Well, Ward,

Just opinions, but except for 40 Pylon, I don't think there's anything RC that pulls the g's that most about anything in CL does. 3D and park flyers don't move very fast, so the g's they generate are softer.

RC Pylon models I've seen, and seen pix and plans of, don't have that long triangle top view, and they are built a mite sturdier to handle the power they use.

Our CL models are more compact than most anything else in modeling, with more power in a smaller space, not just the higher-g situation. Our good models last hundreds, occasionally thousands of flights. How does a typical RC model compare to that?

There have beeen rubber-ducky front end CL models, and some of them last quite well. No question. Our usual methods help keep the models sleek, without needing to grind off the mount lugs, like that profile scaler in the recent MA. You omitted mention that the RC 'accessories' seem to be on the fragile side?

I wouldn't consider mounting a 35, 40 or larger engine with self-tapping screws for CL, but those are the usual recommedations for RC mounts... Maybe I'm just overcautious?

Anyone willing to try the RC market stuff to see if it is good in CL is free to do so. We already use quite a bit from that area, since it is about all there is available at larger LHS... For the more stereotypical RC Sport stuff, if it had proven any great advantage, word surely would be out.

Ah, but we do have inertia, stubbornness, to overcome, too. We've had too much fun dissing the RCers to admit they have anything good going...

If I may take a different tack: we need to keep our eyes wide open for anything that we can use from our RC brothers and adapt for our use.  The classic stunt model layout serves us well, and will continue to do so, but opportunities for change abound.

* The plastic mounts do not wear out like wood, and they ARE replaceable.  I do not use them with self tappers either - but I have seen them work well that way!  As for them making for easy engine change-outs; cue Ted's Imitation article!

* Lots of folks are having great success with bottle tanks, and they are usually easier to install behind a firewall instead of along beam mounts.

* I have learned from Scale Sailplanes that LARGE fuselages are not necessarily very draggy.

* Large cross section curved fuselages are VERY strong, meaning that they can be very lightly structured and still be very stiff, and durable.  I seem to recall a certain Texan with an affinity for Bearcats, Mustangs, Sea Furies etc. has had SOME SUCCESS with this structural concept!!! 

* Fiberglass would be the no-brainer choice for a big well rounded fuselage!

* ANOTHER tangent, as the adoption of electrics continue, most of our structural concepts will have to change - and I do not think the beam mounts will take us very much farther.  Imagine that nice short nosed Typhoon with a big Axi and all of the batteries crammed into the chin scoop...!

ALL good things for us.

I noticed...

To answer your question of why?  You need to only look across the entire sport.  Stunt stuff has barely changed since people were flying Chief's and Noblers.  Most of the most popular stunt ships are still built EXACTLY like a Nobler, which is a 40 year old design.

I say STOP THE MADNESS.  I have been testing RC mounts, and they work unbelievably well.  I disagree with Phil that we need a mount stiffer than the fiberglass units.  The fiberglass units are just STIFF ENOUGH to isolate the vibrations to the front of the ship.  Most modern engines are very smooth running anyway, so any extra is just wasted.

Let's look at all the things that we do not need if we use RC mounts:

First off you can eliminate aluminum pads.  I use UHP Moon pads for wood beams.  This makes the mounting system more "universal" and allows for changing engines without re-drilling the wood beams.  These pads weigh 3/4 oz.  My RC mounts weigh 1.25 oz.

Next you can eliminate the wood beams.  Typcial 1/2 x 3/8 beams weigh nearly an oz each.  However, you do have to add a 1/4" front firewall to hold the RC mount, that is the trade off.

As far as useablity the RC mounts win HANDS DOWN!!! 

1.  The mounts cannot fuel soak. 
2.  The screws that hold the engine do not loosen or break. 
3.  If you want to change the offset in the motor you simply slide a shim behind the mount (no need to drill holes).
4.  You can buy a mount for every motor you own.  Changing engines take only a few minutes.
5.  They are cheap!!!!  $5 each, I may start buying them by the dozen.
6.  They isolate vibration.

I have been testing RC mounts with the ST 60 running a hemi head.  I figure if I can get good engine runs with this engine, which can be a shaker, I can run anything.  So far, using the Hayes mount, the run is great.

Dennis, you are going to really like my new stuff...

Hate to admit this but one of the best running, best flying airplanes in my fleet is an ARF with RC engine mounts.

Hate to admit this but one of the best running, best flying airplanes in my fleet is an ARF with RC engine mounts.

..and that is a 4 stroke using very long mounts.