Author Topic: VSC 2006 (Read 6275 times)

RandySmith · « **on:** March 18, 2006, 10:34:48 PM »

Hi All the tp 10 at VSC in classic this year

1. Bill Werwage Ares Aero Tiger 36
2. Bob Hunt Caprice Aero Tiger 36
3. Ted Fancher Ruffy Rustler
4. Paul Walker Slylark McCoy Red head
5. Mashuri Hiki Nobler
6. Richard Oliver JD Falcon RO ?
7. Frank McMillan Vulcan Aero Tiger 36
8. Keith Trostle Bear cat Jett 50
9. Bob McDonald Ares Aero Tiger 36
10. Bob Whitely Nobler Aero Tiger 36

A little windy but all in all very nice weather all weeek

Regards

Randy

Bill Little · « **Reply #1 on:** March 19, 2006, 05:15:53 PM »

Hi Randy,
Thanks for the breakdown on plane/engine used. Always nice to see what everyone is flying.
Justr waiting to see Billy show up one day with one of the original USA-1s for VSC!

Randy Powell · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2006, 10:21:32 PM »

Bill,

Well, I can say that mine was a Cobra with an absolutely surpurb PA 40RE Lite. Ran perfectly all week. Shame the plane need a major rework. I have to cut in to put a hatch in so I can actually adjust the control system. And a plastic tank a spinner will help the nose heavy condition.

Greg Howie · « **Reply #3 on:** March 28, 2006, 03:46:01 AM »

That is not just any mc coy red head that was a T&L 40. far better that stock.

I stand corrected. I got some bad info sorry , I heard different.

RandySmith · « **Reply #4 on:** March 28, 2006, 10:24:07 AM »

Quote from: stringjobs on March 28, 2006, 03:46:01 AM

That is not just any mc coy red head that was a T&L 40. far better that stock.

HUh Frank McMillan told me it was on e of his?

Randy

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #5 on:** March 28, 2006, 01:26:52 PM »

I have a T&L 40 that is an OS Max 35 S lower end and a Tigre 46 top end. Paul has one too. Was this what he was running?
Chris...

Paul Walker · « **Reply #6 on:** March 30, 2006, 05:57:48 PM »

NO, not a T&L 40. I do have one of those though.

I used the engine Frank gave me. Prepared by George himself! McCoy 35.

It ran rather nicely I thought.

Marvin Denny · « **Reply #7 on:** March 30, 2006, 09:05:14 PM »

Paul, I admire you and the others who run Classic engines in the classic planes at VSC.
I especially hate those who are raping the event by running rear exhaust late model engines. It is a cyying shame that they think that they have to do that to win.
I don't mind their using late model engines as long as they are side exhaust like they were back in that era.
My hat is off to you and the others who are holding to the tradition.

Bigiron

RandySmith · « **Reply #8 on:** March 30, 2006, 09:16:52 PM »

Big Iron

I will remind people that rear ex engines have been used by many for about 40 years now.
Also the World Championship was won by a rear ex engine back in the 60s.
And in my opinion ,no one is trying to or is raping the event

Regards

Randy Smith

Marvin Denny · « **Reply #9 on:** March 31, 2006, 10:51:59 AM »

Randy, with all due respect, I have not seen one (and I was flying back then) and have not seen any valid pictures of any used back then.
My feelings and opinion still stands.

Bigiron

RandySmith · « **Reply #10 on:** March 31, 2006, 02:43:17 PM »

HI Marvin
You and everyone else has every right to an opinion about how Classic should be run. I actually agree with you , if you could get the rules to state this.
The BIG problem is that there is NO rules against what people think of as sacrilege in the event. IE: CF props ABC AAC motors, Carbon landing gear and bellcranks and so on etc.
So unless a rules change is done all of this including Electric motors and Rear Exhaust motors are perfectly legal. There are NO rules against it.
I might add it will be very hard for everyone building to find an old vintage motor.
Then you have the other side, which states this is all about fun, and keeping as many people showing up with the older planes to keep this event healthy, and it doesn't matter what they use for power, or what materials are used. And that they want an engine that will start well and pull the airplane. I am sure if we limited everyaspect of the older planes to exactly what we had to use back then you would see a very very serious DECLINE in participation.

I will close by adding the fact that ,Juri Sirotkin was 2nd. at '62 World Champs, and used a rear exhaust MVVS 5.6 stunt engine.
I also know of others, and I am quite sure that AL Rabe had his classic planes using rear exhaust.

frank carlisle · « **Reply #11 on:** March 31, 2006, 08:43:21 PM »

I agree. At least as long as the plane is a vintage design, everything else like motors and cf gear are acceptable.

Marvin Denny · « **Reply #12 on:** March 31, 2006, 08:54:33 PM »

Randy, as I said, I have NO problem with people using the more modern powerplants as long as they are SIDE EXHAUST, as the vast majorioy of engines were back then.
You as well as I know that the modern engines vibrate far less than the older ones and so the planes can be built much lighter with less reinforcement and bracing. I think that that fact alone ought to be enough, but there are those who THINK it is in the spirit to use the latest technology JUST because the rules do not say they CANNOT do it.
My view on this is the inverse--- If the dules do not say you CAN do something, then it means that you can't. (this philosophy has served me well throughout life).
Hope to see you at Brodaks. I am going to try to make it again this year.

Bigiron

Bigiron

rustler · « **Reply #13 on:** April 01, 2006, 01:23:31 PM »

For me an important point is that I like my Classic plane to look as nearly possible like the original. Most Classic models did use side exhaust engines, but had no silencer stuck on the side. Using a rear mounted silencer enables you to keep this look and I have no problem with this.
Incidentally, I'm not too sure about Sirotkin's '62 model being rear exhaust. It may have been the classic side exhaust/rear intake 5.6, as used by Gabris.

rustler · « **Reply #14 on:** April 01, 2006, 01:33:20 PM »

Randy has hit a very important point. We are all doing what turns us on, and it's slightly different for each individual. I know what I want to do and it's not necessarily identical with what someone else feels is right.

Bill Little · « **Reply #15 on:** April 01, 2006, 04:01:28 PM »

Me? I'm just happy that there is a lot of interest in the Classic planes, and that we have a class to fly them in. I started flying in 1963, so I didn't get to build a whole lot of my favorite planes back then, much less ever get to a contest before 1970. I go with both types of engines in my planes. Everything from Fox 35 to AT 36.
I can say that I do like the appearance of the rear exhaust planes better than the same plane with a side exhaust and a muffler sticking out. I just don't remember the planes back then having mufflers. I know some probably did, but none that I saw.

As to Josef Gabris and Yuri Sirotkin, they did use a 5.6 MVVS engine. IIRC, there were 19 or 20 of them made, all RISE. Peter White sent me an engine test done a couple years after their peak (it took a while for the reviewer to get one), and there are several pictures in the article. I have been trying to buy an example for several years now. Actually, there was a "stock" version (not the factory special) that looks the same externally. Ian Russell offered me one last year, but I didn't have the money at the time. Getting one of the actual factory team engines is well out of my reach.

RandySmith · « **Reply #16 on:** April 01, 2006, 05:02:59 PM »

Quote from: rustler on April 01, 2006, 01:23:31 PM

For me an important point is that I like my Classic plane to look as nearly possible like the original. Most Classic models did use side exhaust engines, but had no silencer stuck on the side. Using a rear mounted silencer enables you to keep this look and I have no problem with this.
Incidentally, I'm not too sure about Sirotkin's '62 model being rear exhaust. It may have been the classic side exhaust/rear intake 5.6, as used by Gabris.

Hi Ian

You maybe correct. I have a plan of the plane that says rear ex engine, so I could be mistaken, However it doesn't matter as my only point about this was there was rear ex planes flying in the classic period.
Al Rabe used rear exhaust on some of his classic planes. And there were others, so they did exist.
I think we should do whatever to encourage the growth of the event.

Regards
Randy

Bill Little · « **Reply #17 on:** April 01, 2006, 05:09:15 PM »

Quote from: RandySmith on April 01, 2006, 05:02:59 PM

Hi Ian

You maybe correct. I have a plan of the plane that says rear ex engine, so I could be mistaken, However it doesn't matter as my only point about this was there was rear ex planes flying in the classic period.
Al Rabe used rear exhaust on some of his classic planes. And there were others, so they did exist.
I think we should do whatever to encourage the growth of the event.
Regards
Randy

I totally agree.
What ever turns you on to Classic is ok with me. I love seeing the Classic planes flying no matter what engine is used.
BTW: Al's exhaust systems gave those planes such a clean, scalelike appearance that just added to the whole package.

rustler · « **Reply #18 on:** April 02, 2006, 09:55:05 PM »

Randy - your plan which says "rear exhaust" - very interesting. Scope for the serious historians among us to do a little research here. Do you know the origin of your plan?

Old Sourdough · « **Reply #19 on:** April 09, 2006, 01:34:42 AM »

Quote from: RandySmith on April 01, 2006, 05:02:59 PM

. . . Al Rabe used rear exhaust on some of his classic planes. And there were others, so they did exist. . . .

Randy,

You're much more knowledgeable about the event than I. I would ask, though, whether (and how) Al had the ST .46's he used in the first (Classic) Mustangs and Bearcats converted to rear exhaust.

While I like and use my "Classic" engines, I have no problem with more modern power plants being used in Classic events on classic planes. Let's all just put an FP-20 (with BBTU, of course) on a Flite Streak or Ringmaster and go fly.

Paul

Bill Little · « **Reply #20 on:** April 09, 2006, 02:23:08 AM »

Quote from: Old Sourdough on April 09, 2006, 01:34:42 AM

Randy,

You're much more knowledgeable about the event than I. I would ask, though, whether (and how) Al had the ST .46's he used in the first (Classic) Mustangs and Bearcats converted to rear exhaust.

While I like and use my "Classic" engines, I have no problem with more modern power plants being used in Classic events on classic planes. Let's all just put an FP-20 (with BBTU, of course) on a Flite Streak or Ringmaster and go fly.

Paul

Hi Paul,

I saw the exhaust header/muffler Al Rabe sent to "Papa" Dave Hemstraught for him to use in the Rabe Mustang Dave built. Best way to describe it wa a "wrap around" that is totally enclosed. I don't know if Al actually converted converted any engines to a rear exhaust configuration, but he did turn them into rear "outlet" exhaust with his headers. Can't tell the difference looking at the plane.

Old Sourdough · « **Reply #21 on:** April 09, 2006, 02:56:15 AM »

Quote from: Bill Little on April 09, 2006, 02:23:08 AM

Hi Paul,

I saw the exhaust header/muffler Al Rabe sent to "Papa" Dave Hemstraught for him to use in the Rabe Mustang Dave built. Best way to describe it wa a "wrap around" that is totally enclosed. I don't know if Al actually converted converted any engines to a rear exhaust configuration, but he did turn them into rear "outlet" exhaust with his headers. Can't tell the difference looking at the plane.

Yep, Bill,

I knew about the "wraparound" ehaust systems that Al used, but the engines were still side exhaust, no?

Paul

Jim Thomerson · « **Reply #22 on:** April 09, 2006, 07:54:04 AM »

I suppose a Fox 35 converted to rear exhaust, as per the article reprinted in Stunt News sometime back, would be of interest.

Ironbomb · « **Reply #23 on:** April 09, 2006, 10:43:29 AM »

Quote from: Jim Thomerson on April 09, 2006, 07:54:04 AM

I suppose a Fox 35 converted to rear exhaust, as per the article reprinted in Stunt News sometime back, would be of interest.

Yes, it would.

Greg

Bill Little · « **Reply #24 on:** April 09, 2006, 12:50:57 PM »

Hi Paul,
The ones I have seen were still side exhaust engines. But since they are totally inclosed, it is hard to tell if any rear exhaust "cases" were in use. Al has told me of a .60 he had made for him, but he didn't say as to whether it was rear exhaust or not.

I find it fascinating that there were some engines being used that I had no previous knowledge of. Bored and stroked ST 46s, OS MAX 35S cases with
ST 46 sleeve/piston installed, ST 29 case/ST 46s, etc., etc., and that all is very interesting to me. I think It was Mr. Werwage (??) who told me of some ST 46s that he had the Aloise Brothers (sp) who were speed guys turn them into something around a 51. More power out of smaller engines!

and the European engines are a whole 'nother story!

RandySmith · « **Reply #25 on:** April 09, 2006, 07:42:23 PM »

Quote from: Bill Little on April 09, 2006, 02:23:08 AM

Hi Paul,

I saw the exhaust header/muffler Al Rabe sent to "Papa" Dave Hemstraught for him to use in the Rabe Mustang Dave built. Best way to describe it wa a "wrap around" that is totally enclosed. I don't know if Al actually converted converted any engines to a rear exhaust configuration, but he did turn them into rear "outlet" exhaust with his headers. Can't tell the difference looking at the plane.

Hi

He made a rear exhaust extention to the case, that made the engines rear exhaust, as did some people with OS Max 35s and also some of the Factories had parts you could buy to make the engines rear ex. Super Tiger and OS had these parts. I still have one of each

Regards
Randy

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #26 on:** April 09, 2006, 09:25:34 PM »

I'm with Ian. Sorry, Big. I've seen & heard PW's Skylark fly with a Mac .40 (that one was a T&L, I'm pretty certain), no muffler. It was some years ago, but I remember very well. Wow, was it LOUD! In the right circumstances, that's fun, but on the whole, it's doing us no good in the PR department. Would a fake side exhaust stack be ok?

Steve

john e. holliday · « **Reply #27 on:** April 10, 2006, 10:11:44 AM »

I remember some years back while attending a school in Dallas and going to what is now Hobby Park field, there was a gentleman that showed me the rear exhaust Fox 35 Stunt he was working on. Made for very little mess to clean up and was running with authority. Can't remember his name, but, he was selling an item called sanding wands back then. Later, DOC Holliday

Trostle · « **Reply #28 on:** April 11, 2006, 11:58:44 AM »

Quote from: Jim Thomerson on April 09, 2006, 07:54:04 AM

I suppose a Fox 35 converted to rear exhaust, as per the article reprinted in Stunt News sometime back, would be of interest.

There have been several comments in this thread about conversions of the Fox 35 to rear exhaust. There was an article in Model Aviation, Nov 75, by Rodney Pharis. The article showed the changes he made to the Fox 35 case by cutting off portions of the exhaust stack, then welding an aluminum deflector plate and an aluminum tube to create the rear exhaust outlet. (Not a job for one with no experience with welding high-silocon aluminum castings. According to Rod, "Aside from this major detail, the rest is easy.")

I believe this is the article that was reprinted in Stunt News several years ago. I would have to go into my files to find that Stunt News issue.

Keith

dirty dan · « **Reply #29 on:** April 11, 2006, 12:13:35 PM »

I think It was Mr. Werwage (??) who told me of some ST 46s that he had the Aloise Brothers (sp) who were speed guys turn them into something around a 51. More power out of smaller engines!

and the European engines are a whole 'nother story!

Quote

Bill,

I hope someone is taking notes...

My recollection is that Carlos Aloise and his father were a team.

Their primary interest was CL Carrier.

They did build some Stunt engines. Years ago I had an ST46 done by Carlos. Don't throw stones, but I never ran it, sold it to an RC buddy who wanted a fairly light torquer. He installed a carb and muffler, flew it low-and-slow for years...

There was also an effort from the Aloise family to build event-specific "specials." Mostly they proved how difficult is a business such as Henry has built and made successful.

Dan

Bill Little · « **Reply #30 on:** April 11, 2006, 07:17:17 PM »

Quote from: dirty dan on April 11, 2006, 12:13:35 PM

I think It was Mr. Werwage (??) who told me of some ST 46s that he had the Aloise Brothers (sp) who were speed guys turn them into something around a 51. More power out of smaller engines!

and the European engines are a whole 'nother story!
Quote

Bill,

I hope someone is taking notes...

My recollection is that Carlos Aloise and his father were a team.

Their primary interest was CL Carrier.

They did build some Stunt engines. Years ago I had an ST46 done by Carlos. Don't throw stones, but I never ran it, sold it to an RC buddy who wanted a fairly light torquer. He installed a carb and muffler, flew it low-and-slow for years...

There was also an effort from the Aloise family to build event-specific "specials." Mostly they proved how difficult is a business such as Henry has built and made successful.

Dan

Hi Dan,
Thanks for the correction on the Aloise "family" as being father and son. I didn't know. But I had heard the name quite a bit back in the day and I understand they did real good work, especially in "changing" displacement, etc..

Mike Foley · « **Reply #31 on:** April 11, 2006, 07:30:24 PM »

Excuse me for my ignorance, I see the Aero Tigre 36 was used in 5 of the top ten spots. Is the Aero Tigre a stand along motor design or a modified Chineese/Taiwaneese motor? I assume it is a highly ranked motor. Are people using it in the PA events?

Bill Little · « **Reply #32 on:** April 11, 2006, 08:27:30 PM »

Quote from: Mike Foley on April 11, 2006, 07:30:24 PM

Excuse me for my ignorance, I see the Aero Tigre 36 was used in 5 of the top ten spots. Is the Aero Tigre a stand along motor design or a modified Chineese/Taiwaneese motor? I assume it is a highly ranked motor. Are people using it in the PA events?

Hi Mike,

The Aero Tiger is a highly reworked Thunder Tiger 36 done by Randy Smith. New AAC sleeve/piston, and not sure what else he does to them, but I know mine run flawlessly. Don't have A PA ultralite 40 yet, but the Aero Tiger 36 is about as good as it gets. Still a 4-2 run but you canuse a lower pitch prop and it will easily swing the 11" props Randy recommends for them.

I have seen them in PAMPA planes, but since the upper level flyers are basically using airplanes in the 650-700 sq. in . range, and are using pipes, the AE 36 isn't as popular in that arena.

There are plenty of good engines being made today. And many being rewroked by real good engine men, but for the "Classic" airplanes out there you can't find much better, if any, engine IMHO. I believe the fact that Mr.s Werwage, Hunt, McMillian, McDonald, Whitely, and many more are a testiment to that.

Got to get one of the PA ultralite 40s now and see just what they do!

Randy Powell · « **Reply #33 on:** April 12, 2006, 12:09:12 PM »

Bill,

The PA 40 Merlin is very cool in a 4-2-4 configuration. You'll like it.

frank carlisle · « **Reply #34 on:** April 12, 2006, 03:08:58 PM »

How would it be if we had to use vintage paint? Say stuff that had been in the can since way back then. And fuel too.

I have a Legacy that I am putting away now. I will save it engine and all plus 20 gals of fuel and my glow starter. And handle and lines. I figure someday (say forty years from now) that Legacy will qualify as a classic or old time model. Since it will have been saved intact for 40 years it will be 100% in compliance with the rules of the day.
I will only be a hundred and one years old. Shoot, I myself will also be in compliance.

Any body with me on this?

Bill Little · « **Reply #35 on:** April 12, 2006, 07:18:19 PM »

Quote from: frank carlisle on April 12, 2006, 03:08:58 PM

How would it be if we had to use vintage paint? Say stuff that had been in the can since way back then. And fuel too.

I have a Legacy that I am putting away now. I will save it engine and all plus 20 gals of fuel and my glow starter. And handle and lines. I figure someday (say forty years from now) that Legacy will qualify as a classic or old time model. Since it will have been saved intact for 40 years it will be 100% in compliance with the rules of the day.
I will only be a hundred and one years old. Shoot, I myself will also be in compliance.

Any body with me on this?

Well............. I found soem 40 year old fuel (no kidding), I have a 43 year old Smoothie (still flyable) with the original engine, plus I have a set of lines and an EZ Just from back then. So............................

frank carlisle · « **Reply #36 on:** April 12, 2006, 07:39:52 PM »

You're in like Flint Bill. How's the fuel? Is it missile mist?

Bill Little · « **Reply #37 on:** April 12, 2006, 08:49:39 PM »

Quote from: frank carlisle on April 12, 2006, 07:39:52 PM

You're in like Flint Bill. How's the fuel? Is it missile mist?

K&B 100!

RandySmith · « **Reply #38 on:** April 12, 2006, 09:29:56 PM »

K&B 100 is very lame fuel LOL

Randy

Bill Little · « **Reply #39 on:** April 12, 2006, 09:46:58 PM »

Quote from: RandySmith on April 12, 2006, 09:29:56 PM

K&B 100 is very lame fuel LOL

Randy

HAHAHAHAA!! I think all that's left in the gallon can is castor! Can is in good shape, though.

Bill Little · « **Reply #40 on:** April 13, 2006, 06:53:30 AM »

Quote from: Rudderless on April 13, 2006, 12:36:59 AM

After many years in storage, I opened my can of Supersonic 1000 K&B fuel. It smelled like old varnish, poured and looked like old varnish. Heck, it turned into varnish. I tossed it. lol

I'm saving the can! It is clean and rust free.