stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Dick Pacini on August 21, 2024, 06:24:16 AM
-
Did anyone tabulate how many PA entrants had electric power? Also, what did the top 3 have?
-
From what I hear the majority was electric. Mainly due to the availability of fuel and noise in other countries.
Not sure on the winners. I do know Orestes is electric.
-
Dave Fitzgerald was the highest placing IC. (PA .75) at 4th place. It would be a mistake to read anything into that other than the fliers chose for personal preference and/or bought airplanes so equipped. I don’t believe the RTF or ARF airplanes are furnished with IC. They are equal in most every respect to compete with. If anything (and IMHO), the IC ships seemed to penetrate the windy conditions a little better. The Sharks definitely have the edge in corner turning ability which demonstrated the difference in scores and placing.
Dave
-
In the top 20 there were 3 IC motors.
If any of these fliers thought IC was better, you can be sure they would use them. Some just aren't convinced yet.
-
I went the WCs as a spectator. It was eye opening to say the least. Matt Colan and David F were the only ICs in the top 15. Both running PA 75 on Eather pipes. The rest were electric setups. It almost feels like IC should get a point bonus as it looked much harder to use IC over electric. The setup with prop along with the correct RPM and pipe setting to get the smooth on off power you need takes alot of time to learn and apply. Then you need to do it for several different conditions all while monitoring the amount of fuel needed. Conditions this week ranged from dead calm to hard blustery winds. The electric setups seemed to have an advantage where they can change props and add or subtract RPM as needed. Time is never changed and changing rpm doesn't change the way the system runs.
Jake had to switch to a purchased Ukrainian model with an electric setup this week and it was shocking to see his improvement in just a few days. Being electric I could coach him during his flight and give him needed tips prior to each maneuver keeping him moving forward mentally as he progressed through the pattern. I swear he gained 4 years of advancement in 4 days with that thing. It is buy and fly!!
Another thing I noted is the models are setup way differently than your traditional AMA model. For one they are all around 60oz. The electric system can apply power so quickly it can pull through the corners that can actually be flown. See the pics below of one of the Chinese competitor's plane in the pits. Note the elevator travel vs the flap travel. Also note the type of hinge. Very different.
I learned so much and now I have more questions than ever. But one thing is for sure an AMA pattern looks nothing like an FAI pattern. An FAI pattern can win AMA (we have seen this several times now) but I'm not so sure goes the other way around....
-
To piggyback off of Doug…I love my 75 setup. The equipment ran well and was the most reliable I had had in Muncie, I think ever. I tried different nitro the first day of practice and stuck with 15%, even in the mornings when conditions were cool. Dave ran 20% all week. There was a lot I learned over the week that I’m currently mulling over for the next airplane. The controls being one of them. the Sharks have an insane amount of control deflection that can be dialed in, and they’re light. The next airplane I build I am thinking of a fully take apart system, Have the ability to speed up the controls a lot, and it needing to be 60oz finished. If I try out for the next world team, I would have to go to electric to be competitive. As much as I love the 75, it can’t compete with the electrics, especially after hearing what is coming down the pipeline for next generation timers (except maybe Doug’s super loud pipe ;D )
For now, I’ll stick with IC for the next couple years, but the time to switch is coming, as much as I don’t want it to
-
I went the WCs as a spectator. It was eye opening to say the least. Matt Colan and David F were the only ICs in the top 15. Both running PA 75 on Eather pipes. The rest were electric setups. It almost feels like IC should get a point bonus as it looked much harder to use IC over electric. The setup with prop along with the correct RPM and pipe setting to get the smooth on off power you need takes alot of time to learn and apply. Then you need to do it for several different conditions all while monitoring the amount of fuel needed. Conditions this week ranged from dead calm to hard blustery winds. The electric setups seemed to have an advantage where they can change props and add or subtract RPM as needed. Time is never changed and changing rpm doesn't change the way the system runs.
Jake had to switch to a purchased Ukrainian model with an electric setup this week and it was shocking to see his improvement in just a few days. Being electric I could coach him during his flight and give him needed tips prior to each maneuver keeping him moving forward mentally as he progressed through the pattern. I swear he gained 4 years of advancement in 4 days with that thing. It is buy and fly!!
Another thing I noted is the models are setup way differently than your traditional AMA model. For one they are all around 60oz. The electric system can apply power so quickly it can pull through the corners that can actually be flown. See the pics below of one of the Chinese competitor's plane in the pits. Note the elevator travel vs the flap travel. Also note the type of hinge. Very different.
I learned so much and now I have more questions than ever. But one thing is for sure an AMA pattern looks nothing like an FAI pattern. An FAI pattern can win AMA (we have seen this several times now) but I'm not so sure goes the other way around....
What hinges did they use? They have to be quite free from friction.
-
To piggyback off of Doug…I love my 75 setup. The equipment ran well and was the most reliable I had had in Muncie, I think ever. I tried different nitro the first day of practice and stuck with 15%, even in the mornings when conditions were cool. Dave ran 20% all week. There was a lot I learned over the week that I’m currently mulling over for the next airplane. The controls being one of them. the Sharks have an insane amount of control deflection that can be dialed in, and they’re light. The next airplane I build I am thinking of a fully take apart system, Have the ability to speed up the controls a lot, and it needing to be 60oz finished. If I try out for the next world team, I would have to go to electric to be competitive. As much as I love the 75, it can’t compete with the electrics, especially after hearing what is coming down the pipeline for next generation timers (except maybe Doug’s super loud pipe ;D )
For now, I’ll stick with IC for the next couple years, but the time to switch is coming, as much as I don’t want it to
You said something about the new electric systems coming down the pipeline. Could you elaborate? I am just now hearing about this.
-
From what I hear the majority was electric. Mainly due to the availability of fuel and noise in other countries.
Not sure on the winners. I do know Orestes is electric.
It is infinitely easier to buy an electric system than it is get a piston engine to run in a winning manner.
Otherwise, little children would not be doing so well.
Money and and plenty of practice flying. That's all, folks.
-
It is infinitely easier to buy an electric system than it is get a piston engine to run in a winning manner.
Otherwise, little children would not be doing so well.
Money and and plenty of practice flying. That's all, folks.
As a current electric flyer, electrics are not as plug and play as many people think. There are still a lot of issues that you have to watch out for just like IC engines. I know of several people who had issues with electrics at the NATS. I also know of people who came to the NATS and talked with other people who had electrics and got their system to work better. Just like IC engined folks. So again, they are not as plug and play as many people think.
-
Jake had to switch to a purchased Ukrainian model with an electric setup this week and it was shocking to see his improvement in just a few days.
Where does one buy one of these Ukrainian planes?
Thanks
MM :)
-
What hinges did they use? They have to be quite free from friction.
They use a pocket hinge. They are as close to zero binding. I am using them on my new plane. Sparky did a video on them.
Ken
-
You said something about the new electric systems coming down the pipeline. Could you elaborate? I am just now hearing about this.
New Igor timer with new capabilities.
Brett
-
New Igor timer with new capabilities.
Brett
Like????🤣
-
They use a pocket hinge. They are as close to zero binding. I am using them on my new plane. Sparky did a video on them.
Ken
OK, where do I find the video? I am now very curious. Zero binding is what I have been looking for.
-
Here ya go Matt
https://www.youtube.com/live/cjKD019iOUk?feature=shared
-
They use a pocket hinge. They are as close to zero binding. I am using them on my new plane. Sparky did a video on them.
Ken
Hey Ken
Nice looking job on the hinges. Your pockets look a little different than what Robert did in his video. You got any pictures on how you mounted yours?
-
The winner had the new Igor timer as did myself, Tim Just, Howard Rush and Chris Cox.
It is his latest iteration with the Drag Compensation I convinced him to add. The boost and brake are individually adjustable as is the DC. There are 3 modes the DC works in, but is sent out in just one mode that both Igor and I ended up using last year.
It is a significant improvement over his old one. Some have asked Igor if he would take his old ones back for a discount on the new ones. He just laughs!!
The new ones are close to being available. He is guessing around October.
-
The last post got me thinking. How many combinations are there? I laid out the variables and the range (within reason) and multiplied them out. Some variables only apply to certain others, so consideration of that was taken. I did not use the full range that Igor has available so this numbers likely too small.
The number of combinations is approximately 123 billion. Seems like a lot!
So, when someone asks me how to set it for their model, I give them a set of "safe" numbers and instructions to how to get there. No one will ever test 123 billion.
Last year I tried to test all the end points of the DC with adjusting the "artifical" feed forward functions. 9 endpoints with 3 different "artificial" adjustments and several different SFB values with fixed SF+ and SF- values. That took most of Spring to work out. Of course, comparing in different atmospheric conditions confounds a good subjective evaluation of each different variable.
But, some might say this is easier than an IC motor. That is complete rubbish. We are not talking about sport flying here, where that might be the case.
But, all the work with this is worthwhile. Don't let me scare you off from trying this timer. It is the best thing out there. When Igor starts to sell them, be sure to try one.....and be sure it is connected to a Jeti Spin 66 from Igor. The Pro version will not work well with this timer.
Now, off to try some of the variables I have not used to date!
-
In the top 20 there were 3 IC motors.
If any of these fliers thought IC was better, you can be sure they would use them. Some just aren't convinced yet.
Just to play Devil's Advocate here, those three I/C entrants finished in the top 5. Two of them were only 5 points out of first place. And I would call the conditions that I saw definitely challenging for any power plant and pilot.
When I get asked by someone what is the best power plant to fly, I ask back, which technology do you understand the best and feel most comfortable with, and can get the most benefit from? There are some out there that think electric is as easy as putting the batteries in your Stanzel Electromic toy airplane, and I am not kidding. I do not fly electric because I'm just a gear head and at my stage in life, age and general health, I'm more interested in just having fun and have had a lot of that along the way with engines and have done satisfactorily in competition as far as I am concerned. Engines are a big part of the event for me, along with the sounds and the smells. I never could make the commitment in time and money,( mostly time,) to progress to the upper most levels of competition for several reasons, so I never even got into tuned pipes, but I beat some of them along the way. I have watched the classifieds on here and the old Stuka Stunt site over the years and watched motors, batteries, speed controllers, timers and such flow like water back and forth. There never seemed to be one turn key type set up for electric that a guy could just buy and install and be done and be happy with.. The grass always seemed greener with some other component. Things always seem to be changing, just like any kind of electronics, and I think some guys get frustrated with that. I think a lot of guys have issues tuning their set ups to what they think they need. They can't grasp the technology well enough to improve their performance. That is whether it's I/C or electric. No matter what you are running, there will be problems, and trouble shooting and solving those is part of the hobby.
I think it's kind of a loaded question, which is better?? I think it's a matter of who makes best use of what they have to the best result possible. The New York Yankees have spent hundred of millions of dollars on the best players they can buy and still underperform. When it comes to individual talent and effort, I think of the late, great sprint car driver Jan Opperman, who had this said about him many times: " He can take his'n and beat your'n, and then take your'n and beat his'n." And I have seen that done!! In our event, it's not always the airplane or the power plant, sometimes it's the nut on the handle!!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
Just to play Devil's Advocate here, those three I/C entrants finished in the top 5. Two of them were only 5 points out of first place. And I would call the conditions that I saw definitely challenging for any power plant and pilot.
When I get asked by someone what is the best power plant to fly, I ask back, which technology do you understand the best and feel most comfortable with, and can get the most benefit from? There are some out there that think electric is as easy as putting the batteries in your Stanzel Electromic toy airplane, and I am not kidding. I do not fly electric because I'm just a gear head and at my stage in life, age and general health, I'm more interested in just having fun and have had a lot of that along the way with engines and have done satisfactorily in competition as far as I am concerned. Engines are a big part of the event for me, along with the sounds and the smells. I never could make the commitment in time and money,( mostly time,) to progress to the upper most levels of competition for several reasons, so I never even got into tuned pipes, but I beat some of them along the way. I have watched the classifieds on here and the old Stuka Stunt site over the years and watched motors, batteries, speed controllers, timers and such flow like water back and forth. There never seemed to be one turn key type set up for electric that a guy could just buy and install and be done and be happy with.. The grass always seemed greener with some other component. Things always seem to be changing, just like any kind of electronics, and I think some guys get frustrated with that. I think a lot of guys have issues tuning their set ups to what they think they need. They can't grasp the technology well enough to improve their performance. That is whether it's I/C or electric. No matter what you are running, there will be problems, and trouble shooting and solving those is part of the hobby.
I think it's kind of a loaded question, which is better?? I think it's a matter of who makes best use of what they have to the best result possible. The New York Yankees have spent hundred of millions of dollars on the best players they can buy and still underperform. When it comes to individual talent and effort, I think of the late, great sprint car driver Jan Opperman, who had this said about him many times: " He can take his'n and beat your'n, and then take your'n and beat his'n." And I have seen that done!! In our event, it's not always the airplane or the power plant, sometimes it's the nut on the handle!!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
This was a discussion about the World Chamos, not the Nat's.
Different animal
.
-
They use a pocket hinge. They are as close to zero binding. I am using them on my new plane. Sparky did a video on them.
Ken
This got a bit off topic but here is a picture of the new World Champ Shark. What is different from yours Ken is that the hinge line is not enclosed and not sealed due to the nature of the flap rotation. On most of these the elevators will travel to nearly 90 degrees each way- looking like the pushrod isn’t attached. That’s what Matt was calling ‘insane’. The covered hinge line wouldn’t allow that sort of travel. Obviously they aren’t deployed that far in flight but it shows the SPEED of elevator travel compared to the flaps which look to move around 45 degrees. My reckoning is that these would be too wicked to fly if setting the CG in the range we commonly do on our airplanes here. Frank Waddle from Germany showed me they balance right at the root airfoil high point which is more than an inch ahead of what I’m flying. In other words pretty nose heavy to smooth it out in level flight with a powerful ‘flipper’ yonder- way yonder.
Dave
-
Marco Shark
-
You might also notice the elevator is drooped down quite a bit in-re the flaps. Most of the Sharks are like that. Actually the bottom side is parallel to the flaps but the top side isn’t.
Dave
-
Thank you Paul.
-
As a current electric flyer, electrics are not as plug and play as many people think. There are still a lot of issues that you have to watch out for just like IC engines. I know of several people who had issues with electrics at the NATS. I also know of people who came to the NATS and talked with other people who had electrics and got their system to work better. Just like IC engined folks. So again, they are not as plug and play as many people think.
Since 1958 I have bought, set up and flown countless glow engines. Many of them did not work, some worked OK and a few actually won contests.
This March I started dabbling in electric with ZERO help and no coaching. My first three attempts at electric CL worked well. I won Carrier Events at the DCT spring contest, The Brodak, and The AMA Nats. While I did not set a record, I did succeed in beating the current record-holder while flying under the conditions of the day.
If I flew electric stunt I would not win The Nats or the WC, but I would come a lot closer than a beginner with a piston engine.
PLUG AND PLAY means exactly that. You plug in the parts and become a player. As with everything, every player is not a champion.
I have never liked the idea of mixing gas & electric. But they did it to one of my events and I was faced with three options:
1. Continue to get beat my motors.
2. Quit the event.
3. Go electric.
I went electric and got better scores than ever, and ever goes back to 1968.
-
This got a bit off topic but here is a picture of the new World Champ Shark. What is different from yours Ken is that the hinge line is not enclosed and not sealed due to the nature of the flap rotation. On most of these the elevators will travel to nearly 90 degrees each way- looking like the pushrod isn’t attached. That’s what Matt was calling ‘insane’. The covered hinge line wouldn’t allow that sort of travel. Obviously they aren’t deployed that far in flight but it shows the SPEED of elevator travel compared to the flaps which look to move around 45 degrees. My reckoning is that these would be too wicked to fly if setting the CG in the range we commonly do on our airplanes here. Frank Waddle from Germany showed me they balance right at the root airfoil high point which is more than an inch ahead of what I’m flying. In other words pretty nose heavy to smooth it out in level flight with a powerful ‘flipper’ yonder- way yonder.
Dave
Before I put the enclosure strips on the flaps and elevator would drop to 60 degrees with the 1/32" recess gap in the1/4" Recess. I get 45 with the enclosures. If you look at some of the pictures of the Chinese team you will see similar "at rest" insane movement. It is obvious that their style is quite different from ours. If corners were the only thing judged in AMA, our planes can be made to turn just as tight as a Shark. I would love to see a high-speed camera slow motion of a Shark in the 4th corner of the hourglass to see if they are using all of that elevator. It is hard to judge even if you are flying the plane. I am convinced that as more of us convert to active timers you are going to see a tightening of the pattern in both corners and elevations naturally. You can't fly 15' corners on a pattern flown to a strict 45 degrees and have a decent square 8, it just looks funny. Tighter corners give you longer flats. I am not advocating any changes in AMA. Let that evolve naturally, it will.
Ken
-
You might also consider Orestes has shown to be pretty successful with the Shark in Nats winning for the last number of years. We can only wonder how different it might be if he were flying something more 'domestic'.
Dave
-
You might also consider Orestes has shown to be pretty successful with the Shark in Nats winning for the last number of years. We can only wonder how different it might be if he were flying something more 'domestic'.
Dave
Yes, Orestes is an amazing talent and quite the artist too! It was quite a feat how he perfectly mimicked the paint job of several of the other ready-made, painted out of the mold ARF Sharks at Muncie this year. Quite the talent indeed! Yes, I too wonder how well he would do with something more "homey".
EricV
-
By far the most interesting IC engine I saw at this contest was Lauri Malilas homemade unit. He gave me quite an extensive tour of his efforts and after watching one of his flights I was impressed by its performance. Rob Metkemyer did the crankcase and Lauri did all the rest. High tech indeed. A variety of drop in cylinders with various porting choices. A curved piston baffle and a Dykes ring. Everything perfectly machined with long lasting materials. The crank pin and journal are even coated with black diamond. I believe it is a .77 and but was puzzled by the large, very traditional wood prop. Lauri is a total asset to the event.
-
>>>Snip<<<<
But, some might say this is easier than an IC motor. That is complete rubbish. We are not talking about sport flying here, where that might be the case.
>>>Snip<<<
I don't think easier it the right word. As with anything at the top level it takes tons of testing and work. That is never been in question. 123B is basically infinite!! Sounds like a perfect storm for a retired guy with his own circle... ;D
While not easier it seems to be a more consistent program and testing should be more linear, I would think. At least it appears that way. I'm late to the party for sure but I will be dipping the toe in these waters soon....
-
By far the most interesting IC engine I saw at this contest was Lauri Malilas homemade unit. He gave me quite an extensive tour of his efforts and after watching one of his flights I was impressed by its performance. Rob Metkemyer did the crankcase and Lauri did all the rest. High tech indeed. A variety of drop in cylinders with various porting choices. A curved piston baffle and a Dykes ring. Everything perfectly machined with long lasting materials. The crank pin and journal are even coated with black diamond. I believe it is a .77 and but was puzzled by the large, very traditional wood prop. Lauri is a total asset to the event.
You are very correct sir! This guy and his wife both work for some of the best watch makers out there. The craftsmanship was most excellent. Venturi on the back plate with remote needle. Venturi changes are a simple set screw remove and slide in a new one in about 10 seconds. Very cool stuff indeed. His run was very very nice and symmetrical.
-
The winner had the new Igor timer as did myself, Tim Just, Howard Rush and Chris Cox.
It is his latest iteration with the Drag Compensation I convinced him to add. The boost and brake are individually adjustable as is the DC. There are 3 modes the DC works in, but is sent out in just one mode that both Igor and I ended up using last year.
It is a significant improvement over his old one. Some have asked Igor if he would take his old ones back for a discount on the new ones. He just laughs!!
The new ones are close to being available. He is guessing around October.
Paul, can you elaborate on Drag Compensation? Thanks.
-
Paul, can you elaborate on Drag Compensation? Thanks.
Is that in any way comparable to how the Fiorotti compensates for the change in wind direction in level flight through the G-Force setting?
Ken
-
By far the most interesting IC engine I saw at this contest was Lauri Malilas homemade unit. He gave me quite an extensive tour of his efforts and after watching one of his flights I was impressed by its performance. Rob Metkemyer did the crankcase and Lauri did all the rest. High tech indeed. A variety of drop in cylinders with various porting choices. A curved piston baffle and a Dykes ring. Everything perfectly machined with long lasting materials. The crank pin and journal are even coated with black diamond. I believe it is a .77 and but was puzzled by the large, very traditional wood prop. Lauri is a total asset to the event.
I couldn't agree more!! It was by far the coolest item at the Worlds! the machining was incredible! Lauri's engine only burns about 3.72oz of fuel per flight...I was using 3-4ml less than 8oz per flight on my thirsty PA 75
-
This was a discussion about the World Chamos, not the Nat's.
Different animal
.
Well, you mentioned Top 20, so that is what I thought you were referring to. The WC used a top 15 format. I know they are flown or judged differently, but what goes on with the power plant on the nose shouldn't be too different. Given what the scores were for the AMA Final 5, and comparing to where David and Orestes finished in the FAI event, I don't think it's an overwhelming difference. Who knows where Todd and Derek would have finished in the FAI event??
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
I couldn't agree more!! It was by far the coolest item at the Worlds! the machining was incredible! Lauri's engine only burns about 3.72oz of fuel per flight...I was using 3-4ml less than 8oz per flight on my thirsty PA 75
Funny thing is when I flew the PA 75 I only used a little over 6 oz. I got 20 flights per gallon. I think there is 128 oz per gallon so easy enough to do the math. I had a lot different set up however.
-
I couldn't agree more!! It was by far the coolest item at the Worlds! the machining was incredible! Lauri's engine only burns about 3.72oz of fuel per flight...I was using 3-4ml less than 8oz per flight on my thirsty PA 75
If you go search the engine section, Lauri has many good threads on what he builds and his practices. Lots of great photos and descriptions. It's mind boggling and I wish I could have seen an example up close and in person.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
Well, you mentioned Top 20, so that is what I thought you were referring to. The WC used a top 15 format. I know they are flown or judged differently, but what goes on with the power plant on the nose shouldn't be too different. Given what the scores were for the AMA Final 5, and comparing to where David and Orestes finished in the FAI event, I don't think it's an overwhelming difference. Who knows where Todd and Derek would have finished in the FAI event??
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
I used top 20 to get one more I C listed.
-
Paul, can you elaborate on Drag Compensation? Thanks.
Matt,
DC counters the effect of increased drag in corners. It measures the pitching rate and adds thrust as necessary. There are numerous adjustments to this function from adding thrust in every corner to only bottom corners, the amount of thrust added and the length of the throttle increase.
David F was at my place earlier this year and I gave him a ride on the P-47 and showed him a little SF+ and -, then increased those and he was impressed. Then the DC was added and he was impressed with the performance. He left saying that he just HAD to finish his electric fuselage!
By the way, the boost and brake, which Igor calls SF+ and SF-, are far superior to his old system. They are individually adjustable as well.
If you have more questions on this, please ask.
-
Funny thing is when I flew the PA 75 I only used a little over 6 oz. I got 20 flights per gallon. I think there is 128 oz per gallon so easy enough to do the math. I had a lot different set up however.
When calibrating my fuel load to prepare to fly warm up flights at the Worlds I got the RO Jett .76 down to just over 5 ounces for a 6 1/2 minute run.
Dave
-
OK, where do I find the video? I am now very curious. Zero binding is what I have been looking for.
Found it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DWOt_RQ7cc&t=1604s
Ken
-
Matt,
DC counters the effect of increased drag in corners. It measures the pitching rate and adds thrust as necessary. There are numerous adjustments to this function from adding thrust in every corner to only bottom corners, the amount of thrust added and the length of the throttle increase.
David F was at my place earlier this year and I gave him a ride on the P-47 and showed him a little SF+ and -, then increased those and he was impressed. Then the DC was added and he was impressed with the performance. He left saying that he just HAD to finish his electric fuselage!
By the way, the boost and brake, which Igor calls SF+ and SF-, are far superior to his old system. They are individually adjustable as well.
If you have more questions on this, please ask.
BTW, presumably, SF = scale factor = gain, how much it responds for a given input /
Brett
-
When calibrating my fuel load to prepare to fly warm up flights at the Worlds I got the RO Jett .76 down to just over 5 ounces for a 6 1/2 minute run.
Dave
Show off. n~ What nitro do you use?
-
Matt,
DC counters the effect of increased drag in corners. It measures the pitching rate and adds thrust as necessary. There are numerous adjustments to this function from adding thrust in every corner to only bottom corners, the amount of thrust added and the length of the throttle increase.
David F was at my place earlier this year and I gave him a ride on the P-47 and showed him a little SF+ and -, then increased those and he was impressed. Then the DC was added and he was impressed with the performance. He left saying that he just HAD to finish his electric fuselage!
By the way, the boost and brake, which Igor calls SF+ and SF-, are far superior to his old system. They are individually adjustable as well.
If you have more questions on this, please ask.
That explains what I saw on top five day with yours and Orestes set up. I noticed that and was wondering how to get the extra boost and such. I also noticed it seemed like you plane got up to speed much quicker when released. Again this explains what I saw.
Yes, I will have to get in line to get one once they are available.
-
Show off. n~ What nitro do you use?
Matt I was using 10%. During Nats practice I was tempted to go to 12-15 but tank problems made it all pointless. Opened the tank when I got home and found a solder ball partially blocking the pick up. Pulled the tank from my back ship and got a good run again for the Worlds warm up.
Dave
-
When calibrating my fuel load to prepare to fly warm up flights at the Worlds I got the RO Jett .76 down to just over 5 ounces for a 6 1/2 minute run.
Dave
With the noisy pipe I got PA65 down to about 6.75-7oz for the flight. It might be a little less I had to pull alot to make sure I was under time. In AMA I run a little longer so I dont get beeps in the clover.
-
BTW, presumably, SF = scale factor = gain, how much it responds for a given input /
Brett
Igor calls SF...Standard Function
-
By far the most interesting IC engine I saw at this contest was Lauri Malilas homemade unit. He gave me quite an extensive tour of his efforts and after watching one of his flights I was impressed by its performance. Rob Metkemyer did the crankcase and Lauri did all the rest. High tech indeed. A variety of drop in cylinders with various porting choices. A curved piston baffle and a Dykes ring. Everything perfectly machined with long lasting materials. The crank pin and journal are even coated with black diamond. I believe it is a .77 and but was puzzled by the large, very traditional wood prop. Lauri is a total asset to the event.
I told Lauri his engine looks like a Tee Dee .65. He said, “Yes, Cox only made a few of them.”
-
That explains what I saw on top five day with yours and Orestes set up. I noticed that and was wondering how to get the extra boost and such. I also noticed it seemed like you plane got up to speed much quicker when released. Again this explains what I saw.
Yes, I will have to get in line to get one once they are available.
Matt,
Well, not really. At takeoff the DC is not activated as well as either SF function. What you are seeing is the prop I use. It is the Igor underchambered 12" 3 blade. That along with the 3520 gets it up to speed quickly.
-
Hmmmm. the times they are a-changin'! Fascinating stuff! Enjoyed reading it all and looking at myfive old timers hanging on the wall...they all had little tear drops dripping out their spinners! (Well....maybe not really!) Thanks to all for taking the time to do so.
Old man Ted
-
Did the Sharks with pocket hinges have taped/sealed hinge lines?
-
At takeoff the DC is not activated as well as either SF function.
I noticed some extra RPM at launch from, I assume, the positive x axis acceleration feedback.
Thanks for your help with the new system. It’s pretty cool.
-
Did the Sharks with pocket hinges have taped/sealed hinge lines?
It’s my understanding pocket hinges don’t need to be taped if done as Sparky shows in his videos.
-
It’s my understanding pocket hinges don’t need to be taped if done as Sparky shows in his videos.
I do not tape mine and some of the other guys I fly with don't tape theirs either. The pivot is about 1/8" into the flap. Hard to find a surface that isn't moving too much to tape and for some reason, probably the uniformity of the gap, they just don't seem to need it.
Ken
-
Matt,
Well, not really. At takeoff the DC is not activated as well as either SF function. What you are seeing is the prop I use. It is the Igor underchambered 12" 3 blade. That along with the 3520 gets it up to speed quickly.
Out of curiosity how much battery do you use? My experience with undercamber while producing more thrust they also load things up more using more amps. Sometimes quite drastically. Also, how does this compare to the flat back with the amount of battery usage?
I used Igor's flat back version for awhile then switched to the Ukranian 12.5 version. I have a couple for version of the Ukranian props that should be here any time.
-
I do not tape mine and some of the other guys I fly with don't tape theirs either. The pivot is about 1/8" into the flap. Hard to find a surface that isn't moving too much to tape and for some reason, probably the uniformity of the gap, they just don't seem to need it.
Ken
Thanks. The pictures did not look like Sharks are sealed. I was curious because the Sharks seem to have a flat TE on the stabilizers vs. the recessed TE such as how Ken builds his.
-
Out of curiosity how much battery do you use? My experience with undercamber while producing more thrust they also load things up more using more amps. Sometimes quite drastically. Also, how does this compare to the flat back with the amount of battery usage?
I used Igor's flat back version for awhile then switched to the Ukranian 12.5 version. I have a couple for version of the Ukranian props that should be here any time.
The prop I use consumes about 2250 to 2300 mah in Muncie.
That is about 400 mah more than the flat back prop.
FWIW, Igor gave me a 12.5 dia 3 blade flat back to try. I will let him know what I think of that after I try it.
-
The prop I use consumes about 2250 to 3000 mah in Muncie.
That is about 400 mah more than the flat back prop.
FWIW, Igor gave me a 12.5 dia 3 blade flat back to try. I will let him know what I think of that after I try it.
The weird part, I was using one of Igor's 12 inch three blade and then tried the 12.5 of the Ukranians. No difference in battery usage or need to change RPM but I immediately noticed a difference in thrust. The thrust part I expected, the no change in settings or usage I did not. I was using around 2000 to 2100 mA.
-
The number of combinations is approximately 123 billion. Seems like a lot!
Last timer had only one setting - sensitivity (beside the timing) and I saw several complains it is too complicated. So now we have 123 billion and I think it is still "too complicated", so no difference VD~
It is a significant improvement over his old one. Some have asked Igor if he would take his old ones back for a discount on the new ones. He just laughs!!
Keep them, soon it will be discontinued so I guess someone can be lucky with only one setting >:D
But seriously - Paul has prototype with many settings also some of them we found not necessary, final version wil have . again only that sensitivity (do not worry, there will be some back door for masochists tech guys )
And that taking back, I would like to do it, because I am sure it will be good stuff, but unfortunately it is very difficult to send things to EU, because of difficult import processing etc.
-
The weird part, I was using one of Igor's 12 inch three blade and then tried the 12.5 of the Ukranians. No difference in battery usage or need to change RPM but I immediately noticed a difference in thrust. The thrust part I expected, the no change in settings or usage I did not. I was using around 2000 to 2100 mA.
Depend which props, I guess you are speaking about that wide undercambered. That other 12x5N is designed to have high efficiency, because it is dedicated to relatively small AXI motors which cannot withstand load of that larger. And yes of course you pay by little smaller static thrust. But we are not hanging on prop so static thrust is not so important value and where it can be somehow important, for example in corners .... guess how we solve it 8)
And consumption of that undercambered is clear, that is how such props work, they do not unload shaft during braking (property of the airfoil) and therefore they have little better resistance in strong wind. Something is for something.
-
You also need to think how easy it is to get nitro in Europe
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You also need to think how easy it is to get nitro in Europe
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is this talk about the difficulty to find nitro in Europe? It's available now and in future. Of course because of the new laws it's maybe not as easy as before, but still no problem.
I don't use nitro, but it has nothing to do with availability or price, I just don't need it. No nitro does not mean bad power, bad needling and bad stability. Quite opposite actually, at least with my technology.
L
-
And consumption of that undercambered is clear, that is how such props work, they do not unload shaft during braking (property of the airfoil) and therefore they have little better resistance in strong wind. Something is for something.
The drag bucket effect was a brilliant insight and it explained a whole bunch of things we had found using U/C props, but otherwise had no idea why. It was also one of those "how the heck did I manage to miss that for the last 10 years?" moments.
Well done!
Brett
-
The drag bucket effect was a brilliant insight and it explained a whole bunch of things we had found using U/C props, but otherwise had no idea why. It was also one of those "how the heck did I manage to miss that for the last 10 years?" moments.
Well done!
Brett
I was also surprised that time how those props can work. It was long thread on Compuserve in 1998. 8)
details are still, after 25 years, on my old pages (on bottom of the page):
http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/stunt/notes.htm (http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/stunt/notes.htm)
-
What diameter is the "better to beat you with" prop?
-
There is always some optimum for given model and power train. Larger prop gives better static thrust and therefore better speed stability (amount of thrust change as function of speed change). That means it will pull better during climbing and brake better in diving. But it will also slow down while flying against wind, especially in upper loops during flying against wind, and that will result in slowing down overhead and thus lower line tension in hourglass, vertical eight and four leaf in strong wind. That is why there is an optimum - typically heavier model needs larger prop.
BUT ... usage of active timer which will accelerate uphill, will allow smaller prop.
BUT ... usage of weaker battery, which cannot accelerate enough (popular lions) will not allow as large timer acceleration as Lipols do, will lead to larger prop again.
... and than there is something like moment of inertia which will limit limit corners, delay acceleration and lead to precession with larger props - but that is about mass, not diameter itself.
-
Once upon a time there was a rule created saying that no outside radio control or other device was allowed to change throttle, yet now we have something which is infinitely more advantageous than what the rule prohibited.
Wouldn't make sense to change the rules just for USA, so would fai consider a rules change to rpm limiting controls only?
Otherwise everything there is no competitive future for IC. I might propose such a rule for classic.
-
Once upon a time there was a rule created saying that no outside radio control or other device was allowed to change throttle, yet now we have something which is infinitely more advantageous than what the rule prohibited.
Wouldn't make sense to change the rules just for USA, so would fai consider a rules change to rpm limiting controls only?
Otherwise everything there is no competitive future for IC. I might propose such a rule for classic.
And you want to rule out pipes as well? How about changing head shims to change 4-2 break, and how about venturi size changes as well?
Your concerns are way too late, but you can always submit a rules proposal to AMA, and let it be voted on.
-
Once upon a time there was a rule created saying that no outside radio control or other device was allowed to change throttle, yet now we have something which is infinitely more advantageous than what the rule prohibited.
Not that I know of. I know that Windy and his cheering section repeatedly claimed there was such a rule, saying we put it in to "get Windy", but in fact there wasn't any restriction at all on that until about 20 years later, when the "2.4 GHz rule" was adopted.
I also note that there was not, is not, and likely will never be a rule prohibiting feedback control of the engine through an onboard system, with absolutely identical functions as the latest Igor system, and in fact you can probably hook up a servo directly to an Igor system instead of a ESC, and use it to manipulate anything you want - carburetor, exhaust throttle, variable pi...er, never mind that last one, just disregard/
Wouldn't make sense to change the rules just for USA, so would fai consider a rules change to rpm limiting controls only?
Otherwise everything there is no competitive future for IC. I might propose such a rule for classic.
Quick answer is no, they probably won't take that seriously. You can submit such a proposal, but I predict it goes exactly nowhere, both because the FAI has no real rule change process, they are actively promoting electric over IC, and there is far too much invested in it to make it suddenly obsolete. Of course, no one will stop you from trying, but I consider that idea to be the ultimate example of tilting at windmills.
I also am not quite so sure how much of a disadvantage there is, and I am sure I can direct you to people who think IC is superior. I was at a contest 3 hours ago where IC finished 1-2 over a field of largely electric, some of which used the very latest stuff (prototype Igor controller), and 3 of this years NATs Top 5. Of course, the IC setups *also used the state-of-the-art equipment* with underlying vast expertise needed to make it that way.
Even if it is better - so what? We handled a far bigger step forward by retaining no restrictions at all and letting the pilots decide what they wanted to use. Compare the hot setup from 1975 (say, ST46 with a 12-6 Rev-Up) to 1993 (piped OS-40VF and a carbon fiber 11.3-4.25) or 2024 (piped 61-75 AAC ). Even the lowliest $75 RC sport engine with a $2 prop (46LA with an APC) works far better than the worlds best ST46 in the most skilled hands.
As always, you are certainly welcome to follow through with your ideas, no one has a veto power, but I think the idea is very unlikely to go anywhere, nor do I think it should. If it's better, it's better, and I think it is plenty close enough to not cause us to start banning things or trying to cripple electric development.
Brett
-
Wouldn't make sense to change the rules just for USA, so would fai consider a rules change to rpm limiting controls only?
Otherwise everything there is no competitive future for IC. I might propose such a rule for classic.
How would you enforce such a rule? You could have the CD put a device on each plane to record timer pulse spacing during each flight. The rule would have to specify pulse spacing tolerance. It would be easier to issue constant-RPM timers to contestants. We do that with fuel for F2A and F2D. Better yet, just ban electric power. I was going to propose a rule to ban electric power for stunt, but the horse had already left the barn. We should certainly bad electric for old time and classic (except for ignition).
-
You could have the CD put a device on each plane to record timer pulse spacing during each flight.
This is actually not enough, there is closed loop PID regulation inside the ESC and with little modified PID values so that it makes certain overshoot will still do some amount of active controll.
Keith R. tried something like that in his timer.
BTW banning electric in F2B will eliminate 3/4 of young blood in Europe, because we simply cannot fly IC on most places (and I did not mention availability of usefull engines, price of fuel and banned pure nitromethane in EU). But it will bee good way to prevent youngsters to kick our old butts on contests :-P
-
LL~
But it will bee good way to prevent youngsters to kick our old butts on contests :-P
I keep arguing that the "Classic" event in the US should apply to pilots designed of kitted before 1970, not what they fly!
-
I would also add that almost no one reading this has ever come close to optimizing their IC setup, and many are still struggling with the very basic issues with consistency and setting the needle.
The difference between the average IC system and the very best IC systems are also FAR FAR GREATER than the difference between the best IC systems and the best electric systems. So we are not just comparing apples and oranges, we are comparing apples and dinosaurs. The corollary is that many people currently running IC could make rather massive strides with pretty straightforward attention to detail and careful experimentation. Then electric will not seem like the massive advantage it currently seems. The good news it that while IC is becoming difficult to support in some senses, the best equipment and knowledge that has ever been available is pretty easy to get and has abundant information on how to proceed.
I will however grant that it is "easier" in some ways to get a middle-of-the-road electric system to work than it is for s mrdiocre IC system, but that mostly boils down to people either not paying attention or getting caught up in the 80+ years of complete and utter nonsense associated with IC engines in stunt.
Brett
-
How would you enforce such a rule? You could have the CD put a device on each plane to record timer pulse spacing during each flight. The rule would have to specify pulse spacing tolerance. It would be easier to issue constant-RPM timers to contestants. We do that with fuel for F2A and F2D. Better yet, just ban electric power. I was going to propose a rule to ban electric power for stunt, but the horse had already left the barn. We should certainly bad electric for old time and classic (except for ignition).
Obviously nobody is going to ban electric.
And I was asked, how would this be enforced?
I was also encouraged that the difference between electric and IC is smaller than many believe.
I have used electric for years with Hubin and Renacle timers and recently used a timer with a separate accelerometer. I found the difference to be a large one. However, I only flew my piped plane for 2 seasons and can't recall exactly how it controlled speed anymore.
But enforcement is a matter of integrity.
I think the difference for classic at least would obsolete non piped engines versus accelerometer assisted timers. But that should be a separate discussion perhaps.
-
I think the difference for classic at least would obsolete non piped engines versus accelerometer assisted timers. But that should be a separate discussion perhaps.
I could be convinced to relegate Classic to Non-Piped IC and Non-Accelerometer timers for electric. Banning electric is just not practical if just for the noise issue alone.
Ken
-
I guess I missed the obituary about the untimely death of IC........perhaps these new full wave pipes will re-adjust the playing field a little. Three of the the top five at the Nats were IC. Not so much at the Worlds but IMHO that wasn't power-it was airplane design and the fact that most those who entered chose or had to fly electric. I don't care who flies what but I don't buy the IC is doomed argument. Now that I've got that off my chest..... n1
Dave
-
Once upon a time there was a rule created saying that no outside radio control or other device was allowed to change throttle, yet now we have something which is infinitely more advantageous than what the rule prohibited.
Wouldn't make sense to change the rules just for USA, so would fai consider a rules change to rpm limiting controls only?
Otherwise everything there is no competitive future for IC. I might propose such a rule for classic.
Way back when, I believe that throttles and any kind of cut off or timing device was not allowed in FAI, at least that's what I'm remembering. When electric came along with the need for a timer, then that rule was eliminated. In my view, what is in the nose of the elite electric models is a programable, computer controlled robotic throttle. You can't really compare that to changing venturis, pipe lengths, or head shims. Everyone has access to the laws of physics and the hardware to tune the engine. Tuning the engine adds another aspect of human involvement and skills. The electric power delivery just requires the spending of more money and grasping the knowledge to take advantage of the technology, which seems to be constantly changing. Depending on the person involved, I don't know if using the electric power plant is any easier. I have seen people have just as much trouble and technical problems with it, sometimes more, as they do with I/C. In the 40's, 50's and 60's, when many more people were participating in the hobby, there were still a LOT of people that just could not grasp what they needed to do operate an engine consistently, and that's why there are SO many engines laying around and posted on eBay with very little to no time on them and/or missing parts. People just did not "Get It." It's probably worse today. This years W/C at Muncie, with it's large schools of Sharks swimming around in the air, is a preview of what may be instore for future events. It may get like R/C pattern, with everyone flying the same airplane with computer controlled powerplants, depending on where you are in the world. But I do not think the internal combustion engine will be come entirely extinct. people will gravitate to the technology that appeals to them, and to some of us, prepping for an official flight, and getting that bump when turning the engine over to tell us that it's alive and ready is a big part of the event. I don't know if you can make us gear heads extinct or not! If all I had available to me was electric power plants, I most likely would not participate, but go back to free flight gliders and rubber powered models. I can still pick thermals, and as far as I know, you can't buy those off the shelf anywhere!!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
I can still pick thermals....
And they can still ruin your day!
Ken
-
I think it's important to point out we're talking the very top end of competition here, at most local contests glow is still very much in use, I was at a contest in July that had competitors from Canada and the US and glow far outnumbered electrics, I think there were only 4 electrics and I was the only one with a active timer, so I wouldn't worry Dan glow isn't going anywhere and most electrics don't have active timers. :)
-
I think that the migration to electric within our current community will be slow but steady, especially at the top. However, if I were a new flier or a returning flier which technology would I choose? In my own case, when I returned on the first day I saw a piped 75 and an active timer equipped plane flown by some local experts. I thought I was in an episode of "The Twilight Zone" and actually quoted Will Smith out load - "I have to get me one of these!". But which one. As luck would have it both an LA46 and a cobra 2820 were made available to me so I did both. Granted the LA46 was not piped but it didn't cost $600 either and the Cobra came with a FM-9 timer so I was actually apples to apples. It wasn't till I built a plane for a Fiorotti timer that I saw how unequal they were and made my choice to go electric. When I lost everything in the fire I didn't replace any of the IC.
That is just one man's observation. Changing is difficult if you have mastered the piped IC. Few have "mastered" it.
Ken