Author Topic: Engine suggestion for Dixon Stiletto XL (Read 7269 times)

Target · « **on:** June 30, 2017, 08:31:01 PM »

I have a Tom Dixon Stiletto XL that I want to build out. Anyone with experience or knowledge that has an opinion on the engine for this plane, go ahead and give it to me....
The kit is 650 square inches in wing area.
Standing by.

R,
Chris
P.S. happy 4th to you all.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #1 on:** June 30, 2017, 08:55:23 PM »

You gave us no budgetary guidance. I'd put a 46LA in it, unless I had big wads of money, in which case I'd put in a Stalker or a PA.

Target · « **Reply #2 on:** June 30, 2017, 09:24:42 PM »

A stalker or pa what though?
Money I like to save if able, but I don't want to save money and hate the plane afterwards, it is not worth the savings then....

I was actually wondering about the os .46ax/.55AX that Randy Cuberly raved about in your Legacy thread.

Perry Rose · « **Reply #3 on:** July 01, 2017, 09:09:51 AM »

ASP .52 or Evolution .52. Jim Lee has venturi's for both. Less than $100 each.

Target · « **Reply #4 on:** July 01, 2017, 12:19:12 PM »

Thanks Perry.
I had considered the asp .52 initially as well. I didn't know the Evolution was made in that size.
Happy Fourth to you and yours.

Allan Perret · « **Reply #5 on:** July 01, 2017, 02:10:50 PM »

Quote from: Chris Behm on June 30, 2017, 09:24:42 PM

A stalker or pa what though?
Money I like to save I'd able, but I don't want to save money and hate the plane afterwards.
I was actually wondering about the os .46ax that Randy Cuberly raved about in your Legacy thread.

I'd go with the .55ax "powerhouse".

Target · « **Reply #6 on:** July 01, 2017, 02:45:47 PM »

Have you flown the ax or seen one go, Allan?

Target · « **Reply #7 on:** July 01, 2017, 05:55:24 PM »

Tom Dixon recommends a Stalker RE .61 LS. ($332)
Just called him today.
For a lower cost alternative, he recommends the twin plug .61 Merco. (@ $150)
He has both in stock.
For about $150, I'm wondering about keeping it more modern with the .55Ax or a Magnum or TT.46 or ASP .52....
I think the weights are about the same.
R,
Chris

Brett Buck · « **Reply #8 on:** July 01, 2017, 06:49:54 PM »

Quote from: Chris Behm on July 01, 2017, 05:55:24 PM

Tom Dixon recommends a Stalker RE .61 LS. ($332)
Just called him today.
For a lower cost alternative, he recommends the twin plug .61 Merco. (@ $150)
He has both in stock.
For about $150, I'm wondering about keeping it more modern with the .55Ax or a Magnum or TT.46 or ASP .52....
I think the weights are about the same.
R,
Chris

Of all the alternatives discussed here, I would tend to the 46LA, that has some history. The original airplane (Les McDonald's) flew well enough to win the WC with a K&B 40, so power will not be an issue.

Brett

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #9 on:** July 01, 2017, 06:56:04 PM »

I think the OS55AX would be an excellent choice and is a very good engine that requires no real Mods except the Needle assembly and a venturi (restrictor) and a slight enlargement of the Needle valve assembly in the case (to .156 dia). I would start with a .275 or there about for the venturi restrictor. Jim Lee can make this with no problem.

You will likely have to use about 1 to 1 and 1/2 oz of tail weight with any of the modern engines mentioned to off set the extra weight of the engine but that is of no consequence. The airplane was originally designed (I think) for a ST46 which is significantly lighter. Or it might be possible to simply shorten the nose of the airplane a bit to compensate for the weight if you can still fit a 5.5 to 6 oz tank. ( I think 5.5 oz will be enough).

If you wish I could send you my engine to look at and even run a bit if you send it back afterward.

If you want to do that send me your address.

Randy Cuberly

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #10 on:** July 01, 2017, 07:08:29 PM »

UUUhhhh...

I think Les's K&B 40's were very "special".

I've seen a Stilletto Albeit at about 60 oz with a LA 46 and it was...shall we say "very challenged" at the Tucson altitude.

I guess I'm highly in favor of what some folks called "over powered" not that there really is such a thing!

I flew one several years ago with an OS 46 VF on a header muffler and it was very good.

I had one many years ago with an ST 60 and it worked really well!

All in all if I were to build one now I would use one of my 46 VFs in it.

BUT...I still think the 55AX is the best choice for someone who hasn't tried to get a VF to run well on a muffler!

Randy Cuberly

Target · « **Reply #11 on:** July 01, 2017, 07:28:31 PM »

Thanks Randy and Brett.

Yes, I don't want the plane to be underpowered, that is for sure....
I would think that the more modern AX on a 2-2-2 would use less fuel than an engine using a traditional 4-2-4 break, but maybe it's not enough to worry about. My thought is if I wanted to set the engine back a bit as Randy suggests (certainly a good thought with the added weight), then being able to run a smaller tank might make doing that more feasible.

It would be great to get input from someone that actually has built Tom's XL kit, which is slightly different than the original (but not much), and see what they powered it with, and what they thought about their engine selection after flying the bird a bit.

I'm almost tempted to go E power, but I have to say after flying both a little, I am leaning towards old school. ;-)

Randy-
Thanks for your kind offer. I'll think about it, and ping you if I decide to take you up on it.

Happy Fourth, all of you.

Vr,
Chris.

Dave_Trible · « **Reply #12 on:** July 01, 2017, 08:22:49 PM »

I might suggest a RO Jett .40 BSERE with a header muffler. This weights no more than the original K&B and will easily pull up to about 63-64 ounces on plain Jane ACP props. It's big .40 power loaded into a .29 size case. Another good choice might be a Tiger .51 with a muffler other than the stock space shuttle fuel tank. I've pulled a 69 ounce airplane pretty effectly with one for a couple years. The engine itself isn't much heavier than the K&B. I'm sure you could find one out there. They are pretty rugged too if you run it just like the old .46 and not like a flat out Schnerle motor. ( even though it actually is). The last Chinese made version seemed to be better than the Italian ones because the liner was so hard standard hones were useless on them. ( I was told by a good source).

Dave

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #13 on:** July 02, 2017, 02:05:26 PM »

The ST G.51 came immediately to mind, but then the SSW Magnum/ASP .53 popped into my head. You might check with Leonard to see if he has any left. Several Expert fliers here in the PNW have used the SSW .53. It is said to run just like a ST .60, but is much smaller, lighter by about 3 oz., while using the same props. Yes, like about everything else we use, they're no longer in production. I believe they are (or were) about $165.

Steve

Fredvon4 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 02, 2017, 03:23:25 PM »

I have not yet flown my Randy B&B Magnum .52 but did a very extensive read of every post on it and the stock version

Mine is destined for a future SV 11 from Randy

I did play with it on the bench and is one of the best engines I have played with so far...

I think this is a pretty good bang for the buck engine choice that is available right now new in the box

Target · « **Reply #15 on:** July 02, 2017, 04:36:24 PM »

Thank you for all the suggestions.
What about a Magnum xls .46 re-timed for stunt? Would that be enough umph? It also weighs 12oz with venturi and nva, but no muffler.
R,
Chris

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #16 on:** July 02, 2017, 07:58:54 PM »

Quote from: Chris Behm on July 02, 2017, 04:36:24 PM

Thank you for all the suggestions.
What about a Magnum xls .46 re-timed for stunt? Would that be enough umph? It also weighs 12oz with venturi and nva, but no muffler.
R,
Chris

The 46AXII does not need to be retimed for stunt. In fact I believe it would be a serious mistake to do so. Just experiment with venturi size if you need to calm it down a bit and run it in a fast 4 or very fat two! I would think about a .265 to .270 to start with an Aeroproducts needle valve assembly. Mine worked well on a .270 but I'm at a higher altitude than you probably are. If it's too big just use a couple of layers of panty hose material until you get it the way you want it to run!

The 46AXII is very powerful but will want to run at a slightly higher rpm than the 55. It might use a little less fuel than the 55AX but not much.

I think Randy Smith does a Magnum 46 or 52...If Randy sell it it will be a good stunt engine or he wouldn't sell it.

I have one of his Magnum 52's and it's a beautiful engine but I haven't run it yet.

Randy Cuberly

Brett Buck · « **Reply #17 on:** July 02, 2017, 08:12:49 PM »

Quote from: Chris Behm on July 02, 2017, 04:36:24 PM

What about a Magnum xls .46 re-timed for stunt? Would that be enough umph? It also weighs 12oz with venturi and nva, but no muffler.

Depends on who does it. In many unfortunate cases, "retimed for stunt" means that all the power is gone. I have seen "retimed for stunt" 46LAs that put out less power than a good Fox 35. I suppose that if there was such a thing as a 60LA, they would keep carving on it until it, too, had less power than a Fox.

As far as I know, you don't need to "retime" a Magnum 46 for stunt, but I have only seen a few of them. I would beware any "stunt modifications" aside from taking out the RC carb and putting in a venturi.

Brett

M Spencer · « **Reply #18 on:** July 02, 2017, 08:23:28 PM »

Quote

As far as I know, you don't need to "retime" a Magnum 46 for stunt,

AH , but what about a Thunder Tiger .46 !

( Ive just been given another , besides the box of were TT 46s .

bung the bypass ??

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theres a OS FSR 40 - 45 clone magnum 40, 45 & 46 . And ' others ' , one piece case which maybe compatable to the TT componetentially .

The 46 XL I think is like the 52 etc , bulky one pice case & I think a mild steel crank with a pushed in hardened crankpin ,
the cranks bend if you deck em , tho straighten easy .

Target · « **Reply #19 on:** July 03, 2017, 01:03:16 AM »

I trust my flying buddy that did the re-timing on the .46 Magnum, he did my fp.40 and that engine 4-2-4's perfectly, starts on the first flip, and never runs away.
But I'm still leaning towards a larger engine, a .52 or the .55ax. I'll have plenty of power, and it seems like all those engines are roughly 12oz anyway.
And the .55 is current, and interchangeable with the .46ax for bolt pattern.
If I order the 55 and a few props from tower this weekend, I can get $30 off a $200 order, and that will just about pay for venturi and tongue muffler.
That's my thought.
R,
Chris

peabody · « **Reply #20 on:** July 03, 2017, 02:02:36 AM »

Isn't the "XL" a larger piece than the original?
I have seen several "standard" Stilettos use Tiger 60's successfully....
That said, an OS 46 (the bearing model), set up ala Hunt would be cool

Target · « **Reply #21 on:** July 03, 2017, 08:41:55 AM »

Hello Rich-
This kit is the one you sold me. I believe the xl that Tom refers to is extra light, and it's a lighter, simplified version of Les's Stiletto 660.
Which OS46 are you referring to that Bob Hunt used to use? Sorry, being a newbie I don't know about Bob's glow history.
Happy Fourth.
Thanks ALL for your recommendations on power plants.
R,
Chris

peabody · « **Reply #22 on:** July 03, 2017, 08:47:59 AM »

There is an OS 46 SF on the 'bay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/OS-Max-46SF-Engine-/332289659738?hash=item4d5e01d35a:g:bq0AAOSwyWZZWRkf
I believe that it has essentially the same porting as the VF series? They work very well with flat props.

Have fun!

Target · « **Reply #23 on:** July 03, 2017, 09:13:30 AM »

OK, the SF is the side exhaust version of the VF, which is rear exhaust, and meant to run on a pipe then I guess, right?
Thanks for the link.
Hate Ebay, but you never know I might bid.

Vr,
Chris

M Spencer · « **Reply #24 on:** July 03, 2017, 08:45:17 PM »

Just to relay the info ive gleaned ,

The VF is fine unpiped . 40 & 45 . Most Say . Liners 144 & 122 , so ST 46ish , tho schneurle , crank timings late but dosnt seem to bother it .

HOWEVER , the FSR timing ( side Ex ) isnt the same . 45 FSR magnums about 148 Ex , seem to work ok ,
The 40 is wierd & generally thought troublesome , Nelson did chrome sleeves for Hunt & co , fitted with DYKES RINGS from another source .

Im thinking he mustve retimed the sleeve , meaning to ask . Ive a from new 40 FSR S ( stunt ) that goes to hard to often ,

THEREFORE in the FSR the CLONES from Magnum & ROYAL seem to be as good as the OS , Dunno about the ASP , in a test the asp
has 160 ( piped r.c.) Ex timing. way to high for F2B .

Heres a pic. of a chunder tigre 46 pro , tho traded mine supplied as ' magnum ' assume TT has the funny split aeroplane thing thus , but maybe'r the same . Was given a box of dead ones previously so can swap out the case as the intakes gone to buggery .

Thhis is the one I assume mentioned above , as fettled by Randy / A. P.

M Spencer · « **Reply #25 on:** July 03, 2017, 09:00:09 PM »

FUDGE . hit X on wong fred .

So Backward orderly .

ROYAL 45 clone . ( That & the MAGNUM FSR front housing are a pain , but cross makes parts intercangeability is good. ive Fitted a OS 45 front housing to my Magnum 45 . the Magnum & Royal both have 46 FSRs too , identical bar 0.2 mm overbore .

$:-\$ maybe, head to obliviously .

This ones not a stock R C

sleeve timings on 3rd page .

the Real Mc Coy .

And the VF ski .

The VF is reputed to be fine unpiped , the 40 perhaps friendlier than the 45 .

P.W. fitted a FP 40 P/L to one , after moding the piston for circlips .

The FSRs the 45 is reputed to be better behaved , the 40 FSR - S ive had from new goes to quick more often than not .

The 40s Hunt & co used were recromed by Nelson , and had Dykes Rings fitted . Id Presume they were retimed ??

Martin Quartim · « **Reply #26 on:** July 03, 2017, 09:35:57 PM »

An OS FS 56a 4Stroke would work very well too.

Martin

Brett Buck · « **Reply #27 on:** July 03, 2017, 10:26:05 PM »

Quote from: Matt Spencer on July 03, 2017, 09:00:09 PM

The VF is reputed to be fine unpiped , the 40 perhaps friendlier than the 45 .

P.W. fitted a FP 40 P/L to one , after moding the piston for circlips .

Not a VF - an FSR.

The VF might or might not work OK with a muffler - buy why? With any 4-2 break engine, you are losing tremendous performance over more conventional engines - conventional for the year 2017, not 1975.

If the option is to get a modified engine "modified for a stunt run" or "retimed", I think you would probably do better to just put a K&B 40 in it and move on.

Brett

Abi · « **Reply #28 on:** July 04, 2017, 10:10:48 AM »

RoJett 51 RE with sprinkler venturi

Les McDonald · « **Reply #29 on:** July 04, 2017, 06:42:54 PM »

What is a "Stiletto XL" that you people speak of?

M Spencer · « **Reply #30 on:** July 04, 2017, 06:43:52 PM »

oops ; will leave below as its self explanatory , BUT ,

Quote

STILETTO "XL"- Dixon rework of McDonald's World Champ "Stiletto 660" for easier, lighter, cheaper building. No blocks to hollow/carve! Plans are super CAD layout by Pat Johnston. 59" span, 660 sq. in. area, for .45 to .60 engines. $10.00

From : http://tomdixon.tripod.com/plans3.htm : over to the right halfway down there . NOW WE KNOW . !

Dunno if it isnt this ?? with its ' Stilleto Backbone ' , $:-\$

said by Urtnowski to be a 9/10ths Patternmaster .

Quote

- conventional for the year 2017, not 1975.

N- 30 ! ,

getting a bit ' off topic ' , but ' Period ' machines , perhaps enhanced

for a nostalgia trip , Seems two ' modern ' options ,

The Low Buck ' tweaked ' production motor , or the not so low buck ' dedicated ' stunt motor . Or a Super Tigre 60 .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

were a lot of raves in the day ( as now ? ) about the ' outstanding ' capeabilities of certain engines , How much of the ' outstanding '
performance of some current jobs is theyre on the fine pitch props & therfore ' locked in low gear ' .

Another thing is current weight seems to be say 55 Oz for a competitive ' 60 ' ship .

A given that most modern motors metalurgy gives vastly improved durability , but still theres some who swear by , ( not at 0 some of the old stuff .
Back in the day , again , some said the ST 60 just churned along one speed and was ' uninteligent ' as to load / disposition ( of plane )
while others say it ' 2 - 4's ' beautifully .

Being a DIXON plane , Id Assume a ' Double Star 60 ' would be the go , which is said to be a production version of the ' soft tune ' Big Jim
ST 60 .

Most'v us'd still prefer a mid 60s Ferrari to a current one ,

tho im not sure that goes for Morris Minors .

or the Bank Manager .

Target · « **Reply #31 on:** July 04, 2017, 07:28:49 PM »

Yes the quoted text is exactly what i have and am asking about.
Time machine, no, but i didn't look at the wing above.
The Stiletto xl appears to be near identical but missing the block that forms the rounded bottom.

I'm probably going to use my buddy's Magnum .46 in a 4-2-4 mode. If i need more power I'm going to look at the current os .46ax. If that doesn't work, I'll slap the .55 in there or hang it on the wall.

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #32 on:** July 04, 2017, 07:36:37 PM »

The Dixon "Time Machine" has been around for quite a few years and is an excellent flying airplane. My brother built one many years ago (I think about 1998 or thereabouts) an powered it with a ST51. He was only an intermediate flier at the time but, as he does everything he undertakes, threw himself into the mix wholeheartedly and flew and flew and within about a year and a half flew himself into the Expert ranks with the Time Machine. Yes he certainly had help, I trimmed his first few airplanes and taught him how to do those things that were important to compete. I flew that airplane many, many times and was always impressed with how well it flew for a fairly simple approach. The ST51 was very close to a perfect power plant for it!

By the way, calling it a Stilletto 660 is really reaching. It is similar but the Stilletto is a much more sophisticated airframe and builds significantly lighter. I've built and flown three of them in the past. The Stilletto 660 wing is a higher aspect ratio with a somewhat different airfoil.

I'm not being critical of the Time Machine, I think it's a very good airplane but not a Stilletto!

I suspect Les McDonald was a bit surprised to hear it called a Dixon Stilletto!

Any of the earlier engines I mentioned OS46axII, OS55AX, Magnum 52, or if you can find one a ST51, would work very well.

Randy Cuberly

Steve Fitton · « **Reply #33 on:** July 06, 2017, 07:58:21 PM »

The Time Machine is not at all the Stiletto XL. If memory serves correct, the Stiletto XL was a Dixon kit of a Stiletto 660, using a foam wing and some simplified construction for the fuselage. It *may* have had a different (thicker) airfoil than the Stiletto, but I'm too lazy to dig up the plans to look.

Target · « **Reply #34 on:** July 06, 2017, 08:49:28 PM »

My (early)Stiletto xl kit has a built up wing.
If i recall, Tom said early ones had built up wings.
R, Chris

Target · « **Reply #35 on:** September 26, 2017, 06:46:31 PM »

Quote from: Les McDonald on July 04, 2017, 06:42:54 PM

What is a "Stiletto XL" that you people speak of?

Mr. McDonald-
I am not sure how I missed your post here.
I have a complete kit of the below description, along with the 660 plans of your design also. I plan to build this kit first, then maybe later on, I'll scratch/plan build your 660.

STILETTO "XL"- Dixon rework of McDonald's World Champ "Stiletto 660" for easier, lighter, cheaper building. No blocks to hollow/carve! Plans are super CAD layout by Pat Johnston. 59" span, 660 sq. in. area, for .45 to .60 engines. $10.00

Still looking for the proper engine for this kit (it's not specifically your design, but similar). When I get serious, I will lay the 660 plans one over the "XL" on a glass table lit from below, and see what I can see.

I have a new OS.46AXII in possession, along with Jim Lee parts (tongue muffler and venturi and NVA) for conversion, and I hope to see how this runs in an ARC SV-11 that I should have soon. If it works great, I would also consider this for the Dixon kit, unless I can find something lighter that is not troublesome. But according to Randy Cuberly, the AXII is a good 2-2-2 engine and OS's seem like they are good quality for the cost for me so far. I have a 40FP and a 46LA and they both have been great so far...

I might get crazy and spring for a RO or PA or something when I build a 660 from scratch, but who knows, if I get tired of wiping off castor, I could just go E power and say to hell with whole decision making process for the proper IC power. E power is certainly much easier to figure out proper power(for me), and more easily finely tuned and repeatable. One can then concentrate on the flying!

HOWEVER, I have a big NAG with safety, and I have to give the nod to wet power there. The amount of combustible power stored in modern LiPo's is frightening. I have flown RC sailplanes for years, and so I am no "boob" when it comes to charging, battery care and safety and the such, but there can always be that "one time" where a problem can occur and we all know the sad ending.
Kind of scary.

I'm leaning towards wet power because the above concerns.

Regards,
Target/Chris Behm

M Spencer · « **Reply #36 on:** September 26, 2017, 07:37:02 PM »

" WET POWER

indeed

iTS ' I.C.E. !

Its Honda Riders that are WET !

though some are Otto Cycle .

anyway , If you havnt used a dope finish , so the castor all over it can Feed It , for flexability & a high gloss $:-\$

Get a rear exhaust Engine , as they tend to put the merest tad of glop about , as Ive recently found .
or put a duct or muffler extn thing to thro it outboard .

Target · « **Reply #37 on:** September 26, 2017, 07:59:13 PM »

Thanks both of you's for the suggestions.
Is there an available "main stream" rear exhaust glow engine suitable for stunt?
The cost isn't really the issue, as much as availability.
That's another point towards electric....

Steve Hines · « **Reply #38 on:** September 26, 2017, 09:31:17 PM »

Evo 60, the still make the rc. Same weight as the 45,52 and a lot more power. It is a food rc motor.

M Spencer · « **Reply #39 on:** September 27, 2017, 09:39:32 PM »

You might find a Enya CX 60 RE ,
theres Stalker 51 /60/ etc RE's.
or if costs not really really the issue , a PA 51 etc etc .

maybe the Jett engines too .

apparently Dixon may have stalkers on the shelve right now ?

apparently this is an Aldrich . Which might be a Dub Jett / but I dunno .

A lot of these would be an ' investment ' if looked after . And a sight to behold . Not to sure if theres to many ' colletors ' of Electric Motors ' of the model aeroplane type .

M Spencer · « **Reply #40 on:** September 27, 2017, 09:43:23 PM »

Precision Aero . ( Nelson Built )

Stalker ( Available Via Barton / tecno hobby U K )

Timing on the early one off these looked ok, anyone tried one ? its a 36 tho .

Ted Fancher · « **Reply #41 on:** September 28, 2017, 11:15:27 AM »

Quote from: Perry Rose on July 01, 2017, 09:09:51 AM

ASP .52 or Evolution .52. Jim Lee has venturi's for both. Less than $100 each.

Hmmm. Since a hundred bucks per venturi sounds a bit extreme (especially for Jim's very reasonable products) I'm going to assume you mean either engine. Right?

Ted

Target · « **Reply #42 on:** September 28, 2017, 12:07:55 PM »

Steve-
Is the Evo .60 kind of heavy for the XL? I know it's a "light" R/C .60, but I'm thinking a modern 60 might be overkill in power and weight for this plane.
Not sure what it would weigh without the carb though. Some weight savings there.

Matt-
Yes, a stalker, pa, or jett would certainly work and work well, since they are designed specifically for the task at hand. And barring a crash on pavement, if cared for could be a nearly lifetime engine. Still, they are not what i would call "mainstream engines" where parts are in good supply both new and used. I guess i have to decide if i want a purpose built c/l engine, or a morphed r/c engine that works well for stunt. Since i spend more time working every year, maybe a dedicated stunt motor is what i should pick. I'd be seriously bummed though if i paid the extra and ended up with a problem where parts weren't available for 6-12 months though.
And, while the Enya is more mainstream than the above, not sure the parts availability is much better.

Ted, that's funny. Yep, those engines are both less than $100 each, not sure what the added cost is after conversion though.

R,
Target

Fredvon4 · « **Reply #43 on:** September 28, 2017, 01:49:03 PM »

Chris I have followed this quite closely

I am in line for a new production SV 11

and I understand your lead in post desiring opinions for folk who ACTUALLY had the plane in question and their engine power choice experiences

Obviously, from the discussion, there are a LOT of ways to skin this cat

My personal constraint was Enough umph but low cost

Both Tom Dixon and Randy Smith listened to my desire and understood flying style and gave me the entire range of options that they could set up and sell me

Indeed it is a broad range of products that each has plus and minus... initial cost... best prop...

On thing that stuck for me...a hack flier... many of the high Zoot piped engines ---while superior...BUT cost much more---- and importantly...by definition, demand a more expensive series of props to experiment with

So I think you need to properly define, in your mind, what this one plane is to accomplish....

It may well be...your first personal platform to fiddle with top of the line engines, tanks and props

I went the other way.... and trust that Randy and Tom did not steer me wrong with my low(er) cost power and prop solution

Funny, I have 3 fairly high cost Nelson .36 but can not bring my self to try one of he High cost stunt engines from Jett or Randy

BUT perhaps one of these day a model will jazz me that demands a top of the line piped setup....

BUT on that day I will certainly suffer all the "REAL" stunt guys derision... here is a hack flyer....much like a stock car wanna be.... with more money than skill.....self deprecating grin