stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Sheldon Hartwell on December 28, 2012, 09:49:47 PM
-
Hi everyone,
With all of the great responses and feedbacks to various questions that people have asked, I figured that I would post on of my own.
I've currently got a full fuselage Brodak Oriental on the building boards and I'm quickly approaching the stage to where I have to drill the holes for the engine mounting. The requirements on the kit itself call for a .35 to .40 engine. I have a couple of Fox .35 engines kicking around the shop, but I don't know if that will be ample power to haul the model around.
The kit will be finished with Sig Koverall ( I love working with this stuff ), and butyrate dope. I fly strictly for fun so, blazing performance is not required. Any suggestions as to engine size or brand would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks Again,
Sheldon
-
Hi Sheldon,
Actually the Oriental was originally designed for the Fox 35. Many have been successfully flown with that engine. In fact the Oriental has a relatively long nose to balance with the light engine (Fox 35). If you decided to use a different engine an OS35S is about the same weight and would also be a good choice.
I have flown one with a LA46 and it worked very well but was built with 1 1/2 inches removed from the stock nose to get the CG where it belonged.
In other words anything much heavier than the Fox or OS 35S will require shortening the nose or UUgggh...a fair amount of tail weight (as much as a couple ounces)!
Randy Cuberly
-
Hi Randy,
You know, I was kind of wondering abou that, When I was looking at the plans, the side view of the fuselage seemed to show the outline of a Fox .35 . I didn't know if it was real, or just inked in for generic purposes.
Sheldon
-
Yeah...
When the Oriental was originally designed by Dee Rice (nice fellow) the Fox 35 was pretty much the engine of choice for Stunt!
It's a very nice flying airplane if built light and straight! I've built several in the past but not from the Brodak kit. However the Brodak kits are typically very good.
Best of luck. If there are anymore questions during the build there is always plenty of help available here...that's why we're here!
Randy Cuberly
-
Hi Sheldon,
Actually the Oriental was originally designed for the Fox 35. Many have been successfully flown with that engine. In fact the Oriental has a relatively long nose to balance with the light engine (Fox 35). If you decided to use a different engine an OS35S is about the same weight and would also be a good choice.
I have flown one with a LA46 and it worked very well but was built with 1 1/2 inches removed from the stock nose to get the CG where it belonged.
In other words anything much heavier than the Fox or OS 35S will require shortening the nose or UUgggh...a fair amount of tail weight (as much as a couple ounces)!
Randy Cuberly
I hope I'm not de-railing this thread, but I'm starting a build of the profile version of the Oriental. I was planning on using a OS LA46. Is it safe to assume I should also be building with the nose shortened 1-1/2"? Are there any other modifications I should consider?
-
My Oriental finished is 43.8 ounces with a Fox 35.
-
Mine flew great with a Brodak .40. Even balanced on the spot.
-
My oldest son has one with a OS .40LA and he likes it. It had a .46LA in it before he recieved it and he was told that was a good chose also. I just didn't have one to put in it.
-
Sheldon,
I have an Oriental, powered by an LA .46, I built from Pat Johnson plans several years ago. The wing is moved forward 1/2 inch, which is within the limits Pat included on the plan of up to 1.5 inches. The plane required about 1/4 ounce tail weight. The next one will be moved forward 1 inch. Total weight was originally 45 oz. (The wing wood was too heavy, so will be more careful next time.) Originally I put a modified FP 40 in the plane, which was o.k., but quickly changed over to an LA .46. It flies beautifully and required only minor trimming of lead-out sweep. The .46 growls around the circle with no effort turning a cyclone 11x4.5 (available at Tower) and penetrates wind well. I have flown it in moderate to high wind at VSC; Albuquerque, NN contest, and Topeka, KS contest with no problems. I regularly fly here in CO at 6,200 feet. Even at 45 oz and mid 90s temperatures at high elevation, the plane handles beautifully. The "O" is a great design, and with plenty of power it is a good flying, simple to build, classic airplane.
Hope this helps.
Jerry Higgins
-
My Oriental finished is 43.8 ounces with a Fox 35.
Allen, what covering are you using on the wing?
-
I hope I'm not de-railing this thread, but I'm starting a build of the profile version of the Oriental. I was planning on using a OS LA46. Is it safe to assume I should also be building with the nose shortened 1-1/2"? Are there any other modifications I should consider?
Hi Steve,
The answer to your question depends somewhat on what muffler you plan to use on the LA46. If the stock OS muffler is used (it works very well but is heavy) 1 1/2 inches of either shortening the nose or moving the wing forward (best choice) would be my reccommendation. If a tongue muffler is used 1 inch should be adequate.
I would add however that I'm really not familiar with the profile kit so can't make much in the way of other potential changes. I would simply add that the common problem with all profiles is flexibility of the rear portion of the fuselage so any additional stiffening back there will usually reap benefits, providing it doesn't add a lot of extra weight. I'm a firm believer that stifness of components is more important than a few extra ounces, but efforts should still be made to keep the structure light. There's always a trade off here and it's somewhat dependent on the individual design. The Oriental has a good wing and will carry some weight, especially with the LA46 for power. I would think 45 to even 47 ounces would yield acceptable results.
In general a thicker stab is stiffer and always improves stability and flying ability, so that's one area I usually address on most profiles.
Randy Cuberly
-
Just finished my Oriental last month from a Brodak Kit that I thought was mostly excellant. I added a tank hatch to mine so that I could get at the tank easily to change it if necessary. I also love Sig Coverall but I wound up using Ultracoat on the wings and Rustoleum on the fuselog and trim. I built mine around a new Brodak 40 and am having trouble with that engine so I haven't flown mine yet. With the B-40 and tongue muffler my Oriental came out at 43 oz. What I wish I had done was to use one of my Fox-35's or my Double Star 40. Good luck!
-
Just finished my Oriental last month from a Brodak Kit that I thought was mostly excellant.
Richard, your Oriental is beautiful! Did you spray any clearcoat over your Rustoleum?
-
Hi Sheldon,
Depending on what purpose you have in mind, the engine choice is quite variable. An all out competition machine might look towards a .46LA, Brodak .40, Magnum .36XLS, or even an Aero Tiger .36. (my favorite)
If it is for fun and sport, a Fox .35 will work fine if built at a "reasonable" weight. See Allen B.'s model above. (and it is for competition!)
It is true that Dee Rice designed the Oriental for a Fox .35, and they will still fly awful good with one.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Hi all,
This is fantastic input to my original question, but, having several references to the OS-46, is there enough clearance between where the engine is mounted and the firewall ? I ask this because the needle valve is located behind the motor itself. I ask this because there are several other engines ( slightly higher in price ) in the same catagory. Some of the options include Fox, Super Tigre, and Stuka Stunt Works engines.
Thanks again,
Sheldon
-
I apologize for getting caught up with Richard's Oriental,(it's nice looking man). As to Sheldons question-it's a no brainer, Aero Tiger 36!! y1
-
Allen, what covering are you using on the wing?
The older see through MonoKote.
The Brodak like kind may have the same hue
-
Richard, your Oriental is beautiful! Did you spray any clearcoat over your Rustoleum?
With the exception of RustOleum clear coat and metallics all the paints are fuel proof to 35% nitro.
-
Hi all,
This is fantastic input to my original question, but, having several references to the OS-46, is there enough clearance between where the engine is mounted and the firewall ? I ask this because the needle valve is located behind the motor itself. I ask this because there are several other engines ( slightly higher in price ) in the same catagory. Some of the options include Fox, Super Tigre, and Stuka Stunt Works engines.
Thanks again,
Sheldon
Hi Sheldon,
First, convert the rear NVA to a normal one in front. The venturi is available from Tower as well as an NVA for The OS .20-.25 FP and LA. Then seal the backplate with silicon. Also, do not over tighten the bolts. Many simply replace the back plate with an aluminum one from member Curtis Shipp. Then fit as large a tank as possible. The .46 can vary widely as to need fuel used.
Bill
-
Hi all,
This is fantastic input to my original question, but, having several references to the OS-46, is there enough clearance between where the engine is mounted and the firewall ? I ask this because the needle valve is located behind the motor itself. I ask this because there are several other engines ( slightly higher in price ) in the same catagory. Some of the options include Fox, Super Tigre, and Stuka Stunt Works engines.
Thanks again,
Sheldon
Sheldon,
If price is no object the Aero Tiger from Randy Smith at Aeroproducts is the engine of choice...very light, very powerful, and great running stunt engine.
Albeit a little more expensive than the others mentioned.
I have two of them and they are definitely plug and play...best of the lot of 36/40 stunt engines. The LA46 will fly a larger plane but is considerably heavier and is not necessary for the Oriental.
Randy Cuberly
-
L&J Fox .35 installation in the Oriental.
-
I'm not doing a classic right now but if I were I think I would get me a new Enya .35. Was looking at their website the other day and I think folks have been overlooking some nice stuff. May get one just to keep for the future. I think Randy has them.
Dave
-
I'm not doing a classic right now but if I were I think I would get me a new Enya .35. Was looking at their website the other day and I think folks have been overlooking some nice stuff. May get one just to keep for the future. I think Randy has them.
Dave
Flew that motor down here in Texas. First class powerplant.
-
I'm not doing a classic right now but if I were I think I would get me a new Enya .35. Was looking at their website the other day and I think folks have been overlooking some nice stuff. May get one just to keep for the future. I think Randy has them.
Dave
I believe you are right Dave. The Enya .35 sounds fine to me.
-
I'm not doing a classic right now but if I were I think I would get me a new Enya .35. Was looking at their website the other day and I think folks have been overlooking some nice stuff.
Quite so, Dave. I think at times there's a kind of LA46 groupthink on the forums, so that a lot of other worthy engines never get much consideration. A shame when Enya are making high-quality CL stuff that lasts forever and works right out of the box, with no need to mess with plastic backplates, remote needles etc.
I've got an SS35 in a Chizler and it's a beautiful engine; there's also the SS30, which weighs barely more than a Fox 35, has more power, and would be a fine choice for a classic on the low 40 oz range.
Steve
-
Quite so, Dave. I think at times there's a kind of LA46 groupthink on the forums, so that a lot of other worthy engines never get much consideration. A shame when Enya are making high-quality CL stuff that lasts forever and works right out of the box, with no need to mess with plastic backplates, remote needles etc.
I've got an SS35 in a Chizler and it's a beautiful engine; there's also the SS30, which weighs barely more than a Fox 35, has more power, and would be a fine choice for a classic on the low 40 oz range.
Steve
Well Steve...The LA46 "Group Think" as you call it has come about because most everyone has come to realize that for the money invested there is nothing out there that runs as well for stunt. Certainly there are other engines that run very well. Most of them cost considerably more than the LA46 and are not as user friendly. Most of the people here that reccommend LA46's for less than expert fliers do so because they know from experience that it will do the job and that the OS quality is very consistent. It's always a good reccommendation.
It's not group think...it's experience.
Randy Cuberly
-
And the LA .46 fits right in where the LA .40 used to be. In my opinion they are all great engines. It just depends on how you take care of them. In the 70's we had a modeler tha swore by the Enya engines. He had one in a SIG Chipmunk. Had numerous flights on it but never flew competition. Just a sport flyer. The last flight on that engine the spinner, prop and hardware went flying out of the circle. We thought it was the crank shaft finally giving up. That shaft was fine. The engine was locked up solid. He took it home and the last I heard was tha he could not get the piston and rod out of the cylinder. He stated he even took a hammer and a wooden dowel to it even after heating the cylinder. But, since I have seen many Enya's in use by people just sport flying.
-
How is the LA 46 so popular when it's an $85 engine that doesn't work right out of the box? You've got a garbage plastic backplate, politically correct but nearly universally hated remote needlevalve, boat anchor R/C muffler, and Japanese spec screws, all are headaches. After you spend $15 on a normal needlevalve, and more on a real backplate, screws, and a reasonable muffler, is the LA 46 still such a great deal? Is it acceptable to expect a novice to buy specialized tools, and rebuild a brand new engine to make it run right? From browsing the LA 46 setup thread, it's clear that no two people are running their LA 46 the same way. There's no consistency, props, needle valves, venturis, backplates, heads (stock, hemi, relieved), head gaskets, etc. So now in addition to amateur mechanic, we expect the novice to sort through all the variations and pick one to make work. Is it any wonder electrics are gaining popularity? I understand how this becomes normal for those who like to constantly tinker, but I think as a group we tend to forget that for a novice it's a bit overwhelming to just build the plane and make it fly, much less getting it trimmed, learning to tune the needlevalve, etc without getting into the standard procedure of trying to make an LA 46 work.
I'd run a Fox 35, or a Max-S 35. Both are lighter, so you can build the plane to plan, and they generate the appropriate 4-2-4 stunt run. Both work right out of the box, with all the stock parts, and none of the RC sport engine problems. The setups are extremely consistent, all castor fuel, 10-5 or 10-6 prop, set needle, go fly. The next step up without the amateur mechanic routine is an expensive custom engine, which most novice pilots aren't going to want to drive into the ground repeatedly.
-
How is the LA 46 so popular when it's an $85 engine that doesn't work right out of the box? You've got a garbage plastic backplate, politically correct but nearly universally hated remote needlevalve, boat anchor R/C muffler, and Japanese spec screws, all are headaches. After you spend $15 on a normal needlevalve, and more on a real backplate, screws, and a reasonable muffler, is the LA 46 still such a great deal? Is it acceptable to expect a novice to buy specialized tools, and rebuild a brand new engine to make it run right? From browsing the LA 46 setup thread, it's clear that no two people are running their LA 46 the same way. There's no consistency, props, needle valves, venturis, backplates, heads (stock, hemi, relieved), head gaskets, etc. So now in addition to amateur mechanic, we expect the novice to sort through all the variations and pick one to make work. Is it any wonder electrics are gaining popularity? I understand how this becomes normal for those who like to constantly tinker, but I think as a group we tend to forget that for a novice it's a bit overwhelming to just build the plane and make it fly, much less getting it trimmed, learning to tune the needlevalve, etc without getting into the standard procedure of trying to make an LA 46 work.
I'd run a Fox 35, or a Max-S 35. Both are lighter, so you can build the plane to plan, and they generate the appropriate 4-2-4 stunt run. Both work right out of the box, with all the stock parts, and none of the RC sport engine problems. The setups are extremely consistent, all castor fuel, 10-5 or 10-6 prop, set needle, go fly. The next step up without the amateur mechanic routine is an expensive custom engine, which most novice pilots aren't going to want to drive into the ground repeatedly.
Andrew,
I don't know what you've been smoking but...almost none of the things you mentioned are really necessary for the LA46 to be the best inexpensive stunt engine in existence.
The stock needle valve and back cover work fine...using silicone on the back cover is just insurance. and is something that does not require special tools to apply.
Even if the needle valve is changed it's still the least expensive good stunt engine by about $100.
I agree that it's probably not the very best choice for the installation in question because of the weight and said so.
However to fault the engine, in general, for that is nonsense.
Most of the modifications you mentioned are done by expert (or people who want to be expert) fliers and are not necessary at all for good engine runs.
Incidentally all of the other engines you mentioned need serious modification to give good service life and have no where close to the power or ease of handling that the OS LA46 does. I've seen stock LA46's successfully fly 640 sq in airplanes in the high 50 oz range...try that with a Fox 35 or OS 35S.
Why do you think so many folks think so highly of them and use them so much...
Also I would mention that I have several highly modified Fox 35's and OS35S's that each cost more than two LA46's. They run good but won't give the service or fly the wide range of airplanes that the LA46 does.
I see very few if any Fox 35's flying that are stock most that run competitively have a couple hundred dollars worth of professional modifications and even then are marginal.
'Nuff said!
Randy Cuberly
-
Many simply replace the back plate with an aluminum one from member Curtis Shipp.
Bill
Does anyone have Curtis Ship's contact info?
-
If the backplate and needlevalve are just fine, explain why they always come up whenever the LA46 is discussed? Are the backplate screws not JIS screws just like all the other screws on the engine? I'd consider a JIS screwdriver a "special tool".
Last I checked the real "experts" buy a PA or ROJett and run them by the book. I don't see a problem with experts futzing with the LA46 anyway, my point was that the average novice has enough problems to deal with. Why is it so typical for an expert to buy an engine that requires no fiddling, yet we're so quick to recommend the $100 box of headaches for the novice?
I don't know how you figure that Fox 35s or the 35S have a limited service life. I buy stock Fox 35s and OS 35s off Ebay, do simple clean up, and 9 out of 10 of them run just fine. Not like they need to last a lifetime for a Novice, since the engine will outlive the plane anyway. The power isn't really applicable here, since we're talking about an Oriental, not a 640sq 60oz monster. The older engines don't require modifications either, people modify them for various reasons that usually amount to trying to force the engine into a role it's not suited to fill. Fortunately, most entry/mid level models don't require monster power, but they can benefit from an engine that runs consistently.
-
It's Andrew. Again. Cool it Andrew. You dig Foxes and OS35s and make them work. But there are other power choices that are effective. People are talking about what they have seen with their "lying eyes." Which means. People are sharing their experience. Not blowing smoke.
We run Foxes in our club. Lots of them. They are often labor intensive engine kits. Frequently need piston lapping, front bushings and so forth to replace the miss aligned or worn. Not always. But I've seen plenty needing help. Dan Banjok is kept busy doing tasks like this gratis or quid pro Coke. (Keep buying Dan Cokes. Or steak sandwiches.) The flat paddle Fox needle different. Eccentric to adjust. The muffler ears on old Foxes break off in a mild crash. Not fun for beginners. The very old Foxes have no ears. A challenge and an expense on which to hang a muffler. Not to mention the need to use care when cinching up the muffler strap, because the thin casting is easily tweaked, causing a problem for the piston liner fit. As for OS35s, an antique for which parts are no longer made. Including the fat needle valve discontinued by OS nearly 30 years ago. These engines are almost always sold without mufflers. A muffler for these is not cheap and needs a strap. At least every OS 35s I've seen has needed a strap. Cast iron piston, steel liner, are prone to damage with an over lean run. The LA46s nickel/aluminum p/l expand and go back to normal in the same situation. Much more modern setup. As for PAs and the like. They might seem plug and play for the Expert who has been at it for 30 years. Especially when they choose to forget their elaborate and complicated learning curve. I have gone to many contests and seen $600 worth of engine and pipe running away or in other ways acting funky. Dan and I just had a chat about all that goes into getting the expensive stuff to work. Suffice to say that Dan spent quite a few weekends with Windy getting his first piped motor to work in compliment with his Mustang stunter.
The OS35s and the Fox big advantage for an Oriental is their light weight. Buy a Brodak 40, if you can find one. Similar in price, far superior design, parts are available, same weight as a Fox or a 35s. The LAs are heavier. Usually need some tail weight. LA40s, Ken and Shawn Cooke fly one of these in an Oriental. Shawn has no trouble cleaning up in Advanced in local contests flying this bird. LA46s like to run a big prop. This might create some issues with this Oriental.
I will mention, in passing, that I run FP40s and Tower 40s in stunt. Flew my cheater Magician off the L-Pad in 2012. Engine run, as usual, very good, complimented my plane. The judge, who did not know me, kept asking what engine is that guy running. I am an Intermediate level flyer. But, like I said, flew off the L-pad in Advanced. The engine worked fine.
-
Yeah. I bought some JIS screw drivers. Wound up using my trusty fat American approximate in a Phillips star. It'll flatten out the JIS screw and get a grip. Frozen JIS strip the screw head out same as Phillips. Phillips is the next size up. Shazam. Those been-in-there-forever carb mount screws in particular need more muscle than brains and sophistication.
As far as cheap cheap bargain engines go, I have paid as little as $20 for a swap meet LA46 with great compression. Ran that on a stunt plane for a couple of seasons. Still works well. $40 RC 46s can be commonly had. Like all used engines in my experience. Some deals are great. Sometimes not.
-
Do I really need to cool it when every time I share my experiences, someone asks what I've been smoking? Really? LL~
I asked valid questions. Why is an LA 46 a screaming deal at $85, when the popular opinion is that it needs additional parts to be fixed right out of the box? Should a novice flyer have to order a special screwdriver and custom parts to fix a brand new engine? No one can answer that, except to deny that it's a problem, and to change the subject or take my comments out of the context of the thread.
As for the rest of your comments, Dennis, I addressed most of your problems with the 35S in the last thread. Obviously you didn't read my reply last time, or you'd already know the solutions to those problems, therefore I won't waste my time addressing them this time around. Thanks anyway. ::)
-
It's Andrew. Again. Cool it Andrew. You dig Foxes and OS35s and make them work. But there are other power choices that are effective. People are talking about what they have seen with their "lying eyes." Which means. People are sharing their experience. Not blowing smoke.
I would tend to agree with Dennis. 46LA is not cheap(need to add ~$10 for a backplate, ~$30 for a normal tube muffler, ~$15 for a NVA and ventury). Even after you fix the initial problems, the motor works with a very small range of props. It is not a beginner's motor. One is MUCH better off with a stunt motor like Brodak 40 for a starter motor, especially for a model like Oriental or a Nobler. LA's are just too heavy for models designed for a Fox 35. I am yet to see a good flying Nobler or Oriental powered by an OS LA motor that didn't have led bricks loaded up in the tail. That tail weight COMPLETELY negates the benefits of a good LA.
This comes from my OWN experience. I've ran 46LA with good success, especially in modern profiles like the Pathfinder or MoBest. These designs really bring out the best 46LA can offer!
-
If the backplate and needlevalve are just fine, explain why they always come up whenever the LA46 is discussed? Are the backplate screws not JIS screws just like all the other screws on the engine? I'd consider a JIS screwdriver a "special tool".
Andrew,
I'm through trying to convince you of anything...obviously not a possible task.
I will correct another of your mistakes however. You said "Are the backplate screws not JIS screws just like all the other screws on the engine? I'd consider a JIS screwdriver a "special tool"".
The answer to your question is Yes they are not JIS Screws. The Japanese industry has not used the JIS standard for nearly 30 years. They are ISO standard metric...and ISO standard metric tools available at any Walmart...Ace Hardware etc will work. Not to mention that OS engines come with a standard metric allen wrench in the box.
In other words...Phooey!!!!
Go fly a FOX!
Randy Cuberly
-
n~ Oh! You got me! n~ That's what I get for assuming something I've read multiple times on this very forum is accurate. Even so, I would never sully my tool box with the likes of Walmart and Ace Hardware tools!
But why would an engine without a single socket head cap screw have a metric allen wrench in the box? I didn't see an allen wrench in the box with my LA 40, and my 46s were both obtained second hand. Are we still talking about LAs?
-
Note: OS35s either need a strap on muffler or, if it is a later model, the bosses adjacent to the exhaust need to be drilled and tapped. Maybe you can find a light weight stock OS35s muffler. A Jetstream. That will then fit these drilled and tapped holes. Certainly not stock in any mail order house. A beginner's engine? Besides, anyone you buy will be a used engine, subject to all those variables. Will a beginner be able to realize if a the rod is ovalled or piston nearly fried or the thirty year old needlevalve isn't aligned right or, maybe, worn and leaking. Will the beginner free up a stock old engine properly, using some heat from a heat gun and air tool oil, or will the beginner just pull on the stock prop until, finally, the piston pops frees after damaging the weak non-bushed conrod. As far as Foxes go. Dan Banjok recently purchased a brand new 60th anniversary. Noticeable off center front bushing. Sent it back. New one the same. Dan would up drilling out the bushing, shrink fitting a new one into place, accurately reaming to fit the crank. Then he lapped in the piston. A beginner's engine? Like I said. Lots of folks in my club run Foxes. Out of nostalgia. Mebbe. But please. In my experience. These are not beginner's engines much of the time.
Most Orientals I have seen recently use a version of an LA or a Brodak 40. The LAs need a couple of ounces in the tail. I have seen a few work with Foxes. OS35s are few and far between. Pristine 35s (one's that look pristine anyway in the classified pics, crock pot specials many of them) go for good money. A beginner's engine? Mebbe. If you luck out. Besides. An Oriental is certainly not a beginners airplane. Trimming issues on any full stunt plane almost always need experienced help. Beginners are better served by simpler build or ARF.
-
David,
Curtis Shipp
Po Bx 1255
Gardendale, AL 35071
His e-mail should be on this site or the other Hans Rudel forum.
I bought 2 backplates from him and he ships real fast. Fits perfect.
I have a Brodak 40 in my Oriental and it flies great. I also have a couple of LA 46, one in my Pathfinder (great combo).
The Brodak is nice and light. I believe the Oriental came out around 44 oz. After breaking in on a bench it does a real nice 4-2-4 run. Still, the LA 46 just keeps going and going, sloppy 2 stroke, nice stream of smoke pouring out.
You probably do not need to modify the LA 46 and it will run fine. You can leave the stock backplate and bum an OS 25 needle from a friend at the field. The LA 46 may as well be made be Sara Lee.
But, just to be a jerk, I have also had good luck with the EVO 36 using RC fuel 18% synthetic. And it comes with a tongue muffler and 3 venturis (but I only use one at a time).
And if you think I'm smoking something, you are right-Magna, or CAO Brazillas (an Ashton VSG when I can afford one).
Mike
-
Note: OS35s either need a strap on muffler or, if it is a later model, the bosses adjacent to the exhaust need to be drilled and tapped. Maybe you can find a light weight stock OS35s muffler. A Jetstream. That will then fit these drilled and tapped holes. Certainly not stock in any mail order house. A beginner's engine? Besides, anyone you buy will be a used engine, subject to all those variables. Will a beginner be able to realize if a the rod is ovalled or piston nearly fried or the thirty year old needlevalve isn't aligned right or, maybe, worn and leaking. Will the beginner free up a stock old engine properly, using some heat from a heat gun and air tool oil, or will the beginner just pull on the stock prop until, finally, the piston pops frees after damaging the weak non-bushed conrod. As far as Foxes go. Dan Banjok recently purchased a brand new 60th anniversary. Noticeable off center front bushing. Sent it back. New one the same. Dan would up drilling out the bushing, shrink fitting a new one into place, accurately reaming to fit the crank. Then he lapped in the piston. A beginner's engine? Like I said. Lots of folks in my club run Foxes. Out of nostalgia. Mebbe. But please. In my experience. These are not beginner's engines much of the time.
Most Orientals I have seen recently use a version of an LA or a Brodak 40. The LAs need a couple of ounces in the tail. I have seen a few work with Foxes. OS35s are few and far between. Pristine 35s (one's that look pristine anyway in the classified pics, crock pot specials many of them) go for good money. A beginner's engine? Mebbe. If you luck out. Besides. An Oriental is certainly not a beginners airplane. Trimming issues on any full stunt plane almost always need experienced help. Beginners are better served by simpler build or ARF.
As I said earlier Dennis, I addressed almost all of those concerns the last time the 35S topic came up. I'm not going to waste my time again, when you clearly have no intention of even looking into the solutions I provided for you. Unlike your comments intended to pester me, I've actually bought and tried the engines I post comments about. I don't drop names, and talk about other people's experiences with an engine, I relate my own experiences and impressions of those engines, first hand accounts. I voiced my view point, and I get attacked, dismissed, accused of blowing smoke, and dragged into a hundred tangent debates that have nothing to do with the topic.
If the Oriental isn't a simple build, and an ideal model for a novice getting into stunt, I don't know what is. Box fuselage, a 1/2" and 1/4" plank top and bottom blocks, 1/4" sheet tail surfaces, straight chord wing, fuselage mounted gear and a bubble canopy, how much easier could you ask for? A flapped profile might be marginally easier to build, but the Oriental isn't by any means difficult.
-
Sheldon,
I've had 2 Orientals; one with a Foz .40 and one with a Saito .40.
With both engines, the flew better with a shorter nose, since it was designed
before the age of the muffler and, (yes Verginia the Fox .35 is a light engine).
The Fox plane required about an ounce of tail weight even with a shorter nose.
My second plane had not only the nose shotened, but also a 3/4" Fox prop
extension (about the only Fox hhardware I use). The 4 stroke Saito was mounted
inverted. It flew fairly well until I hit a Canada goose. The goose won. It weighed
40 Oz with an APC prop. If I had one today, it would have an XOAR wood prop and
be 1 Oz lighter as a result.
I made the wing tips a lot simpler than the Brodak carved tips. I also made my own
adjustable leadouts, since the ones in the first kit didn't work well and the ones in
the second kit were missing parts.
Also, use an arrrowshaft for the elevator pushrod and throw away the coupler that
Brodak expects you to soft solder (It doesn't take solder).
A much better flying plane is the Strathmoor and RSM has the parts to kit it for you.
-
One point to contemplate: moving the wing forward or shortening the nose will preclude you from participating in a whole category of fun contests: Classic.
I do not recommend modifying geometry when building a classic design just to accommodate a modern/heavy motor. If you want to fly with an OS 46LA, build a modern design such as MoBest or Vector 46. If you want to fly a classic design, try to keep it close to original. Both approaches will result in a LOT more fun and utility.
-
Andrew, I lifted your quote about OS35s(es). You said drill out the bosses and tap. Find a Jetstream muffler. No easy task for those starting out. Most beginners do stunt with a profile. ARF Streaks for instance which mate up very well with an LA25. New plus new. Off the shelf. Cheap as you can get. Or that Sig profile with no flaps, Skyray. Then there is the world of the Twister. And the Fancherized Twister. The fellow originating this thread will sift through. Figure out what's best. After years of buying stuff on the 'bay and other mail order classifieds and swaps, careful as I can be, I still get had every now and then. There's another element also. There's running and RUNNING when it comes to our 2 and 4 stroke noise and grease makers. Lots of engines will pull a plane around. Very different to get it to compliment a tethered birdy doing the figures. A used engine of dubious origin complicates the process.
In the northeast where I live the temps in the 20s today. My back is OUT. Having spent a delightful Dec 31st getting old Enyas to crank up and spit fire. I saw a square venturi 35 turn within an eyelash of 15,000 on a 9x6. Fun! Even tho my back is OUT because of the recreation. We definitely don't want to get into a sidebar about Enyas. Well. Mebbe. Peace.
-
I see the new year is starting out as usual. Everybody has an opinion about engines/motors. What works for one may not work for the other. I am a cheap skate at times. So most of my engines are box stock. Oh I have replaced the carb with a needle valve and venturi on my LA engines. My Fox's I just run them. I guess that is why Andrew keeps beating me in contests as well as the other guys that I compete with. Really Andrew has improved in his flying. Myself I don't fly enough. By the way that LA .46 box stock was flying the P-39 at 69 ounces with no effort using a Zingr 11-5 prop on Excaliber 10% fuel 22% oil(1/2 & 1/2). It's just the pilot got disoriented and let the plane go striaght into to tarmac on circle one in Tuscon.
-
I would tend to agree with Dennis. 46LA is not cheap(need to add ~$10 for a backplate, ~$30 for a normal tube muffler, ~$15 for a NVA and ventury). Even after you fix the initial problems, the motor works with a very small range of props. It is not a beginner's motor. One is MUCH better off with a stunt motor like Brodak 40 for a starter motor, especially for a model like Oriental or a Nobler. LA's are just too heavy for models designed for a Fox 35. I am yet to see a good flying Nobler or Oriental powered by an OS LA motor that didn't have led bricks loaded up in the tail. That tail weight COMPLETELY negates the benefits of a good LA.
This comes from my OWN experience. I've ran 46LA with good success, especially in modern profiles like the Pathfinder or MoBest. These designs really bring out the best 46LA can offer!
My experience with the LA engines is a bit different than yours. The 46 is still available with a venturi and needle valve O.S. 46LA-S for the same price as the RC version. I put it in a plane and ran it stock, with the remote needle valve and had no problems. I put a venturi and NVA in an LA 40, bolted it into a Brodak Original Smoothie(very similar to the Oriental) set up for the Brodak 40. Evidently I built the stab a bit heavy, because the model weighs 39 oz. using the stock muffler. The Brodak needed an ounce or more of noseweight.
The "trick" to getting both of these engines is similar to FP20 setup. Stock muffler, pick the appropriate venturi(they came in different sizes, but the current 46 one works pretty well) and run a low pitch, light load prop. I use a wood 10/4. The motor runs in a 4 cycle at around 11,000+ rpm. With a smallish plane like the Oriental or the Smoothie that is gobs of controllable power. The low pitch prop lets the motor run right in the middle of its power band so there is no chance of it running away.
I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them to Sheldon, but since he has a couple Fox 35's already that would be the easiest choice, assuming they are in good running order.
-
Andrew, I lifted your quote about OS35s(es). You said drill out the bosses and tap. Find a Jetstream muffler. No easy task for those starting out.
But Dennis, you misunderstood and you're taking my reply out of it's original context. You said the OS 35S wasn't designed for, wouldn't run well with, or wasn't sold with a muffler. The truth is that it may not have been designed to run with a muffler, but OS had a bolt on accessory muffler (sold separately), then later they came with a strap on muffler, and they run fine on a muffler. The early Jetstream muffler can be a little difficult to find, but it doesn't matter since there are plenty of aftermarket mufflers that bolt on after drilling the exhaust stack. Brodak and RSM both carry them, and I'm sure there are others. There's no tapping required to run those mufflers, and drilling through a soft aluminum exhaust stack is no more difficult than drilling straight holes through maple motor mounts, so it's really well within the skill set of most modelers.
The other part you missed is that I never suggested the OS 35S or the Fox 35 are ideal engines for beginners. I just said that the LA 46 isn't either. It's the only engine kit that currently gets hype. I've seen and heard a few that really run well. So far I haven't had any luck with mine. Maybe I was trying the wrong prop, wrong muffler, wrong # of head gaskets, wrong needlevalve, etc. But it's counterproductive to my goals to spend my time at the field reconfiguring an engine when I could be flying and practicing. If it's bad for me, how is it good for someone who is at a lower skill level? The ideal engine is one that requires virtually nothing, has a clear and simple setup, and runs consistently time after time. To me the LA 46 doesn't fit those requirements.
-
Hi everyone,
With all of the great responses and feedbacks to various questions that people have asked, I figured that I would post on of my own.
I've currently got a full fuselage Brodak Oriental on the building boards and I'm quickly approaching the stage to where I have to drill the holes for the engine mounting. The requirements on the kit itself call for a .35 to .40 engine. I have a couple of Fox .35 engines kicking around the shop, but I don't know if that will be ample power to haul the model around.
The kit will be finished with Sig Koverall ( I love working with this stuff ), and butyrate dope. I fly strictly for fun so, blazing performance is not required. Any suggestions as to engine size or brand would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks Again,
Sheldon
Sheldon the Fox 35 is ample power for 1962. If you build light and fly on short lines then it will be enough for fun flying, but to me there is nothing fun about Fox 35's. I like the Evo 36, mainly because it runs well on RC fuel. An FP or LA 25 will put out more power than the Fox and vibrates much less. It is about the same mass as the Fox. IMO well broken in modern engines running flat props are more reliable, powerful and easy to tune. Good luck.
-
i'm no expert, and never had the flying skill to arrant a big $$ stunt motor. I do have multiple examples of the engines at the coreofthis thread, fox .35s. OS S35, FP 35-S, FP 40, LA 40, LA 46. I have also flown various Orientalswith most of the engines listed. I have had Brodak ARFs, a kit built, a profile, and flown themallrepaired / heavy.
I feel the OS FP.35-S is a prety goodmatch for an Oriental, smoother and a bit more ooomph than a tock Fox 35 Stunt, easy on fuel so fitting a big enough tank is no head-ache, and fairly eay to get at swaps and on-line.
i agree that the LA .46 is a great runniing,fuel siping, reliable easy tous engine, but you don't need that much motor in a plane designed fo3 Fox35sand other old school / baffle piston engines.
-
I am amused by the remarks made by the anti-Fox crowd.
Foxes work well and are inexpensive to acquire from swap meets and ebay. They won a whole lot of AMA National stunt championships back in the classic era.
The Oriental was designed for the Fox .35. So was the Nobler, the Ares, and many other of the classic stunters.
The majority of the controline flyers today are SPORT flyers, not competiton flyers, and Foxes work fine for them.
-
My experience with the LA engines is a bit different than yours. The 46 is still available with a venturi and needle valve O.S. 46LA-S for the same price as the RC version. I put it in a plane and ran it stock, with the remote needle valve and had no problems. I put a venturi and NVA in an LA 40, bolted it into a Brodak Original Smoothie(very similar to the Oriental) set up for the Brodak 40. Evidently I built the stab a bit heavy, because the model weighs 39 oz. using the stock muffler. The Brodak needed an ounce or more of noseweight.
The "trick" to getting both of these engines is similar to FP20 setup. Stock muffler, pick the appropriate venturi(they came in different sizes, but the current 46 one works pretty well) and run a low pitch, light load prop. I use a wood 10/4. The motor runs in a 4 cycle at around 11,000+ rpm. With a smallish plane like the Oriental or the Smoothie that is gobs of controllable power. The low pitch prop lets the motor run right in the middle of its power band so there is no chance of it running away.
I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them to Sheldon, but since he has a couple Fox 35's already that would be the easiest choice, assuming they are in good running order.
Phil, I agree about the run setup. I like the circumcised APC 12.25x3.75 with 46LA's. That setup pulled a super heavy Pathfinder(54oz) like it didn't know there was an airplane attached to it! That said, my experiences do lead me to believe that this is not as simple as plug-n-play. I've owned two 46LA's(I have no experience with 40LA's) and all issues were found on the first one. The second one was done "right" from start and worked very well. Here's what I experienced:
1) The motor had erratic runs which turned out to be a loose backplate. After tightening, the backplate cracked after several flights. After replacing it with a regular backplate, I've never had issues with backplate getting loose or cracking. Until I had to test emergency braking procedures by running into my flightbox on landing. The muffler broke off along with the a chunk of the crankcase... HB~> Thus the need for motor #2
2) I experienced difficulty setting proper launch RPM's with remote NVS. The RPM's response to needle adjustments was so slow, it would take FOREVER to get the needle setting. Switching to direct FP style NVA setup fixed the issue. Motor #2 inherited this setup and I had nothing bug good runs(assuming proper prop and RPM setup).
46LA is like a Fox 35: both are good, inexpensive motors that require a number of bolt on "upgrades" to make them run right. This is the reason I do not recommend these motors to beginners.
Steve
P.S. 46LA are not longer available in CL form. RC only.
-
I am amused by the remarks made by the anti-Fox crowd.
Foxes work well and are inexpensive to acquire from swap meets and ebay. They won a whole lot of AMA National stunt championships back in the classic era.
Very true.
And flat head Fords kicked ass in their era.
However I have'nt seen too many flat head Fords running at NASCAR or NHRA lately.
Time moves on - and so does technology
Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team
-
Very true.
And flat head Fords kicked ass in their era.
However I have'nt seen too many flat head Fords running at NASCAR or NHRA lately.
Time moves on - and so does technology
Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team
You removed some of my post, so I will repeat it here.
The VAST majority of the controline flyers today are SPORT flyers.
Foxes will work well for them.
-
Phil, I agree about the run setup. I like the circumcised APC 12.25x3.75 with 46LA's. That setup pulled a super heavy Pathfinder(54oz) like it didn't know there was an airplane attached to it! That said, my experiences do lead me to believe that this is not as simple as plug-n-play. I've owned two 46LA's(I have no experience with 40LA's) and all issues were found on the first one. The second one was done "right" from start and worked very well. Here's what I experienced:
1) The motor had erratic runs which turned out to be a loose backplate. After tightening, the backplate cracked after several flights. After replacing it with a regular backplate, I've never had issues with backplate getting loose or cracking. Until I had to test emergency braking procedures by running into my flightbox on landing. The muffler broke off along with the a chunk of the crankcase... HB~> Thus the need for motor #2
2) I experienced difficulty setting proper launch RPM's with remote NVS. The RPM's response to needle adjustments was so slow, it would take FOREVER to get the needle setting. Switching to direct FP style NVA setup fixed the issue. Motor #2 inherited this setup and I had nothing bug good runs(assuming proper prop and RPM setup).
46LA is like a Fox 35: both are good, inexpensive motors that require a number of bolt on "upgrades" to make them run right. This is the reason I do not recommend these motors to beginners.
Steve
P.S. 46LA are not longer available in CL form. RC only.
What do you recommend for a beginner? Tower Hobbies lists both the 46 and 25 LA as in stock, so they should be available in your local hobby shop,
-
As De says, Fox's work well once you learn how to run them. I always told the guys at the R/C field anybody can run the foreign engines, but not everybody knows how to make a Fox run. Mainly they don't read the instructions.
-
The Fox 35 doesn't "require" any add on parts to work right, some people just don't know how to run them, they over-prime or under-prime, or they put them on a plane that's too big or too heavy, or they expect all the aftermarket bolt-ons to turn the engine into something it's not. They still work as well as they always did, and if you work within those limitations you'll be happy with a Fox 35. I've got at least three planes with stock second hand Fox 35s, they start on the first or second flip, and I only have to adjust the needle valve about a 1/4 turn every few months to deal with weather changes. Otherwise they run the same day in and day out for hundreds of flights. I've got several of the hi tech hop-up parts in my spare parts bin, but all the Fox 35s I actually use are stock down to the needle valve.
-
Yep. The folks in my club run their Foxes stock. Also run them fast and run them with more break. Could be that old Foxes, used Foxes, are more reliable in general than brand new engines, that have not been run. Issues with Foxes, such as over tight piston clearance, or poorly machined bushings are evident out of the box. If the engines are used these problems were not there or have been overcome. I never got into Foxes instead I got into FP40s, Tower 40s and LA46s. Learned their ways. In my club Foxes get used in Old Time and on sport planes like Ringmasters. At times the interests overlap. Often the Fox 35 powered Ringmasters that compete in Old Time do very well. One Oriental, powered by a stock Fox 35, is very competitive in PAMPA. Mike Palko used a Fox 35 powered Twister in competition all the way into Expert. That's Mike. In our club PAMPA war wagons are, in general, powered by something other than Fox 35s. LA engines are common. FPs. Towers. Some use Suptertigre 46s and 60s. PAs, Ro-jetts for the very serious. And. Electric. Electric is gaining in popularity for many reasons.
-
I recently saw a 60th Anniversary Fox .35 Stunt. They got the muffler mountings figured out, and it only took 60 years! ;D
IMO, the real problem with buying a Fox .35 is that of finding suitable fuel without paying buku bucks for Hazmat freight. It's not hard to buy fuel that will keep a .46LA happy, at least with the addition of a cuppa castor. Well, that, and I hate to bench run engines. One run on the ground and if everything seems stable, I'll fly a .25LA, .46LA or Magnum .36 on the 2nd tank. I would not do that with a spendy engine, however. H^^ Steve
-
The Fox 35 doesn't "require" any add on parts to work right, some people just don't know how to run them, they over-prime or under-prime, or they put them on a plane that's too big or too heavy, or they expect all the aftermarket bolt-ons to turn the engine into something it's not. They still work as well as they always did, and if you work within those limitations you'll be happy with a Fox 35.
Exactly...that's why most folks have switched to something else for the last 40 years or so!!!
Name someone who is flying and winning anything with a stock Fox 35...Tough isn't it. Hmmmmm I remember using Fox 35's when there really wasn't any other choice...all kinds of mods and 30+% nitro to get any power in the wind. Whip the plane like crazy for two laps to get through the reverse wingover...pull the handle practically to the ground in the overheads to maintain line tension...oh yeah they wer really good and fun fun fun.
They are probably OK for sport fliers that don't have to fly at the mercy of the weather but just OK...why hassel with one when so much is available that is so much better.
I'm curious to know Andrew what class do you fly in for stunt that you're so full of all this wonderful information?
When expert fliers don't use something it's for a good reason...get out of 1960 there's a better world now (at least where engines are concerned).
Randy Cuberly
-
Hi Randy,
The original question was: Engine for Oriental build.
Doesn't it depend on the skill level of the Oriental builder? If he is a competitor he certainly would use a modern engine.
If he is a sport flyer a Fox .35 would work fine; after all, the Oriental was designed for a Fox .35.
-
< Hmmmmm I remember using Fox 35's when there really wasn't any other choice...>
Randy, I am really curious about a time period when Fox was the only engine manufacturer in the game?
In my collection, I have K&B green heads, three bolt Torpedos, Forsters, O&Rs, Johnsons, Vecos, McCoy Sportsmans, McCoy Red Heads and a few others that were manufactured concurently with my Foxes. All of them will fly most any airplane designed for a .35 size engine. Of the above list, the only one still being made is the Fox.35S
I was at a meet last summer and saw a fellow flying an Ares (I think, maybe a Nobler) with a box stock Fox .35 Stunt and he put up a very competative flight, the old Fox was black from the burnt on castor yet it started and ran as well as any engine at that meet.
I have many, many engines and they all are fascinating and fun. The Fox .35 S will do a fine job in an Oriental as well as many other planes designed for a .35 size engine as will all the others that I mentioned.
-
<The original question was: Engine for Oriental build.>
De, Your answer: The Oriental was designed for a Fox.35 : Makes the most sense to me, but then, I am just a sport flyer and I have only been messing with model airplanes for not quite 60 years now, so what do I know..
I can tell you that my Oriental flys fine with an old box stock Fox .35 Stunt on it. I am sure that it would fly just as well with any number of other engines also. I do think that an LA.46 would call for the Oriental plans to be enlarged by about 20% or so.
-
Exactly...that's why most folks have switched to something else for the last 40 years or so!!!
Name someone who is flying and winning anything with a stock Fox 35...Tough isn't it. Hmmmmm I remember using Fox 35's when there really wasn't any other choice...all kinds of mods and 30+% nitro to get any power in the wind. Whip the plane like crazy for two laps to get through the reverse wingover...pull the handle practically to the ground in the overheads to maintain line tension...oh yeah they wer really good and fun fun fun.
They are probably OK for sport fliers that don't have to fly at the mercy of the weather but just OK...why hassel with one when so much is available that is so much better.
Are we talking about flying and winning with a Fox 35? Or were we talking about flying an Oriental? I'm pretty sure my statement was that I'd use a Fox 35 or an OS 35S, and then later I stated they have limitations, but they can still work just fine keeping those limitations in mind. However this is still a thread about an Oriental, not some 650sq in. overweight pig you tried to fly at the nats in 1982. ::)
I'm curious to know Andrew what class do you fly in for stunt that you're so full of all this wonderful information?
Well I guess you could do a few searches for contest results, or flip through the Stunt News archives and likely satisfy your curiosity. But that won't really validate or invalidate my statements about the Fox.
When expert fliers don't use something it's for a good reason...get out of 1960 there's a better world now (at least where engines are concerned).
Randy Cuberly
Again, I thought we were talking about an Oriental. And isn't Allen Brickhaus an expert flyer that just posted pics of his recent Oriental with a Fox 35 on the previous page? ~>
-
My Oriental finished is 43.8 ounces with a Fox 35.
Allen,
That may be my favorite Brickhaus paint scheme ever. Just beautiful!
Happy New Year.
Ted
-
Allen's flying an L and J Fox 35. Crank 49$, stuffer backplate...$, hemi-head...$, L and J fitting of piston/cylinder (I guess) if needed. That costs out near $200. Does Allen's choice of a "custom modded" Fox 35 support Andrew's opinion or do the opposite? Look, I've seen at least one stock Fox 35 fly an Oriental well. But if your criteria is price, performance, ease of setup, suitability for a less experienced flier, and so on, for reasons already stated, many of us would prefer different power. I loved OS35s(es) in the early 70s. Very user friendly. Flying with a few fellows who, like myself, were not that knowledgeable, I dug the way they started right up, needled easily. Very nice power for my Buster, kept lit pretty well as we looped, flew inverted. No scary burp doing outsides (how do you handle that Andrew, by the by.) When the intensity of other worlds in which I lived dominated, I dropped out from our hobby. For 30 plus years. Coming back in, needing a rest and retreat from "getting and spending" and what not, I took our subject up again. This time lucking out, finding a club of great guys who somehow were still dedicated to this old fashioned flying of tethered planes. First off I went with my OS35s, guess what, it was gummed up, compression somehow not that good, after it got freed, the one I bought off ebay, not much better. Rod click, I figured out what that meant. My Fox 35, of 1960s vintage, bolted up to my old Buster, did this scary blatt blatt blaaaatttt, doing outsides. When a friend needed his bolt on muffler back, I started to work with FPs, LAs and their ilk. Definitely easier for me to make work. The increase in power, the availability of new engines and parts, clinched my choice.
-
Were it up to me, I'd use a Thunder Tiger 42 with lowered sleeve, home made 1/32 head gasket, ST needle and custom turned 9/32 x 14° included Delrin venturi with a stocking on it.
-
Are we talking about flying and winning with a Fox 35? Or were we talking about flying an Oriental? I'm pretty sure my statement was that I'd use a Fox 35 or an OS 35S, and then later I stated they have limitations, but they can still work just fine keeping those limitations in mind. However this is still a thread about an Oriental, not some 650sq in. overweight pig you tried to fly at the nats in 1982. ::)
Well I guess you could do a few searches for contest results, or flip through the Stunt News archives and likely satisfy your curiosity. But that won't really validate or invalidate my statements about the Fox.
Again, I thought we were talking about an Oriental. And isn't Allen Brickhaus an expert flyer that just posted pics of his recent Oriental with a Fox 35 on the previous page? ~>
Andrew,
You're hopeless and I'm wasting my time...
I did want to mention that my over "weight pigs" that I was talking about were mostly 36- to 38 oz Noblers that really didn't require a lot of HP...but the Foxes still had trouble flying them in wind. Talk to any of the experts (which I am one) that flew in that era (not 1982, more like 1958-1961) and they will tell you pretty much the same thing I've described. Flying stunt seriously is a lot easier today than then...mostly because of the improved power plants...in fact now that electric is here it's getting even easier. Of course those of you that still prefer to do it the hard way because of Hard Heads are very free to do so. America is still a free country (at least for a little while longer)?
Randy C.
-
Andrew,
You're hopeless and I'm wasting my time...
I did want to mention that my over "weight pigs" that I was talking about were mostly 36- to 38 oz Noblers that really didn't require a lot of HP...but the Foxes still had trouble flying them in wind. Talk to any of the experts (which I am one) that flew in that era (not 1982, more like 1958-1961) and they will tell you pretty much the same thing I've described. Flying stunt seriously is a lot easier today than then...mostly because of the improved power plants...in fact now that electric is here it's getting even easier. Of course those of you that still prefer to do it the hard way because of Hard Heads are very free to do so. America is still a free country (at least for a little while longer)?
Randy C.
Sorry Rambling Jack, but I've never made the claims you suggest I made. I'll say it again since you seem to have a serious problem understanding context, or maybe it's just reading comprehension in general. We're not talking about "SERIOUS stunt", we're talking about an Oriental. We're not even talking about "flying them in the wind". Don't put words into my mouth just because you misunderstand my statements. You can't change my argument and then try to point out it's flaws, it doesn't work that way. That's why you have to resort to something so petty as to attack the skill level I fly at, as though somehow that indicates how my engines run more than my flying ability, building ability, or simply my ability to actually attend contests. So you're an "Expert", as though there is anything stopping anyone from entering expert. In what way does that make you qualified to say that I'm wrong when I say what engine I'd use in a specific plane? And what does America being a free country have to do with anything? H^^ Seriously some of you crazy old farts need to get a grip.
-
We've been reasonable. Showed empathy. Did a frontal attack. Spoken from personal experience using "I." Recommended by psychologists when attempting to ease conflict. A winter diversion.
-
We've been reasonable. Showed empathy. Did a frontal attack. Spoken from personal experience using "I." Recommended by psychologists when attempting to ease conflict. A winter diversion.
Dennis,
Get a grip.
-
Actually you've done nothing more to substantiate your own opinions beyond claiming they're better because they're yours and more people agree with you. All with a nice helping of condescension and outright insults and rude comments. All of Randy's claims of superior knowledge of the topic, and a higher skill level are arguments I could use against you, Dennis, but I wouldn't stoop that low. ::)
-
Actually you've done nothing more to substantiate your own opinions beyond claiming they're better because they're yours and more people agree with you. All with a nice helping of condescension and outright insults and rude comments. All of Randy's claims of superior knowledge of the topic, and a higher skill level are arguments I could use against you, Dennis, but I wouldn't stoop that low. ::)
Andrew,
They aren't just claims of superior knowledge they are fact.
I fully understand your writings I just don't understand your stubborn attitude of being the only one in the world that really understands how wonderful the old Fox really is... LL~ LL~ LL~
My only question at this point is; Are you a lawyer? That's the only thing I can think of that would begin to explain your complete refusal to listen to facts in the face of your much preferred opinions.
That's enough of this for me...I'm through. Believe what you like. As I said before It's a free country.
In other words...Go fly a kite... err uhhhh plane. Z@@ZZZ
Randy C.
-
What facts exactly Randy? You have yet to present any argument that in any way invalidates my statements that I'd use a Fox 35 or an OS 35S in an Oriental, or that they work fine for me. Everything you've argued has nothing to do with my statements. I don't even know who you're trying to convince, since no one in this thread is talking about experts, serious stunt, Noblers, wind, or any of the other crap you've brought into the discussion trying to "win" the debate.
For the record, in 2007 I took my own design stretched Flite Streak with a box stock Fox 35 to Sig as a backup plane. I placed second in intermediate, I got beat by 17.5 points by a Magnum with a Supertigre 51. The next day I flew the same plane, with the same box stock Fox 35 in P40. I placed 9th in P40 behind six flyers who flew Expert in PAMPA, and ahead of 10 flyers who flew Advanced, including the 1st and 2nd place winners in that skill class. These guys were flying the best profiles with whatever engine under a 40 they chose to run, and I beat them with the Flite Streak I built on my lap in 1994 with a box stock 40th Anniversary Fox 35. I'd say my Foxes run pretty damn good. I flew my Fox because I couldn't get the LA 40, FP 40, or FP 35 on my F-Twister to run right.
In Oct 2008, I flew my Nobler with an OS 35S in Classic at the Tulsa Gluedobbers contest. My final score was a 527, a shade under 10 points under Dale Gleeson who placed 2nd. I believe you're probably familar with Dale, he beat you by 2.5pts in Classic at VSC last year. Oh, and BTW I blew the exit of the cloverleaf and lost (at a minimum) my landing and pattern points. In addition, I frequently beat the local experts in events without skill classes. I regularly break 500 points with unflapped profiles powered by Fox 35s, or occasionally the FP 20. That was 2008, with about two years of practice after coming back to CL. How much better do you suppose I fly now? You wanted to talk about skill level. ::) BTW I've seen pics of your planes, you shouldn't be bragging.
-
Clippers just beat the Lakers
-
Sixers beat the Lakers earlier in the week. Just got trounced by the Oklahoma City. Lakers are not very good. Sixers, I'm afraid, are in free fall.
-
They aren't just claims of superior knowledge they are fact.
I fully understand your writings I just don't understand your stubborn attitude of being the only one in the world that really understands how wonderful the old Fox really is...
Randy,
I do think that Fox is a great motor so Andrew is not the only one in the world. I do think it is "below average" when stock and pretty darn good when using "the formula": ABC P&L, stuffer backplate, proper muffler, Larry Foster head, Randy Smith HZ crankshaft and Randy Smith NVA. Switch to 15% nitro 22% oil(50/50 mix) an you will have a wonderful motor.
Unfortunately, by the time all the parts are together, the cost will be double that of a brand new Brodak 40 which will give you the same results out of the box and on 5% nitro fuel.
-
All you guys need to get off the stuff you're on. I know what I'm on, hot coffee, black, no cream or sugar. The other is regular Coka Cola. I have my first place medallion hangng in the shop that my Fox .35 Stunt in the Umland International Stunt Winner helped me win last year. I plan on winning more awards with the combination also.
-
What facts exactly Randy? You have yet to present any argument that in any way invalidates my statements that I'd use a Fox 35 or an OS 35S in an Oriental, or that they work fine for me. Everything you've argued has nothing to do with my statements. I don't even know who you're trying to convince, since no one in this thread is talking about experts, serious stunt, Noblers, wind, or any of the other crap you've brought into the discussion trying to "win" the debate.
For the record, in 2007 I took my own design stretched Flite Streak with a box stock Fox 35 to Sig as a backup plane. I placed second in intermediate, I got beat by 17.5 points by a Magnum with a Supertigre 51. The next day I flew the same plane, with the same box stock Fox 35 in P40. I placed 9th in P40 behind six flyers who flew Expert in PAMPA, and ahead of 10 flyers who flew Advanced, including the 1st and 2nd place winners in that skill class. These guys were flying the best profiles with whatever engine under a 40 they chose to run, and I beat them with the Flite Streak I built on my lap in 1994 with a box stock 40th Anniversary Fox 35. I'd say my Foxes run pretty damn good. I flew my Fox because I couldn't get the LA 40, FP 40, or FP 35 on my F-Twister to run right.
In Oct 2008, I flew my Nobler with an OS 35S in Classic at the Tulsa Gluedobbers contest. My final score was a 527, a shade under 10 points under Dale Gleeson who placed 2nd. I believe you're probably familar with Dale, he beat you by 2.5pts in Classic at VSC last year. Oh, and BTW I blew the exit of the cloverleaf and lost (at a minimum) my landing and pattern points. In addition, I frequently beat the local experts in events without skill classes. I regularly break 500 points with unflapped profiles powered by Fox 35s, or occasionally the FP 20. That was 2008, with about two years of practice after coming back to CL. How much better do you suppose I fly now? You wanted to talk about skill level. ::) BTW I've seen pics of your planes, you shouldn't be bragging.
O'mi gosh Andrew...You win. You've convinced me I'm gonna drag out my box of Foxes, at last count there were about 15 of them in there, several worn out, and build all new airplanes for them. I should then be able to have more fun being a sport flier.
Thanks for all your effort and wonderful facts about how great you are and how great the Fox 35 is. Beginners and sport fliers should now use nothing but Foxes and OS35S (Oh yeah I've got a bunch of those also with worn out rods).
I yield to your superior knowledge and skill. You can stop now!
PHHHHHTTTTTTTT....
Randy Cuberly
-
O'mi gosh Andrew...You win. You've convinced me I'm gonna drag out my box of Foxes, at last count there were about 15 of them in there, several worn out, and build all new airplanes for them. I should then be able to have more fun being a sport flier.
Thanks for all your effort and wonderful facts about how great you are and how great the Fox 35 is. Beginners and sport fliers should now use nothing but Foxes and OS35S (Oh yeah I've got a bunch of those also with worn out rods).
I yield to your superior knowledge and skill. You can stop now!
PHHHHHTTTTTTTT....
Randy Cuberly
Wow Randy, this has been going on for a few days now and you still can't grasp my point. I'm starting to feel guilty about coming back to this thread and publicly embarrassing you, however you haven't shown me a bit of courtesy or respect since my first post in this thread. Let's recap, and see if you can grasp the Cliff's Notes version, it'll be fun and I'll try to keep it short.
My first point was that the LA46 is less than ideal out of the box. I supported my point. Your response was to insult me, and to deny that the LA46 has any problems. As if there's any doubt that the plastic backplate can leak and will likely crack if the screws are tightened. It's well documented, but only the "experts" bother replacing it with an aluminum backplate. ??? Then you decided to attack my choice of engines, by comparing them apples to oranges with your beloved LA46. Did I ever say anything beyond that the Fox 35 or 35S would be my choices for an Oriental? Did I ever say they were better than an LA46? After you were unable to support your argument, or stay on topic, you fired off that bit about the screws not being JIS, which is possible, I was just going by what I saw substantiated by no less than a former national champion, on this very forum. You also threw in that bit about the Allen wrench, which makes no logical sense since the LAs don't have a single socket head screw, but again you ignored that.
Next the topic of the Fox 35 came up, and you came back to tell us that no one has used a Fox 35 in 40 years, that the Fox isn't competitive, and so on, completely ignoring what the thread is all about. Notice the very first post at the top of the thread states the following "I fly strictly for fun so, blazing performance is not required." I'm not surprised you missed that, since you haven't seemed to have grasped anything in this thread. Then you questioned my credibility and skill level, as though somehow it has any bearing on my statements. I guess I wasn't aware that this was a forum by the experts, and for the experts. I foolishly believed that anyone was allowed to contribute?
From there on, there isn't anything from you even remotely close to being on the subject, you just insult me constantly. But hey, that's fine, you're an old timer in the old boys club, and I'm just a kid from Kansas, what could I possibly know? How dare I have an opinion different from yours? I don't claim to be a great pilot, or an expert. I don't claim to have "superior knowledge and skill". That's your game Randy, those are the claims you made about yourself without knowing anything about me. I don't claim the Fox 35 is a great engine, those are your words that you've inserted into my argument. You asked about my experience, and I just gave you a few examples. By all means, Randy, you go ahead and stick with your $240 custom engine, I'll keep flying my sub-$100 OS 35S, and maybe you'll get a chance to fly against me sometime.
Is it any wonder more people don't want to be involved on these wonderful forums? Where anyone less than an established expert gets greeted with open arms, and can voice their own opinion without being derided. Oh yeah, CL is such a great family, and so welcoming, just as long as you don't ever claim to enjoy flying a Fox 35. D>K
-
Andrew is correct.
-
In spades.
-
Hi Randy,
The original question was: Engine for Oriental build.
Doesn't it depend on the skill level of the Oriental builder? If he is a competitor he certainly would use a modern engine.
If he is a sport flyer a Fox .35 would work fine; after all, the Oriental was designed for a Fox .35.
De
If you read my original posts you will see that I agree with this...Then all of a sudden someone is making statements against anything except Foxes and OS35S's. All I wanted to do was keep the use of those engines in their proper place. I would never agree that those engines are the very best for a beginner.
Not sure how all this got started. But it has become merely a sounding board for one individual.
Randy Cuberly
-
Wow Randy, this has been going on for a few days now and you still can't grasp my point. I'm starting to feel guilty about coming back to this thread and publicly embarrassing you, however you haven't shown me a bit of courtesy or respect since my first post in this thread. Let's recap, and see if you can grasp the Cliff's Notes version, it'll be fun and I'll try to keep it short.
My first point was that the LA46 is less than ideal out of the box. I supported my point. Your response was to insult me, and to deny that the LA46 has any problems. As if there's any doubt that the plastic backplate can leak and will likely crack if the screws are tightened. It's well documented, but only the "experts" bother replacing it with an aluminum backplate. ??? Then you decided to attack my choice of engines, by comparing them apples to oranges with your beloved LA46. Did I ever say anything beyond that the Fox 35 or 35S would be my choices for an Oriental? Did I ever say they were better than an LA46? After you were unable to support your argument, or stay on topic, you fired off that bit about the screws not being JIS, which is possible, I was just going by what I saw substantiated by no less than a former national champion, on this very forum. You also threw in that bit about the Allen wrench, which makes no logical sense since the LAs don't have a single socket head screw, but again you ignored that.
Next the topic of the Fox 35 came up, and you came back to tell us that no one has used a Fox 35 in 40 years, that the Fox isn't competitive, and so on, completely ignoring what the thread is all about. Notice the very first post at the top of the thread states the following "I fly strictly for fun so, blazing performance is not required." I'm not surprised you missed that, since you haven't seemed to have grasped anything in this thread. Then you questioned my credibility and skill level, as though somehow it has any bearing on my statements. I guess I wasn't aware that this was a forum by the experts, and for the experts. I foolishly believed that anyone was allowed to contribute?
From there on, there isn't anything from you even remotely close to being on the subject, you just insult me constantly. But hey, that's fine, you're an old timer in the old boys club, and I'm just a kid from Kansas, what could I possibly know? How dare I have an opinion different from yours? I don't claim to be a great pilot, or an expert. I don't claim to have "superior knowledge and skill". That's your game Randy, those are the claims you made about yourself without knowing anything about me. I don't claim the Fox 35 is a great engine, those are your words that you've inserted into my argument. You asked about my experience, and I just gave you a few examples. By all means, Randy, you go ahead and stick with your $240 custom engine, I'll keep flying my sub-$100 OS 35S, and maybe you'll get a chance to fly against me sometime.
Is it any wonder more people don't want to be involved on these wonderful forums? Where anyone less than an established expert gets greeted with open arms, and can voice their own opinion without being derided. Oh yeah, CL is such a great family, and so welcoming, just as long as you don't ever claim to enjoy flying a Fox 35. D>K
Andrew if you had bothered to read my original post you would have seen that nearly everything you've accused me of is nonsense and was done for no other purpose than to advance your ego.
My original post:
Hi Sheldon,
Actually the Oriental was originally designed for the Fox 35. Many have been successfully flown with that engine. In fact the Oriental has a relatively long nose to balance with the light engine (Fox 35). If you decided to use a different engine an OS35S is about the same weight and would also be a good choice.
I have flown one with a LA46 and it worked very well but was built with 1 1/2 inches removed from the stock nose to get the CG where it belonged.
In other words anything much heavier than the Fox or OS 35S will require shortening the nose or UUgggh...a fair amount of tail weight (as much as a couple ounces)!
Randy Cuberly
You then began a diatribe on how the LA46 shouldn't be such a popular engine because of all the faults you percieved it has.
I would like to correct you on one thing.
You have not embarrassed me at any time. Further you are not capable of embarrassing me, getting under my skin...perhaps.
I asked you earlier if you were a lawyer because you seem to be an individual that is always spoiling for and argument. I'm very sorry I let you suck me into anything...so you win.
Come to Tucson and fly sometime!
Randy Cuberly
-
I thought I might make a few comments regarding the direction this thread is going. I have the utmost respect for all of you here, and several of you have been very kind and helped me out of previous problems I have had. I'm a beginner flyer, and I've had a lot of fun flying my Ringmasters, Twister, Jr. Nobler, Flight Streak, and most recently a full sized Nobler. All of these planes have plain jane out of the box engines. My Fox 35 starts with 2nd or 3rd flip, but I couldn't get it to run decent until I installed an Enya needle valve. I have a couple Fox 19's which run better then my abilities. I love the smoke trail these Fox's leave, I can just about tell how round my loops are on calm days. I also run an older Enya 35 and a couple of OS 40, and 46 LA's. I've learned to be patient with the standard location needle setting on those, but they will run pretty consistent, start easily, and again will perform better then my abilities. I joined this forum to learn from all of you, who I consider probably being the best CL'ers in the world. I think I have learned a lot, but I'm still just getting started.
I must say it hurts to see any who are bragging up their abilities because it makes me feel even more like I really don't know what I'm doing. Bickering back and forth over engine choices and making personal attacks on each other just doesn't seem to make any sense either. I hope this hobby of ours is still considered fun for all of you, and also hope it hasn't got to the point where people are only in it for recognition and trophies. Our hobby seems to need all the help it can get at this point. In my area (chicago) There's hardly anything available in hobby shops for C/L. I have had the pleasure of meeting a few people from the circle cutters club, so I know the hobby is not completely dead. I think I might have been one of the younger guys there at a local contest (at 58 years old). I was there to meet others and observe, not to compete. I hope we can all be friends and be here to help each other.
-
I would like to correct you on one thing. You have not embarrassed me at any time
Randy Cuberly
You're right, you did that to yourself. Look, all I did was state my opinion. You could have ignored it like I ignore so many posts complaining about the Fox 35, or you could have made a rational counter-statement. Instead you chose to start things off by insulting me. I don't understand how you can begin to excuse yourself, as my only crime was disliking a specific engine. People complain about one thing or another on these forums all the time, are they all smoking something if they don't like what you like? You've stated time and time again that you're wasting your time, that you're through with this thread, yet you keep coming back throwing criticism at me. Get over it. It is insane that threads like this go this direction because Experts have to treat every question as if they're asking how to win the Walker cup. I'm done with this thread, for real. I apologize to the OP for my part in sidetracking the thread, and I apologize to anyone else that may have been offended along the way, including Mr Cuberly.
My Fox 35 starts with 2nd or 3rd flip, but I couldn't get it to run decent until I installed an Enya needle valve.
If you haven't already, you might want to try cutting a piece of fuel tubing about 1/4-3/8" long, and slip it over the pointy end of the needle before threading it into the spray bar. When the needle is set it will compress between the bottom knob and the spraybar, which will help prevent leaks, vibration, and so on. It really does help.
-
De
If you read my original posts you will see that I agree with this...Then all of a sudden someone is making statements against anything except Foxes and OS35S's. All I wanted to do was keep the use of those engines in their proper place. I would never agree that those engines are the very best for a beginner.
Not sure how all this got started. But it has become merely a sounding board for one individual.
Randy Cuberly
Hi Randy,
I regard both you and Andrew Hathaway as friends; I have known both of you for years. I think that if both of you had been standing together having this conversation, the harsh words and ill feelings would not have taken place. There are some people who had to stick their noses in your conversation which caused the ill feelings to escalate.
I doubt that you two will ever meet, but you are both good guys, and I am happy to call you friends of mine.
De Hill
-
P.S. 46LA are not longer available in CL form. RC only.
Tower Hobbies shows them in stock right now.
-
Thanks De,
I apologize to everyone for my part in this fiasco.
I do sometimes forget that not everyone in CL is interested in competition as that has been my only interest in it since 1952.
I did have a forced layoff of about 7 years through 2010 due to health problems. I started flying again seriously at the beginning of 2012. Health problems are fixed at least for the time being...modern surgical techniques are marvelous.
My best to everyone.
Randy Cuberly
-
Hey guys,
My apologies, I did'nt realize that this question was going to generate this many " passionate " responses. I only asked the question because my dad raised me on McCoy's and O & R's ( He was from the 1950's and 1960's control line era ). In talking with him, he did have high praise for other engines of the time such as Foxes, Forsters, and Doolings.
I can't thank you people enough for all of the positive and negative input that you've given me about all of the engines discussed. As I said in my original post, I fly strictly for fun and my pure enjoyment. I haven't ever flown in competition, and probably never will. As long as I'm not working, and I'm in the " circle " life is great.
Sheldon
-
As the old saying goes, "Different strokes for different folks". Let's not get too worked-up over this stuff. Come to VSC-25 (March 19-23) and you'll see everything from 1940s sparkers to the latest hot item.
-
High, Sheldon, I think that most every one here builds and flys because they enjoy the activity, I have been doing it for close to sixty years now and I still get satisfaction when I build a new bird and make that first flight. It makes no difference what the airplane is or what engine it has on it, I like em all and I think that that is common for most all modlers. I have an old well used Oriental with an old well used Fox .35 S on it and it gets around the circle just fine.
SO does my Flight Streak powered with a OS LA .25 as does my Flying Fool powered with a Forster .35. The point is, enjoy what ever it is that you have along with the interaction with those that you engage with in the hobby. With me pushing hard on 70 years old I can say, build, fly, and enjoy, life is far too short to do other wise.
Regards, Phil Bare
-
Well I can't call Randy a kid as I find out he is a couple of months older then me. I first met him when him and Walter, the other teenager were the hot shots of the Flying Eagles. Then I left the city and did not get to see him again until Ken Smith reintroduced us a VSC banquet. Walter I met in Tulsa years later. Now Andrew I remember as a kid when him and his dad first got started. I have my opinions of Andrew and his flying, but his dad is one of the greatest people to meet. Anyway it is time to shut both parties down in my opinion or get them together like when I was in high school with boxing gloves and face to face. I put my money on Randy as he has probably been down that road also. Anyway guys drop the subject matter and get the new planes going. mw~ mw~ mw~
-
Doc,
Do you actually think that you are helping this situation?
-
Don't worry De. Doc has just been grumpy about me and my flying ever since I moved out of beginner. He's always got something to say about my equipment, my flights, or my attitude. As long as he's not judging my patterns in an official capacity, I usually don't let it bother me and I enjoy seeing him at contests. I'm not sure exactly why Doc has a problem with me, in general I like everyone. It might have something to do with the huge age gap, it's not exactly easy to relate to the crowd at most contests when most of the people there are more than twice my age. IDK. Healthy debates on the internet aside, I'd never strap on the gloves and take a swing at a senior citizen.
-
Allen,
That may be my favorite Brickhaus paint scheme ever. Just beautiful!
Happy New Year.
Ted
Thank you Ted,
Allen
-
Hey Guys,
I don't see anything in this thread that indicates anyone hates anyone or wants to "take a poke" at anyone. Disagreements like this don't end in punches unless it's in a Bar and the booze is flowing...let's stop the nonsense. There are thousands of people in the world that I disagree with on different subjects. I really don't want to poke any of them, and since none have tried to poke me I assume they feel the same.
UUUhhhhh...well maybe a congressman or two but they don't count... LL~ LL~ LL~
Randy C.
-
Thanks, Doc for sticking your nose in this thread and getting it going again.
Thanks a lot...
De Hill
-
Thanks, Doc for sticking your nose in this thread and getting it going again.
Thanks a lot...
De Hill
De,
It's not really going again. I think Doc's comments served to show how really ridiculous it had gotten. Even if that didn't seem to be his intent.
We all get wrapped up in something sometimes and lose sight of what is actually going on.
I believe your earlier comment that had we been face to face this probably never would have gone past the initial stages was correct.
Thanks for being the Peacemaker.
Randy C. H^^
-
Hi Phil Bare,
I couldn't agree with your post more than you have stated. One of the reasons that I got more involved in tne C/L forums is that it seemed more laid back and informal. My question started out as a simple inquiry, and it grew into a much more aggresive response than I think was needed.
What's happening to this area of our hobby ? We are the minority, it just tells me that differences of opinion are great, but let's not get consumed by them. I like all of the inputs, but can't things stay on a little more hospitable tone ?
Thanks,
Sheldon
-
I have a couple of Fox .35 engines kicking around the shop, but I don't know if that will be ample power to haul the model around.
Sheldon
Sheldon, I fully believe that the Fox 35 (despite having to now wear a power reducing muffler) will be fine considering that modern high performance stunt props will probably pull back what is lost from the muffler.
I have a Fox 35 with a carbon fibre 10x5 Brian Ether prop that I simply must get up and running one day!
-
Hi Phil Bare,
I couldn't agree with your post more than you have stated. One of the reasons that I got more involved in tne C/L forums is that it seemed more laid back and informal. My question started out as a simple inquiry, and it grew into a much more aggresive response than I think was needed.
What's happening to this area of our hobby ? We are the minority, it just tells me that differences of opinion are great, but let's not get consumed by them. I like all of the inputs, but can't things stay on a little more hospitable tone ?
Thanks,
Sheldon
Hey, Sheldon, I suppose that the same thing that makes some competative in the contests also makes them think that they have all the answers even if the question is ignored. Your question was straight forward and the most honest and logical answer was given by serveral, the Oriental was designed for the Fox.35, that answer should pretty well cover what you asked.
There are many other answers to your querstion, none of them any more correct than: The Oriental was disigned for a Fox .35. Why any need for all the vitriol, I do not know.
We all have our likes and dislikes but fussing over them is pretty nonproductive and really does not help the individual asking the question, the hobby, nor the forum.
Phil Bare
-
Steve Y.,
Did you mean the OS.40 LA-S is no longer available?
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXPUE3&P=7
Dave "McDivot"
-
I think LA40s are discontinued, both RC and CL. Often they can be had cheap New in the Box (whatever that means in actuality) at swaps, ebay and RC forums. LA 40/46, FP40/35, weigh 8.2 ounces. Enya 35 V (baffle piston engine) 7.9. OS 35s 6.9, Fox 35 6.5. All weighing just done on my postal scale. Engines with prop nuts, no props or mufflers. Considering the nose moment vs tail moment of the Oriental and most control line planes, it takes about half the weight in the tail to offset a heavier weight in the nose. A 2 ounce heavier engine can be offset by one ounce in the tail. Or in the case of an LA46 vs a Fox 35, a difference of 1.7 ounces in the nose can be offset by .85ounces in the tail. Overall weight penalty about 2.5 ounces. Perhaps a significant weight difference. Perhaps not. The difference in power between the two engines tho is quite significant. FP40/LA40s put out more power, turning significantly larger props at higher speed. LA46s way more power on large props and so on. I checked out Stunt News to see what competitors choose for Orientals, Noblers, and the like. At Brodak there were a large number of Brodak 40s. Engines weighing in about the same as a Fox35. These engines are of modern design and are potentially more powerful than a Fox. Lots of LAs, FPs, and a few Aerotigres. 3 (I think) Fox 35 powered Noblers or Orientals. At the NATS, I couldn't find a listing for engines used in Classic.
-
Steve Y.,
Did you mean the OS.40 LA-S is no longer available?
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXPUE3&P=7
Dave "McDivot"
I stand corrected. 40 LA-S is indeed discontinued. I never liked them anyways(heavier than 46 and less power too). 40FP was a better motor than its LA sibling. I love my 40FP and will run until it can't run no more!
-
LA40s are more high strung than LA46s, at least in my experience. They do not adopt well to the deep 4stroke possible with an LA46. The LA46 slobbering rich run, with a touch of break at the top of the figures and in the overhead. The kind of run that turns heads. One club member likes the LA40s, runs them similar to the way unmodified FP40s are run. Richer 2/stroke breaking into a leaner 2/stroke. This engine powers an Oriental, interestingly enough. I've seen that plane clean up in local Advanced meets. I like my FP40s, but love my Tower 40s. There. I said it. If the market for Tower 40s goes bonkers, CL fliers scarfing them up. Well. I have already accumulated a lifetime supply. ;D