News:


  • March 28, 2024, 05:20:49 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.  (Read 12196 times)

Offline jose modesto

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 842
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #50 on: June 27, 2013, 02:08:27 PM »
Randy that is what I end up doing is adding 3/4" to 1 oz of nose weight to gas shark. All other items remain the same.
When I do this, the E power is superior to gas as the power delivery is smoother more constant and NO CG change.
And yes I can feel it.  Also the reverse pitch(pusher) prop is used and this helps with the verticals and overheads
Now the draw back. No movable lead outs or tip weight adjustment. They require adjustment with the CG moving forward.another compromise. And yes i can add movable lead outs (have done this on other shark) but I don't love the models to invest any time on updating model.
I have 3 sharks and one classic and don't fly them much. The white shark posted above was flown one flight this weekend,just so my friend Jim Borrelli could hear a perfect 2/4 motor run.he loves thatbtype of run.
I also agree with Derek on the electric feeling loaded during the hard corners,and the rounds. I love that feeling it allows me to control the model much better. The gas version acts like it has tail weight.( comparison is with same CG)
Agree with Howard on getting the E power package models to perform Better than the gas version of the same plane.
Randy let me know if you need additional info for calculating moments
Jose Modesto

Offline Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #51 on: June 27, 2013, 02:37:47 PM »
Agree with Howard on getting the E power package models to perform Better than the gas version of the same plane.

That's just my experience.  Guys like Brett and Doug and Derek get IC engines to work wonderfully, and may not get any advantage from electric. 
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #52 on: June 27, 2013, 03:25:05 PM »
Randy that is what I end up doing is adding 3/4" to 1 oz of nose weight to gas shark. All other items remain the same.
When I do this, the E power is superior to gas as the power delivery is smoother more constant and NO CG change.
And yes I can feel it.  Also the reverse pitch(pusher) prop is used and this helps with the verticals and overheads
Now the draw back. No movable lead outs or tip weight adjustment. They require adjustment with the CG moving forward.another compromise. And yes i can add movable lead outs (have done this on other shark) but I don't love the models to invest any time on updating model.
I have 3 sharks and one classic and don't fly them much. The white shark posted above was flown one flight this weekend,just so my friend Jim Borrelli could hear a perfect 2/4 motor run.he loves thatbtype of run.
I also agree with Derek on the electric feeling loaded during the hard corners,and the rounds. I love that feeling it allows me to control the model much better. The gas version acts like it has tail weight.( comparison is with same CG)
Agree with Howard on getting the E power package models to perform Better than the gas version of the same plane.
Randy let me know if you need additional info for calculating moments
Jose Modesto

Hi Jose

Where is the CG at in distance from the prop?

Thanks
Randy

Offline jose modesto

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 842
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #53 on: June 27, 2013, 04:00:34 PM »
I agree.fly  what you like.
 I got my E model flying better than any other model that I have owned,bult,etc.  That's 47 years ,long wait.
Maybe it was a fluke.
I lost the model pilot error.distracted lost track of time,hey you forgot the last maneuver,silence,run,splat.
The model was not perfect but bit was good in my hands I was happy.
Fly what you like gas or E. I have some PA and Rojets for sale at  NATS
Jose Modesto

Offline jose modesto

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 842
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #54 on: June 27, 2013, 04:06:23 PM »
The gas model balances from spinner 13.25" The e model between 12.75 to 13"
When I add the 3/4 to 1 oz nose weight the model can balance the same.
Jose Modesto

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #55 on: June 27, 2013, 05:18:26 PM »
   Hi Jose

I tried to the CG of the components in the right place, it looks like yours is very close
   
    Shark -IC                                                                                   Shark-E         

Moment (contribution to CG), inch-oz   204.67         Moment (contribution to CG), inch-oz   218.56
Moment of inertia about CG, inch2-ozm   2190.9025         Moment of inertia about CG, inch2-ozm   2174.689

Randy

Offline jose modesto

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 842
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #56 on: June 27, 2013, 07:09:41 PM »
Randy thanks.  That is close should make a good comparison for guys looking at E power. I would love to take this model to NATS and let guys fly it one evening as gas. Next night as electric. Same model same CG and get guys input.  Just mite be fun to do. Hope I have room in the car. Wife is traveling with me since I had health issues last two NATS I attended.
Jose Modesto

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #57 on: June 27, 2013, 10:20:51 PM »
That's just my experience.  Guys like Brett and Doug and Derek get IC engines to work wonderfully, and may not get any advantage from electric. 

    After some limited experience, I would estimate that the systems are nearly equivalent when the engine is running perfectly (which, and I appreciate that someone noticed it, is pretty darned often since I got my current system working correctly). But the ability to do it every single time instead of 75+% is hard to ignore.

    Derek's observation is also one I have noticed. The feeling he attributes to electric is what we have been struggling to achieve for literally 30+ years with varying degrees of success. The key is that you have the same feel at all points in the pattern and anyplace in the circle. What happens when you *don't* have that solid feel everywhere is that you have it in some of the corners (like the center-low corners but not at the tops and not at the extremes. ST46, it was continuous random changes. The 40VF was magically perfect in that regard, it felt the same everywhere. Same with the 20FP. We got it working pretty good on the PA61 on frequent occasions and sometimes not, and never figured out how to maintain it - sometimes it would just get lost for no known reason. The RO-Jett 61 is 95% and the degree to which it does it can easily be altered by changing the fuel.  (see this post: http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=28567.0 )

   Bobby and I traded flights on our airplanes and found them to feel very nearly identical and I think this is why.

     Brett

 

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #58 on: June 27, 2013, 10:55:01 PM »
   After some limited experience, I would estimate that the systems are nearly equivalent when the engine is running perfectly (which, and I appreciate that someone noticed it, is pretty darned often since I got my current system working correctly). But the ability to do it every single time instead of 75+% is hard to ignore.

    Derek's observation is also one I have noticed. The feeling he attributes to electric is what we have been struggling to achieve for literally 30+ years with varying degrees of success. The key is that you have the same feel at all points in the pattern and anyplace in the circle. What happens when you *don't* have that solid feel everywhere is that you have it in some of the corners (like the center-low corners but not at the tops and not at the extremes. ST46, it was continuous random changes. The 40VF was magically perfect in that regard, it felt the same everywhere. Same with the 20FP. We got it working pretty good on the PA61 on frequent occasions and sometimes not, and never figured out how to maintain it - sometimes it would just get lost for no known reason. The RO-Jett 61 is 95% and the degree to which it does it can easily be altered by changing the fuel.  (see this post: http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=28567.0 )

   Bobby and I traded flights on our airplanes and found them to feel very nearly identical and I think this is why.

     Brett

  

It's still different strokes, some prefer this some like that, I get the PA's  to just flip and fly for year in year out nearly 100% of the time with very very few that are not great runs, that is as high a percentage as you will see anyone have. matter of fact I also had great motor runs with homemade engines ST, OS  AT and HP.
 Many other people have this also, and there are many Top fliers Who just flip and fly Aero engines year in year out, including some EC  pilots. Electric is NOT by any stretch of the imagination perfect every flight. This is not a knock it is just a fact, there are too many faults that can happen, switch burns out, a magnet comes loose, as shaft flies out of the front of the engine, bearing fails, battery gives up part way thru, engine just shuts off  yada yada...things happen with IC too, on occasion you will blow a plug cranking, or in the middle of a square 8, bad fuel, a bug flies into your venturie etc...
You constant knocking of Aero engines  while trying to tell people VFs are perfect is not based in reality of the large percentage of people using them, There are plently of people who cannot make an VF work well, as well as EC motors. This will always be the case as long as we fly. there are also top pilots who prefer the run of great IC engines, others prefer EC motors, use what you want it;s a free country. If certain engines were as inconsistent as a few people say there would be no way they would have won so many trophies around the US and world, and have been as dominate as they have .

Randy

Offline Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #59 on: June 27, 2013, 11:11:10 PM »
I am troubleshooting an intermittent connection as we speak-- no, not in a glow plug. 
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2830
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #60 on: June 28, 2013, 05:32:49 AM »
   After some limited experience, I would estimate that the systems are nearly equivalent when the engine is running perfectly (which, and I appreciate that someone noticed it, is pretty darned often since I got my current system working correctly). But the ability to do it every single time instead of 75+% is hard to ignore.

    Derek's observation is also one I have noticed. The feeling he attributes to electric is what we have been struggling to achieve for literally 30+ years with varying degrees of success. The key is that you have the same feel at all points in the pattern and anyplace in the circle. What happens when you *don't* have that solid feel everywhere is that you have it in some of the corners (like the center-low corners but not at the tops and not at the extremes. ST46, it was continuous random changes. The 40VF was magically perfect in that regard, it felt the same everywhere. Same with the 20FP. We got it working pretty good on the PA61 on frequent occasions and sometimes not, and never figured out how to maintain it - sometimes it would just get lost for no known reason. The RO-Jett 61 is 95% and the degree to which it does it can easily be altered by changing the fuel.  (see this post: http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=28567.0 )

   Bobby and I traded flights on our airplanes and found them to feel very nearly identical and I think this is why.

     Brett

  


 I know the run that you are describing, I had very similar results when I flew the VF 46. The low pitch high rpm runs did produce very consistent speed and power at every point in the pattern. Even when I switched to the PA40 I ran that type of setup. It was not until I moved to the bigger engines that I, almost unconsciously, started tweaking up on pitch and started working back to the 2-4 break that I grew up flying. The power is there to fly the 2-4 without having to give up anything in the way of performance. I think this is why I still prefer the IC setup over the electric, It just suits my style of flying better.

When I showed up to Sweden in 96' I was running somewhere around 2.8 pitch and turning around 12,000 rpm. This is a very efficient way to cook a tuned pipe...Thank God Paul, Dave, and Billy were there.
 

Derek

« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 07:18:32 AM by Derek Barry »

Online Doug Moon

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2188
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #61 on: June 28, 2013, 06:55:43 AM »
 ......The 40VF was magically perfect in that regard, it felt the same everywhere.....

     Brett 

I hear this often about this motor.  Why did people go away from it?  What was the draw back??

I know they dont make them anymore but people ran ST60s for a long long time after they stopped making them.

Steve had one down here.  The run was exactly the same every time.  He went away from it because he is not a "pipe" guy.  Doesnt much care for them. 

I had an OPS 40 SPA on an Aero Pipe. Outstanding run! But it wasn't as powerful as the PA line when it came out so I switched.  In my opinion, the PA 65 is without a doubt hands down the best stunt engine! I think it blows away the PA 61 as well. But like I said thats just my opnion.

I am curious whay people left the VF40.
Doug Moon
AMA 496454
Dougmoon12@yahoo.com

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2830
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #62 on: June 28, 2013, 07:14:17 AM »


  In my opinion, the PA 65 is without a doubt hands down the best stunt engine!



AGREED!!!!


Derek

Online Doug Moon

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2188
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #63 on: June 28, 2013, 07:37:00 AM »
That's just my experience.  Guys like Brett and Doug and Derek get IC engines to work wonderfully, and may not get any advantage from electric. 

I will take that as a compliment.   :) :)  Thanks!  The PA makes it alot easier though....so the credit is not all mine.
Doug Moon
AMA 496454
Dougmoon12@yahoo.com

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #64 on: June 28, 2013, 09:03:51 AM »
I hear this often about this motor.  Why did people go away from it?  What was the draw back??

I know they dont make them anymore but people ran ST60s for a long long time after they stopped making them.

Steve had one down here.  The run was exactly the same every time.  He went away from it because he is not a "pipe" guy.  Doesnt much care for them. 

I had an OPS 40 SPA on an Aero Pipe. Outstanding run! But it wasn't as powerful as the PA line when it came out so I switched.  In my opinion, the PA 65 is without a doubt hands down the best stunt engine! I think it blows away the PA 61 as well. But like I said thats just my opnion.

I am curious whay people left the VF40.

   Because at the time I couldn't get new bearings for it. Now I am doing something else, so I see any reason to change.

    Brett

Online Doug Moon

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2188
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #65 on: June 28, 2013, 09:21:57 AM »
  Because at the time I couldn't get new bearings for it. Now I am doing something else, so I see any reason to change.

    Brett

Were they like super secert bearings made from unobtanium??   ;D ;D ;D
Doug Moon
AMA 496454
Dougmoon12@yahoo.com

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #66 on: June 28, 2013, 09:32:29 AM »
Were they like super secert bearings made from unobtanium??   ;D ;D ;D

  The rear bearing was a special unique to OS type that was no longer available. Boca now has them but I have moved on.

    Brett

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #67 on: June 28, 2013, 09:57:47 AM »
Were they like super secert bearings made from unobtanium??   ;D ;D ;D

I have them in stock, as I do most always, they are exact same rear as  46  and the  fronts  are the same as many TTs mags  and the OS  SF  engines

Randy

Offline Steve Fitton

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #68 on: June 28, 2013, 10:09:22 AM »
Boca's VF bearings come from the Fukushima bearing factory in Japan.  Not sure I would trust them....
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 12:19:47 PM by Steve Fitton »
Steve

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #69 on: June 28, 2013, 03:20:36 PM »
Boca's VF bearings come from the Fukushima bearing factory in Japan.  Not sure I would trust them....

   I have replaced several sets now (the "economy* grade) and have had no issues with limited use. They are *much* smoother than the original stock bearings.

    Brett

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #70 on: June 28, 2013, 03:52:29 PM »

 I know the run that you are describing, I had very similar results when I flew the VF 46. The low pitch high rpm runs did produce very consistent speed and power at every point in the pattern. Even when I switched to the PA40 I ran that type of setup.

   That's not exactly the same thing (although Ted has been trying that one out again recently). That was our first-generation system.  The Paul Walker style system, or the system that Ted came up with for the 46VF/Eather prop is what David and I have been trying to more-or-less replicate.

    BTW, at the 96 NATs I was running the PA40 and my launch revs were in the 12,200 range and I was melting everything attached to it. I was going to withdraw but I put the 40VF in right before qualifying, flew one practice flight, and was back in business.


It was not until I moved to the bigger engines that I, almost unconsciously, started tweaking up on pitch and started working back to the 2-4 break that I grew up flying. The power is there to fly the 2-4 without having to give up anything in the way of performance

     I could almost use it still too, if I only ever flew it in the midwest/southeast. Every problem we had was greatly reduced when we went back there. By the same token, you can take a perfectly workable system from there, come out here, and it was absolutely uncontrollable. That long predates piped engines, Ted had a system that was absolutely perfect in Georgia, had Dixon box up the engine and send it, and it wouldn't work AT ALL here, usual "schneurle" problems.

    It also works a lot better with the larger engines. My understanding of the issue was the result of Paul and I comparing notes on the PA40 and coming to the conclusion that we couldn't get it to work the way we wanted, specifically, the tendency to break hard on outside corners. It had more power than the VF but the rapid acceleration was unacceptable. The 61 was much more gentle because you could detune it, but even then, it worked more like what we wanted when we pumped it up to be able to run it in a 4-stroke all the time. David discovered the spigot venturi trick that Billy was using and that pretty much got it where we wanted, most of the time.

 The RO-Jett 144 degree bar-stock version does that effortlessly and the breaks (if they happen) are far more controllable, at any level of compression. I would never run the PA across the break, but the Jett has no issue, it's like a giant 46VF (which also does a wonderfully smooth 4-2 break). Interestingly, the 136 degree Jett runs more like a PA and the 136 degree cast case Jett runs almost exactly like a PA. I think I know why but that's not for me to advertise. My early Jett 61 was rather weaker than the average PA61, my two newer ones are a lot closer. The PA you got was by far the strongest of the bunch, way better than any of Dave's.

   I have flown them back-to-back-back in the same airplane several times (40VF, PA61, RO-Jett 61 BSE) and they are completely different but probably can get about the same score. The 40 feels weak but acceptable, not surprisingly, the PA feels very strong but it's like someone is randomly blipping the throttle compared to the RO-Jett. In heavy straight wind I would rank them Jett-VF-PA, in turbulence I would rank them Jett-PA-------VF. The VF is great in straight heavy wind but the line tension is low enough that it is unnerving sometimes in turbulence. It always made it but there was no great confidence.

   Dave's efforts have centered on getting the 75 to run like a PA61 on a 11" prop (i,e, very smooth), or a RO-Jett 61 on steroids. Of all the experiments the very first "2-port" 75 was the only one that I thought worked better. There's a lot of interesting things that he had to do to get it that way.

   BTW, the 51 runs completely differently, very much like a VF, full-tilt-boogie even on the ground. It has far and away the highest static thrust, like an electric.


Quote
. I think this is why I still prefer the IC setup over the electric, It just suits my style of flying better.

     You are aware that that effect can be easily replicated with electric, right? And infinitely tweakable. They don't all run on fixed-speed governors any more.

   Brett

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2830
Re: Number from calculations actual weights IC ELC.
« Reply #71 on: June 29, 2013, 05:29:06 AM »
   That's not exactly the same thing (although Ted has been trying that one out again recently). That was our first-generation system.  The Paul Walker style system, or the system that Ted came up with for the 46VF/Eather prop is what David and I have been trying to more-or-less replicate.

    BTW, at the 96 NATs I was running the PA40 and my launch revs were in the 12,200 range and I was melting everything attached to it. I was going to withdraw but I put the 40VF in right before qualifying, flew one practice flight, and was back in business.


     I could almost use it still too, if I only ever flew it in the midwest/southeast. Every problem we had was greatly reduced when we went back there. By the same token, you can take a perfectly workable system from there, come out here, and it was absolutely uncontrollable. That long predates piped engines, Ted had a system that was absolutely perfect in Georgia, had Dixon box up the engine and send it, and it wouldn't work AT ALL here, usual "schneurle" problems.

    It also works a lot better with the larger engines. My understanding of the issue was the result of Paul and I comparing notes on the PA40 and coming to the conclusion that we couldn't get it to work the way we wanted, specifically, the tendency to break hard on outside corners. It had more power than the VF but the rapid acceleration was unacceptable. The 61 was much more gentle because you could detune it, but even then, it worked more like what we wanted when we pumped it up to be able to run it in a 4-stroke all the time. David discovered the spigot venturi trick that Billy was using and that pretty much got it where we wanted, most of the time.

 The RO-Jett 144 degree bar-stock version does that effortlessly and the breaks (if they happen) are far more controllable, at any level of compression. I would never run the PA across the break, but the Jett has no issue, it's like a giant 46VF (which also does a wonderfully smooth 4-2 break). Interestingly, the 136 degree Jett runs more like a PA and the 136 degree cast case Jett runs almost exactly like a PA. I think I know why but that's not for me to advertise. My early Jett 61 was rather weaker than the average PA61, my two newer ones are a lot closer. The PA you got was by far the strongest of the bunch, way better than any of Dave's.

   I have flown them back-to-back-back in the same airplane several times (40VF, PA61, RO-Jett 61 BSE) and they are completely different but probably can get about the same score. The 40 feels weak but acceptable, not surprisingly, the PA feels very strong but it's like someone is randomly blipping the throttle compared to the RO-Jett. In heavy straight wind I would rank them Jett-VF-PA, in turbulence I would rank them Jett-PA-------VF. The VF is great in straight heavy wind but the line tension is low enough that it is unnerving sometimes in turbulence. It always made it but there was no great confidence.

   Dave's efforts have centered on getting the 75 to run like a PA61 on a 11" prop (i,e, very smooth), or a RO-Jett 61 on steroids. Of all the experiments the very first "2-port" 75 was the only one that I thought worked better. There's a lot of interesting things that he had to do to get it that way.

   BTW, the 51 runs completely differently, very much like a VF, full-tilt-boogie even on the ground. It has far and away the highest static thrust, like an electric.


     You are aware that that effect can be easily replicated with electric, right? And infinitely tweakable. They don't all run on fixed-speed governors any more.

   Brett

Well Brett that is some interesting stuff but I do not think we are comparing apples to apples. You and Dave (to the best of my knowledge) run the engines MUCH differently than I do. I use the stock setup with a larger prop than you and Dave. I turn a full 13" three blade and this prevents most if not all of the uncontrollable breaking that you describe (not that I noticed anything like that with the smaller props). Now if I were to over compress the head, drill out the venturie and dump 15% nitro in mine I may have similar results as you and Dave.

I would love to take my exact setup from here to the northwest just to prove to you guys that it works exactly the same everywhere in the world. You know I was at the Nats in Washington State and I could not notice any changes in my engine run. I actually traveled 5000 miles the other direction a few years ago and it worked flawlessly there too.

You are correct about the 61 being a very powerful and great running engine. I put yours in my old red Evolution a year ago and took it to a contest. It fired up first flip and with very little effort pulled the 68 oz Evolution through a decent pattern. I like the 61 but my personal favorite is the 65. It is funny because the 51 run is very similar to the 65 run. There is just more power available with the 65 and it is very user friendly. It takes little effort for me to get the exact same  run every time.

Nothing against Dave but I think he has about the worst running 75 out of all that I have seen. You talk about an uncontrollable run away, have you watched his when it gets to the square eights? Its like someone just lit a rocket in the nose. He even told me that he would not let anyone fly his plane because of that problem. Dave makes it work and his accomplishments speak for themselves but I am not a fan of "his run". He and I have been round and round about what he says "has to be done" to make a PA run correctly. I on the other hand take it out of the box and put it in the plane. That is all the "work" required and I will put my run up against anyone's. As a matter of fact I will be doing that in two weeks. Will you?

As for the electric setup that is supposed to simulate what I already have. All I can ask is; Why would I switch when I already have it?

Derek


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here