Classic and OT engines

[Clint Ormosen]

PLEASE! No debates! I just want to see what direction these events are taking.

[Clint Ormosen]

This is working out well. Votes without the debates. If you haven't voted, please do even if your vote is the "I don't care" option.

[john e. holliday]

I don't care as some of the old engines aare hard to come by let alone get running well.  I fly both events for the fun of it anymore.  Have to when I keep changing the pattern.  DOC Holliday

[Trostle]

Why not list diesels as an option?   They have been flown at VSC and there is a good chance another one will appear in OTS at the next VSC.

Keith

[Bill Adair]

"Period only" excludes a lot of fine engines, so I picked Period style.

Period style covers most engine types, but perhaps it should also be revised to include four stroke engines for those enthusiasts.

Bill

[Clint Ormosen]

Why not list diesels as an option?   They have been flown at VSC and there is a good chance another one will appear in OTS at the next VSC.

Keith

Keith, I thought about that after I started the poll, but I sorta figured that diesels would be included in the "Any glow or gas engine" option. But I added the diesel option as to not exclude them.

[Clint Ormosen]

"Period only" excludes a lot of fine engines, so I picked Period style.

Period style covers most engine types, but perhaps it should also be revised to include four stroke engines for those enthusiasts.

Bill

A 4 stroke wouldn't be period style. But the "any engine" option should cover them.

[Trostle]

A 4 stroke wouldn't be period style. But the "any engine" option should cover them.

I do not know when or what magazine, but several years ago, somebody found an advertisement from the late 40's for a 4-stroke model airplane engine.

Hopefuly, there is an old time engine collector/expert that can enlighten us.

Keith

[Marvin Denny]

  In my opinion, ANY  internal combustion engine with the exception of rear exhaust versions . no electrics.
  diesels and four strokers are ok unless they are rear exhaust.

  Bigiron

  PS  Ohlson Rice engines had a ball thrust bearing as did some super Cyclones.

[Garf]

I do not know when or what magazine, but several years ago, somebody found an advertisement from the late 40's for a 4-stroke model airplane engine.

Hopefuly, there is an old time engine collector/expert that can enlighten us.

Keith

How about these:

[Bob Reeves]

Went with any glow engine (no Electrics) but agree with Marvin no rear exhaust or pipes..

Although, not sure if I'm being two-faced as my next OTS airplane is going to be powered by a Saito 30 

[Jim Kraft]

I have several old sparkers with ball bearing shafts. Forster 29, and Anderson Spitfires. I think the ball thrust bearings were a marketing ploy, and after one manufacturer used them the others had to follow. I have seen many of those bearing races come apart and destroy pistons and cylinders. Happened on one of my own Super Cykes. I have replaced all of the ball thrust bearings in mine with brass bushings and cannot tell any difference in performance.

 I prefer to run old engines and I think the newest one that I run is a McCoy 40 RH, outside of some late model Fox 35's. 

I do not much care what other people run, but would not like to see rear exhaust engines with pipes. That is just going to far when there are other options.

There are plenty of old engines out there. When I got back in to control line I only had a couple of old engines. I have drawers full now. For me it is the most fun to run the old stuff even if it can be a little frustrating at times. Nothing like a Fox 59 in a Viking, or an Anderson Spitfire in any large old time plane. For classic the McCoy 35's and 40's are good along with the Fox 35's. Most seem to fly classic to win any more, and use modern engines. That is OK with me. I just don't have as much fun running anything new so will stick with the old stuff an keep smiling. Sometimes I do pretty well, and that is just icing on the cake.

[John Miller]

My vote is for the I don't really care category.   

I can say that I'm not in favor of restricting to period or period style engines. Electrics, diesels, 4 strokes, and rear exhaust are fine with me, but I'm not in favor of tuned pipes on the classic and old time designs flown in competition. In my opinion, there's no diffrence between a rear exhaust, or a side exhaust engine when running on a muffler. except the nose looks cleaner. 

[Andrew Hathaway]

As the intention of both events is to have a fun event that relives the past, giving obsolete designs (and presumably technology?) a competitive chance, shouldn't there be more incentive to use period correct equipment?  Classic has the benefit of fidelity points, which could include a bonus for the engine, but OTS really only rewards ignition.  Unfortunately, as modern power becomes increasingly more popular in these events it puts the individual who takes the time to use authentic equipment at a disadvantage.  Take away the vintage nostalgia of these events and you're basically running Beginner stunt open to everyone, and another round of Precision Aerobatics.  It seems to go against the purpose of the event to allow anything and everything. 

At one time it was somewhat difficult to obtain period correct engines.  However, anyone can get on Ebay and bid on the real thing.  There's a never ending stream of collectors clearing their shelves, and estate sale finds.  Often good usable stuff goes cheap!  Most spark ignition 60's don't cost as much as some of the purpose built engines some people are running in classic.  Sure the old stuff can be a little more finicky, but isn't that the point?  If there's no challenge then how is it competition?

No debate, just a viewpoint.

[Randy Powell]

I'm with John Miller. I really don't care. If you restrict the engine type, you'll likely restrict the participation. Maybe not, but it's not something I want to find out.

[Charlie Pate]

 I feel using period engines would drive the price of them up due to short supply until they would equal or exceed
 the price of the present day units;These being plentiful and better ,consistent quality!
 No secret!;in the old days,certain people were running special built units(which wasn,t illegal).   

[Ward Van Duzer]

Then run Fox .35's. You can still rebuild a 4 bolt Fox for lots less than an Aero Tiger...

4 Bolt fox .29...Terrifffic


Ward

[De Hill]

Based on my experience, trying to find a period engine that isn't worn out, cracked or bent or priced out of sight is darn near impossible and falls in the realm of "lucking out" in most cases. Granted Fox .35s are a dime a dozen off Ebay, as are McCoy Red heads, but try finding a good Stunt Supreme Johnson, any good ignition engine without paying 300.00 plus then getting all the ignition parts together, that function.

Ty:

Stunt Supreme Johnsons weren't really stunt engines. How many contests you ever read of being won by a SS Johnson? I have bought quite a few period engines off the bay which were excellent and reasonally priced. The number of period engines available on ebay is increasing; the people who own them are dying off!

If you want an Ignition engine, I have several.

[Alan Hahn]

This really has nothing to do with this poll, (and anyway you can guess how I voted), but in the realm of "fun" events like P40, I was thinking it might be fun to have a Fox 35 only stunt contest. Any airframe would be ok.

[Just One-eye]

Stunt Supreme Johnsons weren't really stunt engines. How many contests you ever read of being won by a SS Johnson? I have bought quite a few period engines off the bay which were excellent and reasonally priced. The number of period engines available on ebay is increasing; the people who own them are dying off! 

I recall fighting with one of those mounted in a friend's Trident, about 1965, maybe?  No, it wasn't happy with a 4-2-4 run, at all, and it sucked down the four ounces of fuel in about five minutes, not seven.  The same friend also had a "stunt" Super Tigre C35, and it was a better option, although it preferred a wet two cycle setting, but it also was too thirsty for fuel to finish a pattern on the 3 1/2 ounce tank it was used with (I've forgotten the plane -- was Palmer's Hurricane kit available by the same mid-60's period?)

I have a Johnson "S" here somewhere, but it's the small case 35 I am planning to try out soon -- I never owned any Johnsons in the Classic era, just Foxes, K&Bs, OS Maxes,and two really cantankerous G21-35s.  It was eBay that gave me the chance to try some of the ones I looked at in the hobby shops, but had to pass up (not enough money).