Horses for Courses ?

[Air Ministry .]

Ah , the ' optimum P.A. , F2B rocket ship !?*

As theres PILOTS from ' Ab Initio ' ( Learing / copeing with - the shedule ,
Intermediate , No longer wiping out every time the earth shifts ,
AND
Expert .
The Top Line ofr which will chew you up , unless youve got your loins gired and Sword Sharpened . 

BUT is the ' IDEAL ' stunt ship IDEAL for ' All Comers '

In vehicals , M'Cycles & yachts , the ' Learning Curve ' matches the machineary , to an extent, and the Conditions . !

As in some are docile , some have good ' feed back ' as to the atmosphere . Some are solid , and some get blown half way across the harbour , in a squall . ( Flying Dutchman three man trapeeze 14 Ft things .)

As in a top of the line NASCAR or F1 car , or V Rossis dewcati aint neccesarilly gonna work , for Joe Normal .

The GIST of this is are Designs of most ' Top End ' contrivances Hair Trigger monuments to tecnology tuned to The Designers Hand .

And are there ' Broad Range ' docile ships that may not fly inch perfect , but do most of the work For the Pilot ?

or do the Top Line Pilots consider that that IS where ' the development ' has gone .

Vot are Vee shooting for ? accuracy , flyability , or w.h.y. ,

thanks.

Be intresting to see some ' My Views ' rather than ' theres only one way to utopia 's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia,_Northern_Territory

bugger. its a big sand hill . 

http://www.mbantua.com.au/about-utopia/

[Randy Cuberly]

Well,
There certainly are some individual preferences among Expert fliers, but for the most part they all seem to share a lot of commonality.  Certainly less differences, for instance, than the difference between a top Thourobred race horse, and a top Quarter Horse.

Nearly any flier in the intermediate to advanced level can benefit by using a proven highly developed stunt design as opposed to something that is "put together" by less that knowledgeable hands.

I would point out however, that being able to properly trim any stunt plane used for competition is of at least the same importance and perhaps even more important in some cases!

I definitely do not think that any flier at any stage is better off settling for less than the best in design or trim.
Even at the bottom stage of beginner anyone will advance faster if they are flying a properly designed, well trimmed airplane.  This of course assumes that the pilot has at least progressed to the level of being able to control the airplane in level flight without crashing.

There is of course an economical advantage to using smaller less advanced profiles in the early stages of learning to fly the tricks but it is purely an economic advantage (which should probably not be ignored) and should not be confused with actually being better.

Randy Cuberly

[Steve Helmick]

It appears to me that PW's Impact and Randy Smith's SV series (".60 sized") planes have proven to be good for various skill levels, in that they have been shown to fly well even when built too heavy, given that they have adequate "power", as well as good trimming.

Some other designs have a smaller window of acceptable gross weight, so are more suitable for expert builders. Here, I'm thinking of those with thinner wings, such as Billy W.'s.  The flier's home altitude should also be a consideration.   
Steve   

[GERALD WIMMER]

Hi Matt
Interesting post.    To me the Ultimate stunt ship comes out of your own head.    Just use the proven areas needed, equipment available and your life's duration to perfect flying it.
Only problem with this is, as one ages are your best flights in front of you or behind you?    For me I think my best flights were back in the late 1980's when
I didn't stubble around the circle and could see the model better  .
Regards Gerald

[GERALD WIMMER]

Hello Suppose I should elaborate on my ultimate stunt model, my utopia of F2B design.
It is a P39 Airacobra with 912 sq inchs and Fox 74 RE with pipe and I did start building it about 20 years ago well before the electric thing took over.
 Just need to finish my less then optimal kit bashed Magnum come Mustang P51B with Fox Hawk first .
Yes it will not be competitive as it is outdated thinking, a military subject and a glow powerplant all in a modern world but its 'my ideal' model.   
Regards Gerald

[Randy Cuberly]

Hello Suppose I should elaborate on my ultimate stunt model, my utopia of F2B design.
It is a P39 Airacobra with 912 sq inchs and Fox 74 RE with pipe and I did start building it about 20 years ago well before the electric thing took over.
 Just need to finish my less then optimal kit bashed Magnum come Mustang P51B with Fox Hawk first .
Yes it will not be competitive as it is outdated thinking, a military subject and a glow powerplant all in a modern world but its 'my ideal' model.   
Regards Gerald

Why do you think IC engines are not competitive?  That's utter nonsense.  All the recent major contest results show that the IC engines are at least on the same level with the electric and in some cases superior.
Don't know what you've been reading but you need to broaden your horizons!

Any of the Top stunters are just as competitive as they've ever been.  A few of the very top fliers like Paul Walker etc have shown that electric stuff is capable of winning anything but that would likely be true whatever they chose to fly.

Have you ever flown a really good airplane like an Impact or a GeoXL or An SV11 with a really good engine like a PA65 or 75 or a ROJett 61.  I suspect not!  You seem to talk about massive Foxes etc which are obviously very low choice engines for stunt!

Even a Magnum that you mentioned earlier with a PA 51 or 61 or 65 or RO Jett would still be a very competitive airplane!

Randy Cuberly

[GERALD WIMMER]

Sorry Randy.    If you knew me you would know I am a stuck in the mud red neck that has gone off electric and speaks with a mocking irony about how electric models and cars (and AI) will take over the earth.  Yes I like old Fox engines (used to be agent their in New Zealand ) and most people do not like them here, wonder why.
 I no longer have a strong desire to have a modern stunter/drivetrain and my Magnum is a carry over from an era when when I was a younger more enthusiastic open minded person (and shamefully one of the first to fly an electric stunter here in NZ back in the early 80's (brushed and nicad) The Fox Hawk in a brush with convention and wisdom but an engine I enjoyed using in the past (love the exhaust note!).
 Due to health reasons I stopped flying F2B back in about 2000 and ran the club BBQ instead  and have only picked up the idea of flying Sportman (yes beginner pattern in the US) after teaching my sons to fly and deciding that just competing with a model I like was plenty enough for me as I have no show of winning or doing well regardless of my choice of model.
 I felt responsible for the interest in our club dropping off when I stopped competing (some rubbed it in, as they stopped too) but I was not happy at the time having found my new lifelong bowel issues . I am constantly reminded by our club president that my sets up are noncompetitive but enjoy going against the flow and just flying again (even if poorly) and being an oddball is my style .
Matthew Spencer probably knows where I'm coming from from his days back in NZ  . 
So for me at least it is 'fly what you like' for fun as we cannot all win but we can help add to the numbers when we have so few entrants now a days (real big problem here in NZ unfortunately).
Regards Gerald

[john e. holliday]

Besides who cares what the power plant is if we are having fun.     

[Air Ministry .]

YES ! Electric Starters are Bad Enough  , But putting them IN the Aeroplane    . . Oh well . At Leastt they Are Flying . And no ones done
a neuclear powered one jet . Tho I think some drones are Solar , or solar assist . Id like to see a Rubber Powered F2B model .
Probly need several motors that engage sequentially as each claps out . BUT ; the potential for an ultra light calm weather rubber F2B job must exist .
Just no ones gout the nouse to build one . 

Been Looking at P-39s for centuries Gerald . Apart from the center section ' kink ' which I think could be ignored , unless your a scale stunt buff 
which complicates / prolongs the build . As the lines are straightforward , if one moves away from the ' bulky ' version , it should work well .





Over Emphasising the Nose ( making the spinner bigger ) gets things flowing , asthetically & makes construction easier .



Particularly if you dont mind partially flat sides , theres enough commonality to almost have a ' standard ' W W II Fuselage ,
with additions / deletions / alterations to F & F decks & canopy positions , to have ' one size fits all ' , as a Std Construction .



2 3/4 or 3 in spinner , with the fuse only 1/4 or 3/8 wider , and they all look the same , apart from the bumps , and curly bits at the ends . 
diheadral starts to come into it tho , and tecnically a P-39 is FLAT between the air intakes . Flat Sheeting underneath between where the
 undercarrage doors are there would pretty well cover that aspect , though . Assuming youve got a notch of diheadral .

[GERALD WIMMER]

Hello Matt
Thanks for the P39 Pics
I did a Fox35 R/C size profile scale Airacobra that won me some placings at our Nationals (had signal down the lines which helped) many years ago but since C/L scale is so rarely flown in New Zealand now thought I need a built up stunter that could at least be entered in Sportsman aerobatics.
Had my 60 size P51B profile many years now , with that Lovely Fox Hawk  .It was built again not for stunt but for display flying at the Ellersie Mini Airshow series were it was an oversize combat display model but so much fun to fly with its Zero counter part with another beautiful Fox this time an Eagle 1 
Do you remember MOTAT's Aircobra and P40 both sold    to private collectors in Australia and restored to flying I believe? (have pictures of both buried somewhere)
 
Regards Gerald