Author Topic: Do we sometimes overcomplicate? (Read 2693 times)

Robert Zambelli · « **on:** February 04, 2020, 01:03:21 PM »

OK – here’s my story: My good friend asked me to restore a Super Ringmaster that he built in the early 60s. No big deal – took a while but the effort was worth it.
He asked if I could put the original Perfect 2 1/2 ounce tank in it. So I cleaned it out, put in new tubing (over/under vents), sealed it back up. Simple venting, no baffles, nothing modern.
The plane came out to 33 ounces (was 37 ounces) and is powered by a stock Fox 35 swinging a Master Airscrew 10-6 plastic prop.
To the point, this is what surprised me.

1. The Fox, which hadn’t been run in over 30 years, started with just a few flips. I ran a few tanks through it just to insure that there were no issues.
2. Flying it really surprised me. It took off lean and immediately settled into a great fast four cycle. It broke lean at just the right moment in every maneuver, never missed a beat, settled right back to a fast four in level flight. Although cutting it close, I was able to do the entire OTS pattern with the old Fox running the same the whole flight. Then it ran lean for around a half lap and quit.
The only trim I needed was a small aluminum tab to counteract a slight wing warp. I did not move the leadouts – they were as shown on the plans.
I know that there has been a lot of development on fuel systems – clunk tanks, uniflow, baffling, muffler pressure, chicken hoppers, etc.
But after a substantial number of really enjoyable flights with the Ringmaster, I wonder why things are no longer simple.
As Einstein stated, everything should be as simple as possible but no simpler!!

Bob Z.

ps - not looking to change anything, just sharing my experience.

gene poremba · « **Reply #1 on:** February 04, 2020, 01:40:48 PM »

Bob, you must be liveing right! That's a beautiful job you did on the restoration....gene

Al Takatsch · « **Reply #2 on:** February 04, 2020, 01:51:28 PM »

Gene hit it on the head, beautiful job.
Wish I could see it fly.

Al T.

Brett Buck · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2020, 03:29:17 PM »

Quote from: Robert Zambelli on February 04, 2020, 01:03:21 PM

The only trim I needed was a small aluminum tab to counteract a slight wing warp. I did not move the leadouts – they were as shown on the plans.
I know that there has been a lot of development on fuel systems – clunk tanks, uniflow, baffling, muffler pressure, chicken hoppers, etc.
But after a substantial number of really enjoyable flights with the Ringmaster, I wonder why things are no longer simple.
As Einstein stated, everything should be as simple as possible but no simpler!!

Because there is a huge difference between the requirements for successful sport flying, and competing with Paul Walker/David Fitzgerald/Orestes Hernandez, etc. You can try flying your simple combination at the NATs, you will get pounded, and it's not because of impression points or the judges discriminating against Fox 35s, any more than it was against ST60s.

This is just like the 4-stroke thing - yes, you can get it to run on the RC carb and a Veco T-21 tank, as long as you aren't too picky. It runs a lot better with a real venturi and a clunk tank. Sport fliers might not care, and a problem that might be trivial to you might be a show-stopper for competition.

And there are certainly a lot of people who probably don't need to or don't know how to apply advanced techniques that might make a big difference to a Paul Walker, but just cause the less-skilled to get into trouble just due to the complexity. The engine forum is chock full of it, the last time I checked there isn't a single question on the first 10 pages that relates to any competitive engine setup, but tons of "grind this and drill that" threads that are almost certainly unnecessary and detrimental. The best stunt engines and packages that have ever existed, exist now, along with every bit of necessary information - but no one is interested.

I spend most of my time telling people to use stock engines straight out of the box, because they work great that way, in general.

None of this is of any real harm, it's inevitable when you have such a wide range of skills all inhabiting the same place and time, literally, guys just learning to fly, to national and world champions. People try stuff, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes they are over their heads - what difference does it make? No one is looking down on anyone, and we aren't curing cancer.

Brett

Scott Richlen · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2020, 03:56:55 PM »

You run onto Super Ringmasters every once in a while and they are usually awful-looking. Many have spent years in an attic or a basement and they usually haven't been constructed very well to begin with. But don't walk on by!

I'd guess from the pictures that one of the most important things Bob did was replace the control system. Most of the ones I have run into are in need of new control systems as the original equipment was not always installed correctly and, of course, the lead-outs are usually trashed. But the nice thing about the Super Ringmaster, as Bob pointed out, is that it is relatively simple and actually quite easy to rebuild. Not guaranteeing that your's will come out as nice as Bob's, but with a little weight reduction (notice that the ribs were swiss-cheesed) and average building skills you can have a nice plane.

And they are great for sabre-dancing!

EddyR · « **Reply #5 on:** February 04, 2020, 06:50:14 PM »

I think Bob had some fun with the old Ringmaster. I doubt he needed to know why the few who still go to the NATs will not be using one soon.

bob whitney · « **Reply #6 on:** February 04, 2020, 07:46:37 PM »

some how I cant find the veco tank or the RC carb?

pat king · « **Reply #7 on:** February 04, 2020, 07:54:54 PM »

Great looking airplane! Sometimes designers who are world class in their field or even the most successful in their field get carried away being clever and solving imagined or perceived problems that just do not exist. It is easy for a designer to be so clever as to complicate a design with features that are not needed for the application. As Brett points out there is a big difference between a sport airplane and one for top level precision aerobatic competition. In general the simplest design the will do the job is the best design for that job. "Boss" Kettering an early GM Chief Engineer would tell his engineers that "no part left out of a automobile ever failed". Statistically any individual part in an assembly can fail. Therefore the more individual parts the higher probability of a failure. The old "Keep it Simple Stupid" is a good way to go. High performance machinery in any discipline can get very sophisticated and complex.
A nice clean sport airplane just has less things to go wrong.

Pat

Dave Hull · « **Reply #8 on:** February 04, 2020, 08:35:52 PM »

I think Pat's explanation is a good one, until the GM Kettering statement clouded the issue. The idea that complexity always degrades reliability is not quite true in many engineering situations. I've seen this stated too many times and seen it applied too broadly. It sounds good so it's easy to believe it. In aerospace engineering, there's always some guy--usually in charge of cutting costs--who can convince the chief engineer (who should know better) that some features were unnecessary and should be left out. I have a quote around here somewhere by some of the guys that designed WWII radial engines that touched on this. I'll see if I can find it.

Yeah, yeah. I can hear guys saying "@#$%&*." So let me give some examples.

You design a car engine. Needs to withstand normal wear and tear and driver abuse. Fuel economy matters because gas is going up. An aluminum block is lighter, and easier to machine. Less cost to ship due to lighter weight. Sliding contact speeds are known. Heat treat and hardness are known. Let's do away with the steel cylinder liners because they are just unneeded complexity. The shrink fits, the secondary honing, etc. Get rid of all of it. So instead of a good, reliable engine, you get---the Vega.

Same argument for P&W valve seats, etc. There are known improvements in life and reliability when the necessary functions are designed right, even if they are more complicated. You want a good connecting rod in SuperGonzo Stunt motor? Well, a 7075 billet job--with bronze bushings--would be ideal. Go ahead and run without the bronze if you are fully invested in the "complexity always equals unreliability" theory. Good luck with that....

So you don't like the reliability of a turbo-compound aircraft engine (think Super Connie) due to the huge parts count? Despite liners, seats etc. of the right materials matchup? But you have to have the same or more horsepower? Then you need a revolutionary concept, not an evolutionary one, as perhaps Whittle foresaw. Oh, and how many years and how much new metallurgy did it take before a jet engine achieved the same power level while exceeding the reliability of a big radial....?

So when this "rule" is applied narrowly to a design that has specific requirements, and you can evaluate "leaving it out" I would agree that it can improve reliability. For example, a manual window regulator on your car. If designed with equal skill, it is going to be more reliable than the fancier electric version. If all the spec says is that a passenger has to be able to fully open and close each window for 10,000 cycles over a 10 year period without maintenance or parts replacement--then either will do the job--but the manual one should be more reliable, which is what the rule is really saying.

The Divot

pat king · « **Reply #9 on:** February 05, 2020, 07:37:42 AM »

Dave is correct in his analysis. The high Silicon Aluminum unsleeved blocks were great in race engines that were not expected to last 100,000+ miles. In the street engine in a Vega with the general public maintaining or not maintaining the engine they were a miserable failure. Higher part count or complexity does not have to mean lower reliability, but does demand greater care in the design stage to ensure that the design reliability is not compromised.

Full scale aircraft engines and I would think the "SuperGonzo" stunt motor are high performance machinery. They must be designed for the service and the relative reliability needed for safety.

I was fortunate to be in a position where reliability and proper operation were never even possibly compromised for cost reduction. If some bean counter had come to me and told me we must reduce the cost of a design I would have thrown him out of my office and recommended to my boss (the President of the corporation) that he be fired. A failure of our equipment could kill a dozen people in a few seconds and do millions of dollars in damage to capital equipment.

Aerospace is tied to the government, therefore there is interference in design from people whose only concern is cost reduction. Any equipment that puts human life at risk must never be compromised for the sake of cost.

Pat

Robert Zambelli · « **Reply #10 on:** February 06, 2020, 10:06:06 PM »

Thanks Gene, Al, Scott, Eddie, Bob and Pat for the kind responses. I really enjoyed working on the Super Ringmaster. Jim is really pleased.

Pat, great post about Kettering. His work on the simple points/coil/condenser system truly made a mark on the automotive world.
He was in the same class of engineers as McPherson.
KEEP IT SIMPLE!

Now for the negative – Brett, in my opinion, your post is totally irrelevant. Did I mention anywhere that I intended this plane for any sort of competition? Seems like you’re telling me that no matter how well a pilot flies, the plane matters more. So, if a top notch flyer shows up at the nats with a Super Ringmaster and puts in a perfect flight, he will get “pounded”? I truly doubt it. When I was judging at VSC a while back, one of the most outstanding flights was done by a Ringmaster. Beautifully finished, VECO 19 as I recall but I can’t remember the pilot (might have been Fitzgerald). I judged the FLIGHT, not the plane. And, I do not understand your comment about ST 60s and four stroke engine but PLEASE, don’t bother explaining.

And, I suggest that you get your information straight – the Super Ringmaster IS NOT a sport plane. It is very capable and in the right hands would do quite well in Classic or Old Time. Some people here can attest to that.

And Dave, although a bit off the point, you made some interesting comments about the Vega engine. My professor in metallurgical science was a consultant for Reynolds Aluminum, supplier of the silicon-aluminum blocks for the Vega. What many people don’t know is that Reynolds also supplied the aluminum blocks to McClaren Cars. They were 454 CID and used in the Can-Am cars in the late sixties. The quality was so sporadic that McClaren rejected four out of five blocks for casting inconsistencies! Chevrolet, on the other hand used EVERY ONE in the Vega! Thanks to John DeLorean.

Now, let’s keep this thread in context – Fox 35 powered Super Ringmasters!

Bob Z.

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #11 on:** February 06, 2020, 10:51:17 PM »

. What many people don’t know is that Reynolds also supplied the aluminum blocks to McClaren Cars. They were 454 CID and used in the Can-Am cars in the late sixties.

Bob Z.
[/quote]

Actually Bob. The big block that Reynolds and Chevrolet developed was a 427. When a number of Super Stock drag racers learned about this motor, they found a way through the back channels to order Camaros through the Central Office Production Order AKA COPO. 69 of these COPO ZL-1 Camaros were built.
The 454 did not come out until 1970, and I don’t recall Chevrolet or Reynolds building an aluminum motor in that displacement. Although doable, the 427 and 454 used the same block.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

Brett Buck · « **Reply #12 on:** February 06, 2020, 11:59:11 PM »

Quote from: Robert Zambelli on February 06, 2020, 10:06:06 PM

Now for the negative – Brett, in my opinion, your post is totally irrelevant. Did I mention anywhere that I intended this plane for any sort of competition? Seems like you’re telling me that no matter how well a pilot flies, the plane matters more. So, if a top notch flyer shows up at the nats with a Super Ringmaster and puts in a perfect flight, he will get “pounded”? I truly doubt it. When I was judging at VSC a while back, one of the most outstanding flights was done by a Ringmaster. Beautifully finished, VECO 19 as I recall but I can’t remember the pilot (might have been Fitzgerald). I judged the FLIGHT, not the plane. And, I do not understand your comment about ST 60s and four stroke engine but PLEASE, don’t bother explaining.

Of course you do.

A Super Ringmaster is not a good solution to win a 2020 stunt contest, and while expert fliers like David Fitzgerald (the leading candidate of a very short list as *the best stunt pilot who has every flown the event" and with a record that is very unlikely to be surpassed, ever) can make a good show of it with just about anything, he will not tell you it's a good choice, either. Least of all people will less-than-David skills.

People with lesser skills need *better* equipment - which, compared to David, means almost *everyone on Earth* (myself included) - and you are seemingly dedicated to misleading them into just the opposite.

Note that I also said that this sort of difference and wide range of skills is a feature, not a bug, and we have guys from one end of the spectrum to the other, so it is inevitable that the sort of stuff you know, or might want to know, is different from what Paul/Derek/Ted/Brett might want to know or discuss.

I have no idea why a whole bunch of people working at different points along the same curve, mostly in harmony, seems to infuriate you so, or why you periodically go far out of your way to disrupt it.

I also of course expected you to express your mock offense, just like when you attacked Dirty Dan for, more-or-less, nothing (Oy Gevalt!) or the several times you have done it with me previously.

Brett

Steve Dwyer · « **Reply #13 on:** February 07, 2020, 05:51:55 AM »

Bob Z.

Nice restoration job. Wondering what the white material is you are using to make the fillets and build up around the cowl? Does the material sand down easily and does it add strength?

I have used 30 min Epoxy with micro balloons for fillets and Hobbico's Hobby Lite Filler for small depressions. The HL has no strength and the Epoxy is almost impossible to sand or shape.

Steve

John Park · « **Reply #14 on:** February 07, 2020, 06:22:43 AM »

Just to lighten the tone a little, here's a story about complication. In England in the mid-1950s, the hottest Class A team-race engine generally available was the 2.46cc ED 'Racer' - a twin ball-race, rear rotary induction diesel whose cost matched its level of complication. When the new Oliver Tiger III made it obsolete for team racing, you could often pick up a good second-hand example for use in a medium-sized stunter such as Dave Platt's 'Spectre', which was available as a KeilKraft kit. The funny thing about the Spectre was that, with the kit tank (un-baffled, non-Uniflo), the ONLY engine that would fly it successfully was the ED Racer. A plain-bearing, shaft-valve engine would invariably burp or cut in the squares, and lean-out as the tank emptied (I tried mine with a PAW diesel and a Testors McCoy .19, both of which ran well in other stunters), but the heavy, complicated old ED always ran the tank out with no fuss at all. I've never understood why.

Robert Zambelli · « **Reply #15 on:** February 07, 2020, 07:28:47 AM »

I also of course expected you to express your mock offense, just like when you attacked Dirty Dan for, more-or-less, nothing .

Bullsh**

Peter in Fairfax, VA · « **Reply #16 on:** February 07, 2020, 07:55:03 AM »

Nice Super Ringmaster, Bob. Hope you bring it to Brodak's. Are you attending this year?

Peter

Robert Zambelli · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2020, 08:24:27 AM »

Quote from: Steve Dwyer on February 07, 2020, 05:51:55 AM

Bob Z.

Nice restoration job. Wondering what the white material is you are using to make the fillets and build up around the cowl? Does the material sand down easily and does it add strength?

I have used 30 min Epoxy with micro balloons for fillets and Hobbico's Hobby Lite Filler for small depressions. The HL has no strength and the Epoxy is almost impossible to sand or shape.

Steve

Hi, Steve - thanks for the response.
Believe it or not, the filler is plain old talcum powder and (non-tautening) dope.
Yes, it sands easily, no, it does not add strength at all!
However, a thin coat of Finish Coat epoxy really strengthens it.

If you want a really fine fillet material, try the Brodak Super Fil light epoxy filler, item number BH-924.
It goes on easily and sands without any problems.
I cannot attest to the strength as I have not tested it by crashing a plane - YET!
Best of luck,

Bob Z.

Robert Zambelli · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2020, 08:32:21 AM »

Quote from: Peter in Fairfax, VA on February 07, 2020, 07:55:03 AM

Nice Super Ringmaster, Bob. Hope you bring it to Brodak's. Are you attending this year?

Peter

Hi, Pete, thanks for the compliment - yes, I plan to attend the Brodak Fly-In this year.
Don't think I'll bring the Super Ringmaster as Jim plans on doing a lot of flying with it.
Besides, I will be driving a small car and there won't be room.
I drove it year before last and, as you can see, it was pretty full!

Best regards, Bob Z.

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2020, 11:28:03 AM »

Hi Bob:

You got THOSE planes and THAT stuff in THAT car?

Seeing the hanger door open reminds me to ask, How is the Swift project coming?

Robert Zambelli · « **Reply #20 on:** February 07, 2020, 12:00:57 PM »

Hi, Mike - yep, EVERYTHING fits in that little car. But, I can't carry any passengers!

Regarding the Swift. I sold the "project" Swift and bought another. This one is fully restored and in like-new condition.
It's serial number eleven and upgraded to sticks, Cessna seats, modern instrument panel and a Continental O-300 engine.
A real blast to fly.

Bob Z.

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #21 on:** February 07, 2020, 12:22:34 PM »

You are definitely living right! And I bet you have a shooting range somewhere on your property! That Swift sounds like the cat's meow, Swift-wise.

Ronald Eshleman · « **Reply #22 on:** February 09, 2020, 09:34:02 AM »

Bob, I’m just completing a “pair” of “Super Ringmaster’s I-purchased on EBay. I love the look. I love building Ringmaster wings. I covered mine withe Brodak film & Monokote. Purple, white , silver & a smidge of red outline. They are both powered by 25’s. I enjoyed your article & will add pics if I figure out how!...I’m 64...nearly 65 & a bit smart!...But my phone is “smarter!” My word for the day...”impact.” Lasts a moment...How was it? Have a GR8 1020 season!

pat king · « **Reply #23 on:** February 09, 2020, 12:05:33 PM »

Ronald,
You need a Super Ringmaster 45 to go with those.

Pat

Robert Zambelli · « **Reply #24 on:** February 09, 2020, 12:17:19 PM »

Quote from: Mike Scholtes on February 07, 2020, 12:22:34 PM

You are definitely living right! And I bet you have a shooting range somewhere on your property! That Swift sounds like the cat's meow, Swift-wise.

Actually, I do have a shooting range - in my backyard!
I shoot right off my back deck.
I share a private airport with four other families (NO KIDS!).
The airpark is gated and secure with only one way in or out.
We have a 3200 foot turf runway surrounded by a paved taxiway.
The shooting range is a 1/2 mile long fairly dense woods next to my house so we can shoot anything we want.

Yes, the Swift is a gem. That photo was taken just after it finished a seven year restoration.

Bob Z.

Howard Rush · « **Reply #25 on:** February 09, 2020, 04:51:58 PM »

Quote from: Robert Zambelli on February 09, 2020, 12:17:19 PM

NO KIDS!...we can shoot anything we want.

Lucky you. Shoot kids here and they make a big deal of it, like they're some kind of endangered species.

Robert Zambelli · « **Reply #26 on:** February 09, 2020, 04:55:21 PM »

Actually, they just move to fast to draw a bead!!

Seriously, we have no restrictions on firearms.

We have fired everything from a muzzle load musket to an Uzi and Thompson SMG.

Robert Zambelli · « **Reply #27 on:** February 09, 2020, 04:58:21 PM »

Ronald and Pat - your Supers are awesome!!

Do they fly as good as they look?

Pat - what engine do you have on the "45"?

Bob Z.

John Stiles · « **Reply #28 on:** February 13, 2020, 05:28:20 AM »

Pretty darn awesome restore, and awesome to hear the flight details. Makes me miss all my ringmaster planes and fun building planes that fly right.

pat king · « **Reply #29 on:** February 13, 2020, 09:33:36 PM »

Bob,
The Super Ringmaster 45 was built by Dennis Lipset from my kit. I believe the engine is an OS 46. The airplane has a 52 1/2" wingspan and 593 square inches of wing area.

Pat

Gary Dowler · « **Reply #30 on:** February 13, 2020, 10:20:03 PM »

Quote from: Howard Rush on February 09, 2020, 04:51:58 PM

Lucky you. Shoot kids here and they make a big deal of it, like they're some kind of endangered species.

Now THATS hilarious!!!!!

Gary Dowler · « **Reply #31 on:** February 13, 2020, 10:27:36 PM »

Quote from: pat king on February 13, 2020, 09:33:36 PM

Bob,
The Super Ringmaster 45 was built by Dennis Lipset from my kit. I believe the engine is an OS 46. The airplane has a 52 1/2" wingspan and 593 square inches of wing area.

Pat

So is this the same as the Ringmaster Imperial? The one I have was bought from an old modeler and is 50", but the wing tips had been shortened a little during a rebuild of the wing.

Gary

Dave_Trible · « **Reply #32 on:** February 14, 2020, 08:00:27 AM »

No. The Ringmaster Imperial is closer to a full blown stunt airplane. It has flaps. Built light, it will fly amazingly well too and would be competitive in Classic events. To me the only drawback is it's really short nose makes it hard to get a large enough tank in it. I'm guessing they were still flying the one-lap-between-manuevers routine when it was designed. I have an old kit I may make a lighter copy of someday and I will create more space rearward to get a little bigger tank in.

Dave

Peter in Fairfax, VA · « **Reply #33 on:** February 14, 2020, 08:21:46 AM »

Dave's comment about building light makes a lot of sense. In an ideal world, every set of plans would indicate the designer's choices for wood, in terms of density and grain pattern.

pat king · « **Reply #34 on:** February 14, 2020, 10:56:50 AM »

Quote from: Gary Dowler on February 13, 2020, 10:27:36 PM

So is this the same as the Ringmaster Imperial? The one I have was bought from an old modeler and is 50", but the wing tips had been shortened a little during a rebuild of the wing.

Gary

The Super Ringmaster 45 uses the wing from my Ringmaster 593. It is not a Ringmaster Imperial wing. The Ringmaster 593 is a 1 1/4 scale Ringmaster. The rib profile is better and thicker than the Ringmaster S1 or S1A rib profile. The rib profile is not "polywog as is the S1. I sell kits of Ringmasters for engines from TD .010, TD .020, Pee Wee .020, Radial mount .049, Beam mount .049, Beam mount .061, .09 to .15, .19 to .35, 1 1/4 scale for .45, 1 1/2 scale for .60, and 2X scale for 1.08 to 1.20 2 stroke or 2.40 4 stroke.
Pat

Robert Zambelli · « **Reply #35 on:** February 16, 2020, 06:27:07 AM »

Larry: my mistake - you are quite correct.
Can Am was originally called Group 7, indicating a maximum allowable displacement of seven liters, or 427 cubic inches.
When I was speaking to the team manager of McClaren Racing at Mosport in 1971 (we we campaigning a car also), he told me that since the cast iron 454 was successful in Chevrolet cars, they had ordered some Reynolds blocks with 454 displacement, in anticipation of a rules change. As I recall, this was in the early 70s.
Since I left auto racing in 1973 and turned to motocross, I don't know if the change ever happened.
You might have more info to share.

Bob Z.

Quote from Larry: "Actually Bob. The big block that Reynolds and Chevrolet developed was a 427. When a number of Super Stock drag racers learned about this motor, they found a way through the back channels to order Camaros through the Central Office Production Order AKA COPO. 69 of these COPO ZL-1 Camaros were built.
The 454 did not come out until 1970, and I don’t recall Chevrolet or Reynolds building an aluminum motor in that displacement. Although doable, the 427 and 454 used the same block.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team"