Power for Ted's Imitation

[Mike Griffin]

I am about to finish an Imitation that I started a couple of years ago .  I drilled the RC mount for  LA .46 but sold the engine somewhere along the way.  How about a Super Tgre .46 for power or. A SuperTigre .51? Any body else flying one out there and if so, what are you using?

Thanks
Mike

[Steve Helmick]

Haven't got one, but Paul Walker said he had one (long ago) with a ST .60bb, and it flew well. Bob Duncan flew one with an Aero Tiger .36...worked very well. Anything in between should be good. Some like a 4-4-4 run, some like a 4-2-4 run, and some like a 2-2-2 run. Whatever you like, it'll do good by you. I'd probably hang a G.51 on it, or a 2Star .60.    Steve

[Ted Fancher]

Hi Mike,

I flew the original on a number of the then popular .40s and an ST .46 all of which worked just fine.  My favorite, however, (remember, this was way back--even B4 the short lived four stroke revolution) was an Enya .46 four stroke running fast on a four pitch prop.  It was a harbinger of the same kind or run we eventually ran with OS and PA .40s with pipes.  It flew that well, by the way, at around 62 oz dry despite the modest wing area compared to most of its period contemporaries with the same power systems.

The bottom line is pretty much the airplane, however, as any engine in that range running a legitimately good stunt run (as appropriate for the engine) will fly the Imitation very well.  It was really "right" sized for those engines and never demanded too much of any of them.  I attributed its performance to the long tip to tip, narrow width wingie thing without excessively broad flippers on the back edge (In the olden days I would have dared to say a modest area, high aspect ratio wing with narrow chord flaps to reduce adverse pitching moment and drag...but I'm afraid to anymore).  It's a very good airplane.

Ted

p.s. too bad you got rid of the LA .46.  Never owned one but have been impressed by many.  It appears to have all the "oomph/cojones/muscle and/or poop" you'd need to make the flying thingy do cool tricks.

[Walter Hicks]

Mike , I have flown one of my own and been around Imitations since 1984.Very ,very good airplane. The early ones were flown with ST .46.
Mine had an LA .46 and ST .46. Current ones I have seen, Aero Tiger .36, OS VF .40,.46 with pipe. PA .61 SE, RO Jett .61 with pipe.Saito .40.
A good Tiger .51 would be a good choice. It kind of depends on what you are going to do with it and the weight. However I have seen
some not so light ones still fly very well. Basically power it with any of the above and others it is a very easy to fly , excellent flying
airplane.Do not worry if the fuse bends in flight it will still fly well.( I know we all want the stiff fuse ) the early ones could be seen with
the tail twisting in flight and still kick butt! Pictured is my Imitation which is only different aesthetically to like a Chipmunk, 56 oz, LA .46
has Trivial Pursuit sized stab and elevator , slightly larger flaps and different wing tips and rudder , Sig Chipmunk cowl but is an Imitation
and flew well.

[Ted Fancher]

I've built and flown two Imitations. One with an ST .46 and one with an OS .46LA-S. Either or as to the engines, it is a great flying profile, illegal at three contests. SIG, St . Louis and Paducah.   

Hmmm.  That seems a little odd.  There's enough flat 1/2" sheet in the fuse to make a half dozen Ringmaster fuselages.  That may be a bit of an exaggeration .

Maybe if you turned the RC mount 90 degrees to the outside of the circle.  The nose is pretty much solid balsa and taller than it is wide...plus its got a big hole in the middle so the engine can shake just like the Fox in the Ringmasters.  Still no?  Alas, at least I tried.

The other solution is to make an Imitation with a built up fuselage for "pro" stunt...the one on the Excitation plans pretty much plugs onto the Imitation wing with little modification.  David Fitzgerald did pretty darn well with several of those for years before the Stargazers and Thundergazers germinated in his fertile mind.

Ted 

[Crist Rigotti]

I've built and flown two Imitations. One with an ST .46 and one with an OS .46LA-S. Either or as to the engines, it is a great flying profile, illegal at three contests. SIG, St . Louis and Paducah.   

What makes it illegal?

[bill bischoff]

I would assume he means it's illegal for profile because it doesn't meet the profile definition in the CL General rules.

[Dan McEntee]

   It is not legal because it does not have a side mounted engine. I would not be opposed to do as Ted suggests and rotae the engine mount to a side winder position to meet the criteria. A LOT of people seem to forget that the original intent of the profile class, and most clubs refereed to it as "Profile .40" or shortened to "P-.40 Stunt". It was intended as an easy does it entry level class. One advantage of a profile model for beginning and intermediate level flyers is that you can leave all the control points exposed for easy adjustment and change. The same with the engine and tank installation. Having a side winder engine presents a challenge to get a proper engine run, but because of the exposed nature of the components, adjustment is easy. Engine size was limited to no larger than a .40 because of the many engines available and for lesser cost. Everyone has a .15..29,.35 or a .40 of some kind laying around. I believe SIG was the first to hold the event many years ago and they started the 10 point bonus "no flaps rule."  We here in the St. Louis area adopted that set of rules for our contest because many of us attended the SIG contest through the years. We have always pointed that out in our contest flyers, and P-.40 Stunt was always one of the largest entered events at the SIG contest. This was all at least in the mid-1990's. Mike Pratt designed the Primary Force specifically to fit these rules. I think Ted Fancher came up with his "Doctor" for some of the same reasons, lots of .40's out there and eliminate the flaps to make trimming easier. In both cases, the designers hit the proverbial nail on the head, and Mike Pratt is working on an update to the Primary Force. Over the years, many clubs just started to massage the rules for their own events, allowing larger engines and "Rabe" front ends. All Rabe started the upright engine profile trend with his "Mustunt" series. And why did he do that? It makes it EASIER TO SET UP THE ENGINE FOR THE BEST RUN! This however eliminates the challenge of setting up a side winder engine. Not the first time that has happened to a new event, and certainly won't be the last.
   Now, to further drive home the profile variety, our club has decided to levee a ten point penalty to electric models entered in profile at our contests. This was done to keep in the ORIGINAL INTENT of the rules, which were developed long before electric models were practical, and the main reason being there is a distinct advantage to running an electric power plant because there is no "side winder" position for the motor or tank position to determine. We gave this a lot of thought and discussion and decided to hold to the original intent of the event. I'll volunteer that it was my idea, as I'm sort of a traditionalist! If you are angered by this, we are sorry but all of our contests will be run this way this year, at least. If you want to counter act the penalty, build an electric profile model with no flaps and pick up the 10 point bonus!
   Hope this helps some understand.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Randy Cuberly]

Mike were I in your predicament I would get a Enya 50SS and use it.  This engine gives a great powerful stunt run (I have one) and in my opinion would be perfect for an Imitation.

Randy Cuberly

[Mike Scholtes]

I powered my Imitation with an LA46 and it was an excellent combination. I also have an ST51 (current version) and think that would also be a great choice for the Immy. Re the tail waggle, I anticipated that and added CF strips to each side of the fuselage, 2 on each side, from wing high point to end of stab. It still waggled but not as much. That model was retired to become a club stunt trainer.

Larry Wong here in the NorCal area has built several beautiful full-fuse Imitations and they fly very well. Eliminates all the profile issues.

Ted - why do you trepidate at the idea of mentioning smallish wingie things with narrowish flippers to reduce opposite pitch? The concept seems to be pretty well proved by (1) you (2) David (3) lots of other people.

[Chris McMillin]

   It is not legal because it does not have a side mounted engine. I would not be opposed to do as Ted suggests and rotae the engine mount to a side winder position to meet the criteria. A LOT of people seem to forget that the original intent of the profile class, and most clubs refereed to it as "Profile .40" or shortened to "P-.40 Stunt". It was intended as an easy does it entry level class. One advantage of a profile model for beginning and intermediate level flyers is that you can leave all the control points exposed for easy adjustment and change. The same with the engine and tank installation. Having a side winder engine presents a challenge to get a proper engine run, but because of the exposed nature of the components, adjustment is easy. Engine size was limited to no larger than a .40 because of the many engines available and for lesser cost. Everyone has a .15..29,.35 or a .40 of some kind laying around. I believe SIG was the first to hold the event many years ago and they started the 10 point bonus "no flaps rule."  We here in the St. Louis area adopted that set of rules for our contest because many of us attended the SIG contest through the years. We have always pointed that out in our contest flyers, and P-.40 Stunt was always one of the largest entered events at the SIG contest. This was all at least in the mid-1990's. Mike Pratt designed the Primary Force specifically to fit these rules. I think Ted Fancher came up with his "Doctor" for some of the same reasons, lots of .40's out there and eliminate the flaps to make trimming easier. In both cases, the designers hit the proverbial nail on the head, and Mike Pratt is working on an update to the Primary Force. Over the years, many clubs just started to massage the rules for their own events, allowing larger engines and "Rabe" front ends. All Rabe started the upright engine profile trend with his "Mustunt" series. And why did he do that? It makes it EASIER TO SET UP THE ENGINE FOR THE BEST RUN! This however eliminates the challenge of setting up a side winder engine. Not the first time that has happened to a new event, and certainly won't be the last.
   Now, to further drive home the profile variety, our club has decided to levee a ten point penalty to electric models entered in profile at our contests. This was done to keep in the ORIGINAL INTENT of the rules, which were developed long before electric models were practical, and the main reason being there is a distinct advantage to running an electric power plant because there is no "side winder" position for the motor or tank position to determine. We gave this a lot of thought and discussion and decided to hold to the original intent of the event. I'll volunteer that it was my idea, as I'm sort of a traditionalist! If you are angered by this, we are sorry but all of our contests will be run this way this year, at least. If you want to counter act the penalty, build an electric profile model with no flaps and pick up the 10 point bonus!
   Hope this helps some understand.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

I remember when I won it at St. Louis flying Gary Hajek's Mustunt type model that Bob Arata was really itching to disqualify me! I think Gary kept him from it...
One thing for sure, old style profiles are shaky.
Chris...

[SteveMoon]

I powered my Imitation with several different motors, including electric
over the years. My favorite was the Saito 40 4S with a three blade prop.
Great combo!

Steve

[proparc]

Mike were I in your predicament I would get a Enya 50SS and use it.  This engine gives a great powerful stunt run (I have one) and in my opinion would be perfect for an Imitation.

Randy Cuberly

That is a good one.

[Mike Griffin]

Thank you all for some really great ideas guys.  This helps a lot.

Mike

[Brett Buck]

The other solution is to make an Imitation with a built up fuselage for "pro" stunt...the one on the Excitation plans pretty much plugs onto the Imitation wing with little modification.  David Fitzgerald did pretty darn well with several of those for years before the Stargazers and Thundergazers germinated in his fertile mind.

 The Thundergazer came out very much like an Imitation, too, although that it partly convergent evolution.  How many times have we watched someone fly some of that era airplanes (like Popmoso with the Citation V and the young man from South Africa at the WC) with something like an 46VF, turned to each other and asked "why is it that we don't fly those anymore?" because it looks so good.

     You will be pleasantly surprised at my electric, assuming it ever gets done, because the numbers will look pretty familiar.  As pleasantly as you could be, given that it's a "beeper and whiner" instead of a manly engine.


    Brett

[Randy Cuberly]

The Thundergazer came out very much like an Imitation, too, although that it partly convergent evolution.  How many times have we watched someone fly some of that era airplanes (like Popmoso with the Citation V and the young man from South Africa at the WC) with something like an 46VF, turned to each other and asked "why is it that we don't fly those anymore?" because it looks so good.

     You will be pleasantly surprised at my electric, assuming it ever gets done, because the numbers will look pretty familiar.  As pleasantly as you could be, given that it's a "beeper and whiner" instead of a manly engine.


    Brett

Awwww Brett...you finally succumbed to the Dark Side?    

Randy Cuberly

[Brett Buck]

Awwww Brett...you finally succumbed to the Dark Side?    

   Not yet, and at my rate of production, not any time soon. I hate to spend a lot of time on it, now that we can have essentially perfect stunt engines.

    Brett

[proparc]

   Not yet, and at my rate of production, not any time soon. I hate to spend a lot of time on it, now that we can have essentially perfect stunt engines.

    Brett

Glad to hear your going to be with the "oilers" for at least for a little while longer.  Nice to see one of the "big guns" keeping the flame.

[Brett Buck]

Glad to hear your going to be with the "oilers" for at least for a little while longer.  Nice to see one of the "big guns" keeping the flame.

  I think it is clear with our current level of understanding (much of which has been developed, if you can believe it, in the last 3-4 years) we can get it to respond in a nearly ideal manner almost all the time. David and I were just talking about this a few weeks ago, and given this, and the generally higher energy density with IC engines, we may still have an a very slight performance edge over electric in some conditions. That will go away soon enough, I expect, but for now it's plenty viable.  It's not like tuned pipe engines, where it didn't take long to figure that the ST46/ST60 was dead as a doornail - in my case, about a second and a half (about 1/4 lap).

   But it's also clear that the improved repeatability and simplified reaction to varying air density or electric will eventually win out as the state of the art rapidly advances. There's really no holy war between IC and electric, although some people want to see it that way.

   Even now, both IC and electric repeatability seems to exceed *my* repeatability as a pilot, as the NATs showed. 4th place at a NATs isn't bad and any time you fly in the flyoff, it is an honor. But for a variety of reasons, I couldn't even fly to my usual standard in either 2014 or 2015 on Saturday. I know what the issues were, mostly, but it remains to be seen if I can overcome them in the future.

    Brett

[Dan McEntee]

I remember when I won it at St. Louis flying Gary Hajek's Mustunt type model that Bob Arata was really itching to disqualify me! I think Gary kept him from it...
One thing for sure, old style profiles are shaky.
Chris...

   Hi Chris!
    That was a one time only contest that was profile only. I think it was put on by the club Gary Frost and I were trying to get started out in St. Charles. I think there were twelve entrants, and only two or three airplanes because most fleew that model you are talking about!!! I think 5 to 7 guys flew that airplane. I forgot what I entered. Would you believe that model is still around! Gary Frost has it and he gets it out every now and then. I think he rebuilt the nose as it was getting fuel soaked. Lots a flights on that airplane!!!
   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Ted Fancher]

Ted - why do you trepidate at the idea of mentioning smallish wingie things with narrowish flippers to reduce opposite pitch? The concept seems to be pretty well proved by (1) you (2) David (3) lots of other people.

Mike,  Just a "needle" to a good friend and great modeler who enjoys needling those of us who pontificate aerodynamically with virulently verbose verbiage from time to time.  All in good fun.  It's what over the hill stunt fliers do to fill the time they used to spend building and flying.

Ted