stunthanger.com

Design => Stunt design => Topic started by: Shultzie on March 16, 2009, 09:12:32 AM

Title: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: Shultzie on March 16, 2009, 09:12:32 AM: After scanning the pages of George Aldrich's June 1958 article in MAN, it appears that even after 51 years....."WE'VE COME A LONG WAY BABY!" hummmmmmmmm?
OR HAVE WE?
After reading this article...history has proven that his amazing NOBLER and George's amazing genius made huge contributions in the design and advancement in CLPA circles.
Title: Re: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: Jim Pollock on March 16, 2009, 12:01:12 PM: Don,

Could you possibly E-Mail me the article? I have tried saving it but the resolution doesn't allow me to read it.

Email address is jmpollock@cableone.net

Thank you,

Jim Pollock
Title: Re: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: Shultzie on March 16, 2009, 12:17:05 PM: Not a problemo...but have you tried to "right click and save" on the photos?
However I will send them to your E mail shortly..hang tough, and have a great day!

Wish I could be at VSC...this week but I wish everyone all the best...and in the words of Bob Palmer, I bet he too is lookin down in the sunny southwest land this week, huh?
Title: Re: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: Shultzie on March 16, 2009, 12:47:50 PM: I see that the 3rd photo didn't download..sparky's fault? LL~
Title: Re: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: Andrew Hathaway on March 16, 2009, 05:18:41 PM: I want a $35 Dynajet... "High resale value" Truth in advertising.
Title: Re: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: Shultzie on March 16, 2009, 06:28:24 PM: Quote from: Andrew Hathaway on March 16, 2009, 05:18:41 PM
I want a $35 Dynajet... "High resale value" Truth in advertising.
JET STUNT POWER...REALLY COMANDS ATTENTION!!! Are you sure its worth $35.bucks LL~
Title: Re: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: Jim Pollock on March 17, 2009, 10:36:48 AM: That's good reading Don. Of course the only thing I see where big improvement has been made over the last 60 years or so is in power plants and stab/elevator areas. Also, since many of our flying sites are at risk due to our so called noise nuisance, I wonder how long it will be before were forced to total electric power? When that happens, what do we do with our IC engines? Turn them into some kind trophy or monument?

Jim Pollock %^@
Title: Re: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: Brett Buck on March 27, 2009, 05:50:54 PM: Quote from: Shultzie on March 16, 2009, 09:12:32 AM
After scanning the pages of George Aldrich's June 1958 article in MAN, it appears that even after 51 years....."WE'VE COME A LONG WAY BABY!" hummmmmmmmm?
OR HAVE WE?
After reading this article...history has proven that his amazing NOBLER and George's amazing genius made huge contributions in the design and advancement in CLPA circles.

In fact, my defunct Design column in SN pretty much did the same thing, with the numbers slightly different, but a very similar approach. I had never seen GMA's article before.

One thing I disagree with quite strenuously is the nitro advice - most stunt engines can pick up tremendous power with more nitro, and the engines he had at hand (Fox and others) really come to life with 10 or 15% nitro. Makes up for the absurdly low compression. And with no real downside other than the extra fuel consumption - and maybe the dramatically increased noise.

Brett
Title: Re: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: Tom Niebuhr on March 31, 2009, 03:33:26 PM: Shultzie,
I took the second picture of the "Jet Stunter" with the red wings at the 1961 Willow Grove Nats. It was a very impressive airplane. It did a few maneuvers, as I recall, but not the entire pattern.
Title: Re: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: Shultzie on March 31, 2009, 08:35:52 PM: Tom..
I remember that the Shark had some kind of "device" that help supply fuel at all times...due to the problem that the Dyna's would CUT OUT DEAD AZZZZZCOLD TURKEY...if fuel wasn't delivered to the engine at all times. I think he mentioned that he had to be EXTREMELY CAREFUL not to POP the handle with too much force in the square corners and triangles? LL~ Also keeping things COOOL due to that enclosed engine gave his finish some pretty interesting paint bubbles effects..in places. Also that model smoked like n old frying pan after landing?
Title: Re: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: Steve Helmick on April 01, 2009, 07:45:52 PM: Quote from: Jim Pollock on March 16, 2009, 12:01:12 PM
Don,

Could you possibly E-Mail me the article? I have tried saving it but the resolution doesn't allow me to read it.

Email address is jmpollock@cableone.net

Thank you,

Jim Pollock

Jim...I clicked on Schultzie's attached scans and then hit the magnifier button in the lower right corner in Internet Exploder...zapped it to 150%, and then right clicked and "save as". It surprised me that it appears to have saved the scans at the 150% magnification. They're easy to read, even the 8 1/2" dims on the layout drawings. ~> Steve
Title: Re: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: Brett Buck on April 04, 2009, 06:58:43 PM: Quote from: Shultzie on March 31, 2009, 08:35:52 PM
Tom..
I remember that the Shark had some kind of "device" that help supply fuel at all times...due to the problem that the Dyna's would CUT OUT DEAD AZZZZZCOLD TURKEY...if fuel wasn't delivered to the engine at all times. I think he mentioned that he had to be EXTREMELY CAREFUL not to POP the handle with too much force in the square corners and triangles? LL~ Also keeping things COOOL due to that enclosed engine gave his finish some pretty interesting paint bubbles effects..in places. Also that model smoked like n old frying pan after landing?

The "don't disturb the fuel flow" thing is very real. Some of my work buddies built a sport jet model, and of course I ended up flying it. I had all sorts of trouble getting it off the ground, because it would quit from either fuel disruption or carburetion issues when I tried to rotate for takeoff. Eventually I got it off the ground running by a very gentle takeoff that took about a lap to get up to 6".

I't be idly curious how they managed to get it through a stunt flight. I considered the possibility of a flow straightener of some sort but it wasn't a very interesting project and it never flew after that one day.

Brett
Title: Re: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: rustler on April 05, 2009, 03:23:54 PM: There was an Italian pulse jet stunt job at the 1958 Criterium. No squares, but loops bunts and inverted o.k. Sorry no details.
Title: Re: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: Shultzie on April 05, 2009, 07:16:46 PM: Quote from: rustler on April 05, 2009, 03:23:54 PM
There was an Italian pulse jet stunt job at the 1958 Criterium. No squares, but loops bunts and inverted o.k. Sorry no details.
I found this in another post...
Title: Re: "WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.. BABY!" Or have we??
Post by: rustler on April 06, 2009, 02:30:21 PM: Quote from: Ty Marcucci on April 05, 2009, 08:59:52 PM
I have heard you Brits use the term "bunt" in a model aviation usage, but what exactly is it?

Bunt = outside loop, blood rushing to the head.