stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Claudio Chacon on January 29, 2021, 08:55:58 AM
-
Hi guys!
I have a NIB ST.46 since 1983...it's time to enjoy it, I guess! ;D
What would be your best choice to put this classic in? (for competition purposes)
Thanks in advance for your input!
-
I have had many hours of flying fun with one of my ST .46's on a Brodak Hellcat profile! I've also flown one on a Brodak P-40 ARF profile and an over weight Prowler! All of these plane flew quite well with this engine!
Phil Spillman
-
I would go with a SIG CHIPMUNK. In fact I have two SIG CHIPMUNK kits on shelf in the shop, but only have OS MAX .35S engines to power them. I guess those engines will have to do...........after all a lot of C/L guys have flown that combo and liked it just fine. .......... D>K H^^
-
A classic in a classic. Genesis 46
-
Hi guys!
I have a NIB ST.46 since 1983...it's time to enjoy it, I guess! ;D
What would be your best choice to put this classic in? (for competition purposes)
Presumably for classic, right? I would suggest one of the larger 35-sized airplanes, so you have a hope against the superior Aero-Tiger 36.
For unrestricted competition, I would suggest Ted Fancher's "Temptation", the last and arguably the best of the serious ST46 airplanes, and properly sized at a mere 610 square inches. But as good as it is, you will be fighting uphill against piped airplanes and electric.
Brett
p.s. if it is really a 1983 production engine, in the blue/white box, start looking for replacement rings right away. The rings in packages that just have the last 4 digits ("0316") instead of the entire part number are the older ones that would be expected to be better. If it is in an original "red box" and you just happened to buy it in 1983 after it had been sitting around for 15 years, then, you have a chance with the stock unit.
-
A classic in a classic. Genesis 46
What about Stiletto?
-
i would agree with motorman a 46 in humongous
-
Imitation.
Mike
-
I'd like to see it in a Thunderbird 2.
John L.
-
There are far, far too many Humungi in the world, and not enough Stilettos!!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
Ringmaster
-
Busso Super Kestrel, use the Big Jim" nose construction with a slide-in tank and you'll have great flyer.
-
Well! Thanks a lot for all your ideas, guys!
I love all the planes you've mentioned...
Two of them specially caught my attention (both Ted Fancher's designs...) The IMITATION and TEMPTATION...
Are the plans available in .pdf format?
H^^
-
Presumably for classic, right? I would suggest one of the larger 35-sized airplanes, so you have a hope against the superior Aero-Tiger 36.
For unrestricted competition, I would suggest Ted Fancher's "Temptation", the last and arguably the best of the serious ST46 airplanes, and properly sized at a mere 610 square inches. But as good as it is, you will be fighting uphill against piped airplanes and electric.
Brett
p.s. if it is really a 1983 production engine, in the blue/white box, start looking for replacement rings right away. The rings in packages that just have the last 4 digits ("0316") instead of the entire part number are the older ones that would be expected to be better. If it is in an original "red box" and you just happened to buy it in 1983 after it had been sitting around for 15 years, then, you have a chance with the stock unit.
Hello Brett,
Yes, it's the blue/white box one...I even bought some spare parts back then, as you can see...
And YES! The ring part number is the 8 digit one! Are these rings THAT bad??? :'( What is the life span of these using good lubrication? (say, 25% castor content)
I have no idea where to get the "good" ones!
-
Hello Brett,
Yes, it's the blue/white box one...I even bought some spare parts back then, as you can see...
And YES! The ring part number is the 8 digit one! Are these rings THAT bad??? :'( What is the life span of these using good lubrication? (say, 25% castor content)
I have no idea where to get the "good" ones!
Ask Randy. Don't panic, you may luck out and get a good one in the engine, see many previous posts to determine how good it is after you run it a while. Do not use straight castor or that much oil - its not an oil issue, and all that oil will tend to glue the ring in the groove after a while.
But, that's why I recommended a small airplane like the Temptation, it is much less demanding of the engine than the 700+square inch monsters no matter how light you build them. Ted and I never talked about it too much, but part if the idea with ST46 airplanes at the end was to make them smaller and smaller so you didn't demand extraordinary power out of them.
The weak compression engines would run smooth enough, just without much power, so you could either keep fighting for a better ring seal (which varied wildly from day to day) to get the required power, or just live with it and make the airplane fly well with less engine.
We only had a lot of problems when we were trying to wring the last bit of power out of them.
This was clearly a stopgap situation, trying to stave off ST60 models, until we all got 40VFs, at which point power was no longer an issue. Of course, people *still* have 40VFs and better - which is the problem with trying to run the ST46, 60, or anything like it straight-up. An Aero-Tiger 36 is more effective on these smaller airplane than an ST46, and I flew my last ST46 airplane with a box-stock iron-liner 35FP, which was at least a wash. About a month later, same airplane with a 40VF, and, problem solved forever.
Brett
-
I also would not recommend the ST 46 on a 650 -700 square inch plane The Stiletto 660 or the Genesis 46 are just too big for a box stock ST46 I run a Tom Dixon ST51 square head in my Stiletto and I would run the same in a Genesis 46 That Engine (the ST46) in box stock form would be best suit to a Brodak profile cardinal or P40 at most if kept light !!! or would be good power for a 35 size Genesis or Stiletto or Gieseke Nobler I believe that the Genesis 46 in flying models was powered by a modified ST 46 by Rich Tower who re timed it to have the power of a 51.
-
One thing you might consider is touch base with Brain Gardner and see when he will have a run of ABC setups for the ST46 (I think he might be getting ready for them this spring). Changing out the ring setup for an ABC will change the motor from a OK to a solid power plant. The ring seal is the weak point in the motor and Brian's ABC setup cures that.
Best, DennisT
-
I get the point, guys: Choose any good 35 size plane and install the ST.46 in it.
You've been very kind. Thank you!
PS: Found the "IMITATION" plans in pdf! #^
-
Stiletto
Dove
Brodak arf or arc Vector
-
The Late Great Tom Niebuhr suggested the LA.46 to me, to power the lovely J.D. Falcon kit he produced, so a ST.46 would also suit y1 that beautiful classic design.
-
How about Ed Southwick's Skylark.( NOT the Sterling kits version.) It was butchered by Sterling to fit in the box.
Eds (original version) pre Sterling kit.
-
I get the point, guys: Choose any good 35 size plane and install the ST.46 in it.
You've been very kind. Thank you!
PS: Found the "IMITATION" plans in pdf! #^
Claudio, if you do choose the IMITATION, I built one from plans and using Ted's article for guidance before i kitted it. It is not difficult at all to build from plans but if you have a set of the plans that shows the circular bellcrank, I would just use a good 4" bellcrank instead.
I built 3 of them and used the OS LA.46 on all of them and they flew like a dream. Ted designed it to do that. And oh yes, they look really cool in the air.
Good luck with whatever you decide but I am a little prejudiced about the IMITATION.
Mike
-
Claudio, if you do choose the IMITATION, I built one from plans and using Ted's article for guidance before i kitted it. It is not difficult at all to build from plans but it you have a set of the plans that shows the circular bellcrank, I would disregard and just use a good 4" bellcrank instead.
I built 3 of them and used the OS LA.46 on all of them and they flew like a dream.
The original flew very well with the ST46, so good we have been trying to replicate it for 40 years. I note that the 46LA is a much better stunt engine.
Brett
-
There have been some worthwhile options suggested for the ST .46. Two of those suggestions have a pedigree that the others do not match.
Les McDonald and his Stiletto won three World Championships and then won the US Nationals. However, I am pretty sure that his power plant was not the ST .46
Bob Hunt and his Genesis won a World Championship and then the US Nationals. I know for sure his engine for the 72 World Championship was the ST .46. (Rework unknown, same about his Nats winning engine.)
Fancher's design is no slauch either.
Keith
-
There have been some worthwhile options suggested for the ST .46. Two of those suggestions have a pedigree that the others do not match.
Les McDonald and his Stiletto won three World Championships and then won the US Nationals. However, I am pretty sure that his power plant was not the ST .46
Bob Hunt and his Genesis won a World Championship and then the US Nationals. I know for sure his engine for the 72 World Championship was the ST .46. (Rework unknown, same about his Nats winning engine.)
Fancher's design is no slauch either.
Keith
Les went from the OS 35 to the ST46 ,but in a larger Stiletto , Then because os the advantage in line size, and better power, he went to the K&B 40 in his later models, he won World Championships with the K&B
Randy
-
I loved flying the ST.46. They were reliable and smooth - if you knew how to set them up.
But then again back in those days stunt was more about being to build a great plane, being able to trim it properly, and finally, knowing how to set the power system up for reliable operation. For those of you that were around and remember, there were a lot of people that never figured out the engine run part of flying. A lot of them. I may even dare to say most of them.
The ST .46 was a leap forward from the .35S. Besides power, it was a BB engine and had longevity on it's side. Yes, it was a little finicky about fuel and yes, it needed proper cooling in the cowl, but once you had them dialed in they ran great. I still have some with 100's of flight on them and they're still airworthy. The beauty of the ST.46 to me was the break. It was that Goldilocks "This engine is just right" feel. I have always flown just a tad slower than most and the ST was the bang-on engine for me too. I also believe that getting proficient with the .46 made my transition to the ST.60 easier too.
But, I again repeat that power setup is becoming a lost art. Todays (and they're wonderful) modern engines like PA's on a pipe and electric pretty much guarantee anyone north of the village idiot can have smooth, reliable power. High rev/low pitch on a pipe setups pretty much take the guesswork out of it. If it unloads in the air or on downlines lengthen the pipe. Yes, a lot of us have now had to move to movable rudders to cope with precession on the blades we swing now, so I'll give you that the new, better power has added a degree of difficulty in trimming. Oh yeah, I don't spend much time re-pitching my Rev-Ups anymore either.
The power today is so much better that we fly (and score!) the pattern differently. No more "winding up" on windy days, etc. I haven't flown a competitive ship in couple years now. Too boring. The old stuff was a lot more satisfying to me because so much had to come together to have good pattern. Today the flying seems a bit soulless and clinical for my tastes. It's like catching a 10 pound fish on 80 pound test. Great if you want to eat, but not much sport.
All in my humble opinion and you may certainly feel free to disagree.
Chuck
Update 2/1/ 10:55
I should add that while I think we can agree that the flying has evolved, I don't mean to imply that the old way was better, it just put more emphasis on different skillsets. Today's top pilots are very good at what they do.
Chuck
-
I would go with a SIG CHIPMUNK. In fact I have two SIG CHIPMUNK kits on shelf in the shop, but only have OS MAX .35S engines to power them. I guess those engines will have to do...........after all a lot of C/L guys have flown that combo and liked it just fine. .......... D>K H^^
An excellent choice, Terence. There's a US Nats history of that combination worth retelling...although, unfortunately my personal records don't go back as far as those events so I'm more or less winging what follows.
A young David Fitzgerald set some sort of Nats record by winning the Junior and Senior Nats events every year he was eligible starting probably in the early 1970s (sort of a harbinger, you might say). Pretty much every year as a Senior he flew Sig Chipmunks, initially with OS .35Ss modified by Big Art but, ultimately, for the last couple of years he made the decision to throw in the then "Big Boys' Pro Stunt favorite" Super Tigre .46. The performance enhancement was readily apparent from the get go and, again, the combination won every time out. Upon entering the big boy ranks in 1990 he had switched to the more conventional ships of the era...my records show an Imitation for his rookie of the year maiden 9th place in Open...although my memory doesn't include a stock Imitation ever in his fleet. Pretty good basis on which to give such a combination a try today.
FWIW beyond that I've a suggestion that I've promised myself to explore for several years now that never came to fruition...a Super Tigre .46 in a similar sized/configured ship, a Dick Mathis Chizler...my favorite ever airplane choice for VSC.
What I wanted to do...even have a new "modified" Chizler in base color (Atacama Yellow to match my little BMW Z4roadster) hanging in the shop "aging" that base color for several years...was to power the ship in "today's" I.C. manner; utilizing low pitch and high RPM. When we talk about "high RPM" for stunt nowadays what we're really talking about is merely 10K +or- a couple of hundred RPMs. Unloaded, (vicinity of 10-10.5 x 4-4.5 propeller) such revs are perfectly achievable by the ST...albeit the DB level might be a bit...um, er...bold with a Big Art or so type of muffler. But, what the heck, noise used to be part of the big boy stunt package!
IMHO such a combination might actually be pretty competitive nowadays with the big boys! (Boy, I'm gonna catch it for that one!!)
Just food for thought.
Claudio might want to consider doing the same!
Ted Fancher
-
1)Scarinzi's "Blue Angel"
2) Silhavey's "Gypsy"
Both offered by Brodak
-
Jim`s Casale Spectrum?
Or Ed`s Capitanelli Starduster?
-
Back in the day , 60 span, 60 oz. was considered the max for the ST 46 .
Compostellas Tango was thus . on 3% Nitro with extra head gaskets but a 10x6 three blade & in a two stroke. It was said . Garnered from magaines of that era .
(https://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40682.0;attach=251182;image)
This things 64 span 65 Oz, .210 Intake on a carefully bedded in engine, No Overheating theory . Pulls it well , on a 12 x 5 in say 8 knot or less air .
Not configured for wind anyway .
Best to do initial runs on a cool day, 30 % oil . A few bursts on prime. a few 5 then ten then 30 sec. runs . theory being remove any high spots before they get hot enough to ' pick up '
Some of us though have faith in the engineering . If the unions , metal wrkers strikes , & so on , wernt in effect when made .
Backing of to say a Mk II T-Bird , should see it last indefinately . If flushed & oiled post use .
After a few hours running maybe 23 % Oil . 20C 3 S would be fine . Tom Lay was a Orl Castor advocate . Flush , crc, then oil .
Dry Castor sticks the ring , no good. Tom advocated the RING would last twice as long on Castror than 50/50 C&S .
Dunno if the rings wernt varied for chromed ( hard ) bore & later soft - Youd think they would. The Hardened Bowman rings are still available .
-
Mark Freeman’s clipped wing Spitfire?
-
Hi Keith:
Actually it was sort of reversed to what you wrote: The 1976 Nats winning Genesis was indeed powered by the ST .46. The 1978 World Champ Genesis was powered by an OS Max FSR .40. Of course today I'd opt in a New Jersey minute for a BadAss 3515 710 kv electric motor and a 6S 2800 mAh battery! What a combination that would be! #^
Later -Bob
Bob,
I apologize for not getting the year correct, particularly your win in England in 1978. I should have known better and checked my records rather than my memory. I was there and I was a judge. No excuse for not getting that right. I will not ever forget that day and that flight you had. Also, I will never forget that you let me fly your Genesis later that day.
Keith
-
Hi Keith:
Actually it was sort of reversed to what you wrote: The 1976 Nats winning Genesis was indeed powered by the ST .46. The 1978 World Champ Genesis was powered by an OS Max FSR .40. Of course today I'd opt in a New Jersey minute for a BadAss 3515 710 kv electric motor and a 6S 2800 mAh battery! What a combination that would be! #^
Later -Bob
Hello Bob,
Was that 1976 ST.46 you won the Nats with, a box stock engine?
-
Thanks for sharing this with us Bob. Very addictive reading for sure.
-
Hi Claudio:
Well, no; in those days all my ST 46 engines (and later the FSR 40s) were custom fit and tuned by Richie Tower.
I'm going to paste in here a portion of one of the chapters of my Genesis Saga book that covers to a degree the days in which the East Coast guys (and others) discovered and flew the ST 46. Even though I'm now a staunch believer in electric power, I look back very fondly on my days flying ST 46 powered models, and especially the days in which I used the OS Max 40 FSR engines.
Here goes...
Thank you SO MUCH Bob.
This is a very enlightening piece of information!
Best regards,
Claudio.
-
I was hoping you would retell this story some day, because it inspired me much later to try something that "couldn't possibly work".
I pulled up into a wingover expecting the plane to lag as it always had before. Imagine my surprise when the ship pulled very steadily over the top. It felt as if it had shed 20-plus ounces!
*Exactly* the same thing happened when I switched from the Fox 35 to a 20FP on the Skyray, it was like gravity was cancelled.
. Richie didn’t seem too amused that I was so amused and told me to, “Just shut up and fly it.”
Which also summarizes every 20FP and 25LA post I ever made.
Brett
-
Yeah, how about it, Brett; if I had listened to those who told me stuff I thought up wouldn't work all my career, I wouldn't have achieved too much.
It never ceases to amaze me the extents people will go to *ignore* almost anything that deviates from their preconceived notions. Tuned pipe engines are an even *better* example, it immediately obsoleted everything else before it - not only did people argue about it, some of them treated it like you had burned down the old folks home.
Brett
-
Yeah, how about it, Brett; if I had listened to those who told me stuff I thought up wouldn't work all my career, I wouldn't have achieved too much. Thinking outside the box is easy for those of us who never had the key to get into the box in the first place. Richie Tower didn't even know there was a box to think outside of...
Later - Bob
Whenever I see something like this, I'm reminded of the perfect example of how true it is (apologies if I've used this quote before). Discussing his design of the first practical gas turbine aero-engine, Frank Whittle remarked: "It's a good job I was such a bad engineer that I didn't know it wouldn't work!"
-
LOL! Yeah, that was a tough time in my life indeed. I even received physical threats over it.
Unfortunately, you were only the first of many. Over the next 15 years! And I still occasionally get emails about how to modify a 40VF to run "like a real stunt motor".
What strikes me the most is how many people are *completely out of touch* with everything that has happened in stunt *during the most remarkable era of development since the early 50s*. My minor contribution to it was the "small engine experiment" which more-or-less attempted to replicate the performance improvement from the "schneurle wars" (started by you and Rich Tower as noted above) for smaller and simpler conditions sized for typical trainers - an effect that had been "discovered" and not followed up with several times earlier.
Of course no one is compelled to follow along, there's nothing wrong with that, but when you see people struggle with things and yet still disregard 30-year-old and well-tested solutions to exactly the problem they are having, it does get a little frustrating.
Brett
-
Bobby, that is quite a story. It is amazing the little things we miss that cause us grief. My son and I went to the middle school to get some flights in. He was flying. I would start the engine and launch. Every thing fine for a few laps and then engine would go lean and quit. Finally when I was ready to stomp the engine into the ground, JJ said you fly let me start it. He fired the engine and then shut it down. Asked for fuel line and replaced the section between tank and filter. Seems he saw bubbles I didn't see. We flew until our local officer showed up in the parking lot. We had about six flights and I told JJ lets go. Waved to the officer and started rolling up the lines. He blipped his siren and left. D>K
I am amazed how dwdicated you guys are to this event called stunt. Thanks for the story. H^^
-
Of course no one is compelled to follow along, there's nothing wrong with that, but when you see people struggle with things and yet still disregard 30-year-old and well-tested solutions to exactly the problem they are having, it does get a little frustrating.
Brett
Brett, very, very good words. But where is it now possible to at least read about your experiments 30 years ago? Since the end of the 80s, I have not dealt with control lines and now I have to collect your old and long-proven experience bit by bit and my own experiments.
-
The Tango, by Luciano Compostella of Monza Italy was a beautiful and superb flying design.
He designed it around the Super Tiger 46 and won many events with it - he was an incredible pilot.
I met him when I was doing engineering work for Agusta Helicopter in Cascina de Costa, outside of Milan.
We communicated quite a bit until his death a few years back.
The Tango is a stunning design and a bit different than its contemporaries, having an upright engine placement.
Span: 57 in
Area: 589 in sq
OAL: 40.25
Weight: 60 oz
10/6 three blade prop
In anyone is interested, I can have the plans copied and sent to you.
Bob Z.
Back in the day , 60 span, 60 oz. was considered the max for the ST 46 .
Compostellas Tango was thus . on 3% Nitro with extra head gaskets but a 10x6 three blade & in a two stroke. It was said . Garnered from magaines of that era .
(https://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40682.0;attach=251182;image)
This things 64 span 65 Oz, .210 Intake on a carefully bedded in engine, No Overheating theory . Pulls it well , on a 12 x 5 in say 8 knot or less air .
Not configured for wind anyway .
Best to do initial runs on a cool day, 30 % oil . A few bursts on prime. a few 5 then ten then 30 sec. runs . theory being remove any high spots before they get hot enough to ' pick up '
Some of us though have faith in the engineering . If the unions , metal wrkers strikes , & so on , wernt in effect when made .
Backing of to say a Mk II T-Bird , should see it last indefinately . If flushed & oiled post use .
After a few hours running maybe 23 % Oil . 20C 3 S would be fine . Tom Lay was a Orl Castor advocate . Flush , crc, then oil .
Dry Castor sticks the ring , no good. Tom advocated the RING would last twice as long on Castror than 50/50 C&S .
Dunno if the rings wernt varied for chromed ( hard ) bore & later soft - Youd think they would. The Hardened Bowman rings are still available .
-
Wow Bob, cool plane but I love the funky landing gear arrangement.
-
And his landing gear system works.
I've flown with him many times when I was working in Italy.
The most impressive thing - NO BOUNCE.
Bob Z.
-
What Bob Hunt said – ALL TRUE!
While working in Italy, I scheduled my meetings to end on Friday. My company paid all expenses so that I could stay the weekend and fly back to the USA on Monday morning.
This gave me a chance to spend a number of weekends with the Gruppo Modellistico Monzese (Model Aviation Group of Monza) and meet some truly great and interesting modelers.
These included Luciano, Clemente Cappi, Alberto Maggi and Massimo Semoli to name a few.
I was totally mesmerized by their flying skills.
One of the most impressive displays was Luciano flying his Falco biplane. As Bob pointed out, the corners were amazing! When I asked about the cornering capability, I was told that the combination of the lower wing mounted flaps as well and the swept back upper wing leading edge and constant-chord made it possible. He powered it with an OS Surpass 48.
Bob Z.
-
Hi, Sirs,
I think I have, more or less the same situation as Claudio, I have a ST 21-46 and an ASP 46 abc (still RC), both new, and 35 years after I´m coming back.
And the problem is I do not know really what I want build to flew. I like ALL models !!! LL~ LL~
Stiletto? Genesis? May be Nobler?
Vortice, Seafang, Rogue, Miss Kell, Genie, Seafang?
Skywriter?
What about Al Rabe's Bearcat, Mustunt, Mustang?
Don´t you think 60'' and 60 oz are too much big and heavy plane for a ST 46?
All opinions are wellcome.
Thank you .
Pacific
-
Hi, Sirs,
I think I have, more or less the same situation as Claudio, I have a ST 21-46 and an ASP 46 abc (still RC), both new, and 35 years after I´m coming back.
And the problem is I do not know really what I want build to flew. I like ALL models !!! LL~ LL~
Stiletto? Genesis? May be Nobler?
If you've got a Super Tigre G21-46 and like the Nobler, how about The Bear (aka the Gieseke Nobler '97)? I've got a plan that I sometimes unfold and gaze at in awe, but at the moment I haven't got a workbench big enough to accommodate it!
-
I've always been partial to Elle McPherson. I'm not sure she'd like the ST.46 though.