randy Smith Magnum 52 (for a Patriot yet to be built) the usual LA40s, FP40s, 25s and 15s.

I know many have their own particular favorites, Sparky with his ST 60s, as an example. A guy at my field can't see past a Fox 35.

I read about abc, abn steel liners etc. I am just not up with it and trying to find concise explanations here is, frankly, a task in itself. VF engines?? Hard to find.  The Enya 46 that is currently  being offered for sale at US$339. Is that what I should look for?

Or is my future in a PA system or a Jett Brett Buck??

I know electric is very probably on the top of the list but it is a childhood thing for me. It may be I end up there but I would prefer the IC right now.

Thanks
Craig

I read a small piece by Brett recently suggesting that, today, Schneurle ported engines with a pipe are the way to go. Is that the general consensus of opinion, bias withstanding?

   Bias? I am biased in favor of *what has dominated competition for 30 years*, if that's what you mean. That is far, far longer than the Fox 35 did it, by about a factor of 3. You can look it up yourself if you think I am exaggerating. But I have saved you the time and updated the list for general benefit (bold = piped engines). In the years piped engines did not win, the vast majority of the competitors used them and the winner was the exception.

    To me, it's clear to me at this point, particularly after watching the performance of the more advanced electric designs (primarily Chris Cox, Paul Walker, and Howard Rush), the area for future competition is clearly electric with an Igor Burger or equivalent feedback system. It's also clear to me that even a simple governor-based system hold speeds in corners better than the best-ever IC systems (which are the PA75 the way David runs it, and the RO-Jett 61 BSE "mistake" version that I run, followed closely by the 40VF using Paul's setup, and the Randy AAC 46VF using Ted's setup). IC systems still seem to hold their own or provide some minor advantage in cases of high wind with low turbulence (which is a rare case), electric is better most of the time, and particularly so in dead air.  What Paul and Chris are doing appears to me to be resetting the standards, just like Paul did in 1990.

    You might say, well, of course David and Paul win all the time, they are the best. Part of being the best includes *knowing what to do to maximize their chances of winning*.

   Of course, no one is compelled to pay any attention to this, you can pick what you want. I get no benefit from anything you chose, aside from you maybe making a sub-optimal choice and making it easier on the rest of us. Plenty of people have tried to show they knew better - particularly from 1990-94, which still just astonishes me, it was never more obvious - but they are not listed... 

    David's current run is pretty good, and bias aside, it is also pretty amazing given the level of competition, but Paul's 5 in a row were so dominant it boggles my mind that the 1992 NATS was not an Impact 1-design contest. Then, as now, no one seems to willing/able to learn from it.

   If you want a VF, I am sure we can hook you up. But, if you are going to go for national-level competition, get an electric.


2019  David Fitzgerald Thundergazer  PA75
2018  David Fitzgerald Thundergazer  PA75
2017  David Fitzgerald Thundergazer  PA75
2016  David Fitzgerald Thundergazer  PA75
2015  Paul Walker P-47 Plettenberg
2014 David Fitzgerald Thundergazer  PA75
2013  Paul Walker  ??   Plettenberg
2012  Doug Moon   Bear    PA 65
2011  David Fitzgerald  Thundergazer   PA75 Muncie, IN
2010  Bill Werwage       P-47 Thunderbolt  PA61 Muncie, IN
2009   Dave Fitzgerald   Thunder Gazer   PA 75   Muncie, IN
2008   Orestes Hernandez   Yatsenko Shark   Discovery Retro 60   Muncie, IN
2007   Orestes Hernandez   Yatsenko Shark   Discovery Retro 60   Muncie, IN
2006   Brett Buck   Infinity   RO-Jett 61   Muncie, IN
2005   Paul Walker   For Reals   OS 40 VF   Muncie IN
2004   Dave Fitzgerald   Star Gazer IV   PA 61   Muncie IN
2003   Dave Fitzgerald   Star Gazer IV   PA 61   Muncie IN
2002   Paul Walker   P-51 Miss America   Saito 56   Muncie IN
2001   Dave Fitzgerald   Star Gazer IV   PA 61   Muncie, IN
2000   Ted Fancher   Final Edition   PA 61   Muncie IN
1999   Dave Fitzgerald   Star Gazer III   PA 61   Muncie IN
1998   Paul Walker   Impact   OS 40 VF   Muncie IN
1997   Dave Fitzgerald   Star Gazer I   PA 61   Muncie IN
1996   Bob Baron   Pattern Master   Super Tigre 60   Muncie IN
1995   Ted Fancher   Great Expectation   OS 46 VF   Pasco WA
1994   Paul Walker   Impact   PA 40   Lubbock TX
1993   Paul Walker   Impact   OS 40 VF   Vincennes IN
1992   Paul Walker   Impact   OS 40 VF   Westover AFB MA
1991   Paul Walker   For Reals?   OS 40 VF   Vincennes IN
1990   Paul Walker   Impact   OS 40 VF   Vincennes IN

    Brett

Craig, between the fact that you are still learning the pattern, and the listing of all the engines you already have, I would say you don't have to buy anything at the moment.  By the time you wear out all the engines you own, you will be so much wiser, that you will be able  to answer the question about best power setup by yourself.  Build, practice, trim, compete, and learn (read, listen, and observe) as much as possible.  The engines you have can take you to the top of the advanced class, if not nationally, at least locally.  When you get there, the stunt scene will have changed.

   That's also pretty good advice. My concern with is that while choosing something like an ST46 or ST60, or other 4-2 break engine, you will definitely learn some skills - that will largely be obsolete or counterproductive when it is time to move on. Despite what anyone wants to argue, the difference in performance and the techniques of flying a 4-2 break engine are *markedly different* from TP engines, muffled rev/low pitch, 4-strokes, or electric, while the basic techniques and approach to flying to the latter four are reasonably transferrable to each other. Even the least desirable/most difficult of these options - 4-strokes - is still far better and far more in tune with what top competitive systems will require than an ST46, or the various 4-2 butchered modern engines.

     We all had to unlearn all the crazy extra effort technique that were required with the very-low-performance systems, and it's not that easy. The ST60 would be the best of the vintage engines, requiring less help than the others, but if it is important to have a 4-2 break engine, they I would suggest the far superior Discovery-Retro 60. It's kind of fussy, too, from what I have heard and seen, but when it's right, it does all the stuff that people used to claim for the ST, except *it actually does it*.

      Brett

It has taken a bit for me to realise I was just as guilty as those I was complaining about here living in and holding onto the past! I still love the smell though.

Thank you to the responses, also those who PM me. You have guided me to a point where I accept I have enough IC engines to, hopefully, get me to where I want to go.

If I ever get there and beyond it will be electric.

Craig

My Hasbro connection. I did freelance stuff.

I can remember an Illustrator class I sat in because of a friend. I didn't take the class, I was transportation only for a friend. Illustrator 101, entry level, many years ago.

There was a guy, there's always a guy, anyway I recognized him because he was involved with the toy company. An ideas guy. Like I said, there's always a guy.

He invented, or was involved with the production of this toy lawnmower for young children.

Typical Hasbro, plastic, injection molded and plenty of color. When pushed along the grass or floor the thing had piston like objects that moved up and down. I was glad it was there for a short period of time because when pushed along the floor the thing made a horrible noise. Loud and uncomfortable.

Every time I see a video of a IC model in flight I can't help but think of this toy.

The future is Electric. No, not only for the noise, that's me, but for many reasons.

I agree with Brett with a but. IMHO electric has two weak points. First, battery weight vs power needs. With the current systems there is a tricky balance between how much prop you need, rpm and battery capacity needed to get through the pattern while controlling power system weight. The electric motor will turn any prop you put on it and go to any rpm you set. However, to get there you may need a huge heavy battery. To be competitive we run props that are very thin with higher pitch and lower rpm.

The second issue is there is no fine tuning of the fuel load. With IC if you need more power you increase the venturi size and add a bit more fuel. With electric, we need to talyor the prop/load to get to the lap time needed while fitting the available battery capacity without needing to carry around a lot of extra dead weight for that few extra needed amps.

One other thing about electric is the need to plan your practice sessions so you don't have fully charged batteries sitting in the box for more than a few days. If you do, they can puff and you lose capacity and shortly after that they go dead. So there are a few areas the electric that the future electrics need to improve to fully replace a good IC system.

To the future.

Best,    DennisT

I recently spent months taking an IC motor out each week and fussing to get everything running right. Now I'm on a different IC in the same plane and fussing to get everything right. WHY? Because I'm stupid, but also because I wanted to learn how to fine tune engines like many of you know how to, and Brett points out I'm learning the wrong skills. Although bit by bit I'm meeting that goal. HOWEVER, if I would have bought a reliable motor from the get go, or built electric, I would have about 80 more practice patterns in, and if I'm half coordinated (verdict out still) I would be a different pilot than I am right now. When I get fifth in advanced this year, someone is going to say, "That was a nice engine run." However I'd rather get the hardware.

Also, my grossly heavy (90oz) tri motor electric which has motors I  bought sight unseen from amazon (I had a gift card), all Chinese equipment, still pulls through most tricks in the pattern with better authority than anything I've flown. So, I don't believe there is a fine line in weight to performance, although the line does exist, it isn't so thin.

Both of these points seem to assume that you need to obsessively minimize the launch weight -- I think the optimum is broader than that.  A well-tuned airplane that's a bit heavy still flies awfully nice.

   Energy density was plenty good enough in the early 2000's - Mike Palko was the first person to clearly demonstrate that. Battery weight only has to be low enough, and it has been, for a long time. Plenty of people are flying batteries big enough to leave it with 25% at the end of the flight, that's effectively no limit.

   Brett

   Energy density was plenty good enough in the early 2000's - Mike Palko was the first person to clearly demonstrate that. Battery weight only has to be low enough, and it has been, for a long time. Plenty of people are flying batteries big enough to leave it with 25% at the end of the flight, that's effectively no limit.

   Brett

Well, LiPos do last for significantly more cycles if they're not discharged all the way each time.

But, yea -- if the only way to fly was to use 100% of the capacity each time, the "big boys" would live with 25 or 50 flights per pack.