News:



  • March 28, 2024, 02:35:22 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Is bigger still better?  (Read 28637 times)

Offline Mike Alimov

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
Is bigger still better?
« on: August 06, 2018, 10:28:59 AM »
I don't think anyone will dispute the fact that if there is one clear trend in stunt from the '50s-'60s to the modern times, it is the increase in average competitive airplane size (Old Time and Classic notwithstanding, for obvious reasons).  From sub-550 sq.in. wings to 650+ sq.in. wings.  Up to the '90s, the size (wing area, weight, loading) was largely limited by availability of powertrains suitable for stunt.  As power available from the engines grew (Fox 35 -> ST 46 -> ST 60 -> OS 40 VF pipe -> etc...), so did the airplanes.
 
I don't think anyone will deny that the larger airplanes fly better (of course... properly designed, built, powered, trimmed).  I also don't think that we are limited by power today.  Many combustion engines in the .75 class (piped, 4-stroke) can put out tremendous amount of power, and electrics are only limited by the weight of the battery.  Yet, the growth of the average competitive airplane size seems to have stopped around 650 sq.in. (give or take, and yes there are exceptions).  Why? Is bigger no longer better? Why don't we see planes in the near-800 sq.in. area dominate the circles? Reynolds number no longer works?   ;)

The only explanation I can think of is that with larger airplanes comes more weight and therefore the pull at the handle (physical effort required to fly).  But it seems to be a moderate price to pay for presumably even better presentation than the 650-sq.in size planes.

(p.s. I hope we can keep this discussion purely technical, and not personal or political).

Online Igor Burger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2165
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2018, 10:41:31 AM »
My Max is smaller version (10%) of its predecessor called Next. :- )) Difference is only in wing area, not the fuselage, it is actually longer in its nose section :- ))

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2018, 11:06:04 AM »
 
I don't think anyone will deny that the larger airplanes fly better (of course... properly designed, built, powered, trimmed).  I also don't think that we are limited by power today.  Many combustion engines in the .75 class (piped, 4-stroke) can put out tremendous amount of power, and electrics are only limited by the weight of the battery.  Yet, the growth of the average competitive airplane size seems to have stopped around 650 sq.in. (give or take, and yes there are exceptions).  Why? Is bigger no longer better? Why don't we see planes in the near-800 sq.in. area dominate the circles? Reynolds number no longer works?   ;)

    I don't even buy the premise, bigger has not been better and the sizes stopped getting larger about 30 years ago. As long as there is a 70' line limitation (and there needs to be, to accommodate the flying sites that have been designed around it for half-a-century), you aren;t going to see larger airplanes. If anything, the trend overall has been downward from upper-600's-700 to 630-660, as we have gotten a grasp on how to control the available power. The larger 750-ish square inch airplanes proved to be a dead end, for the most part. Worth trying, but didn't work out.

   Brett

Offline Mike Alimov

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2018, 12:45:07 PM »
Igor and Brett - thank you for your inputs.
Igor - your reply just supported my observation that the planes are not getting any bigger (and even smaller now).  Can you elaborate on why you decided to "downsize"?

Brett - there was no premise in my message, just an observation and a question.  The observation was that for a good while (say, 1950s->1990s), the planes were getting bigger, and flew better, including, and especially, in worse weather conditions.  If there was no benefit from going bigger, most everyone at the NATS would still be flying something like a Nobler derivative, not an Impact/Trivial Pursuit/GEO XL/SV-11 etc derivative.
Then comes the question: why did the size stop increasing beyond +/- 650 sq.in. of wing area?
You mention the 70-ft  line length limitation.  How does this limit us from increasing the linear dimensions of an airplane by a mere ~10" in wing span and even less in fuselage length?  Does it have anything to do with the human visual perception that a larger airplane cannot ascribe the infamous 5-ft radius turn as well as a smaller one? (Even though they are quite capable of it, and not just theoretically, as was shown by Scott Bair and his Stunt Fire).

I'll explain the background to my question.  In support of my 10-yr old who is getting into RC, I recently took him to the local 3D fly-in.  It was then, after watching these guys do some insane 3D about 10 ft off the ground in gusty, turbulent 18-mph winds with their 1/3-scale IMAC-legal Extras running two-cylinder gasoline monsters without so much a twitch, that "bigger is better" phrase came back to my mind.  My kid's 60" foam Apprentice 15e was getting blown backwards relative to the ground when pointed into the wind at full power.

So, why are stunt planes not getting bigger, again?

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2018, 01:24:43 PM »
So, why are stunt planes not getting bigger, again?

Listen to Brett:  70 foot lines.  Assuming that the pilot is adding a couple of feed to the effective diameter, a 54 inch wingspan plane on 70' lines is taking up about 7 1/2 percent of the flying radius with it's wingspan.  That means that the dynamic pressure across the wingspan varies by about 15% -- very roughly, whatever slice of the inner wingtip is lifting one ounce, the same-sized slice of the outer wingtip is lifting 1.15 ounces.  The heavier the plane the bigger it needs to be, and as the wingspan grows the effect just gets worse.

We could go out and buy full-scale aerobatic planes and fly CL stunt with them as long as we could figure out where to fly on 350 foot lines, and how to cope with the increased line tension (I'm thinking a cockpit mounted on a gimbal, with a conventional seat & elevator stick for control.  Should be fun, especially before you figure out how to come out of the wingover with your head pointed up).
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Mike Alimov

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2018, 01:49:26 PM »
Tim, I'll let you try the full-size Extra on 350' lines, let me know how it feels   D>K
I know you're being funny, and I appreciate that.  But seriously, I anticipated the line pull argument, and was not suggesting we fly IMAC-sized birds.  Maybe more like 800 sq.in. of wing at ~ 70 oz.  I've never been so confident in the 17 mph wind as when I flew Strega ARF with Saito 72 at a 75-oz all up weight (and no, I didn't think that ARF is a great flyer, but it deals with wind better than my 650 sq.in 60-oz birds).

I'm not sure I buy the differential lift argument.  It's easy to deal with that by making the outside wing half slightly smaller. But then, read Bob Hunt's Genesis article and how he came to fly equal-panel wings.

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2018, 02:06:34 PM »
I don't think the line tension is a big part of it.  If it were, guys with great big biceps and lots of flying skill would be winning with big airplanes.

Having been in a position of trying to make systems work where 1% imbalance from side to side is a humongous issue, I think a 15% difference in dynamic pressure* is a big thing.  Sure, you can make the plane asymmetrical to cope with it, but then you end up going down this path where the wings are mismatched by one factor, the flaps by another, then the plane wants to turn in on takeoff and you have to paint zig-zags on the wing so the difference doesn't show, etc., etc.  I'm waiting for someone who knows more than me (well, aside from Brett), but I think there's enough inherent asymmetry for it to be a limiting factor.

* For the non-aerodynamics wonks: dynamic pressure is, roughly, the "flat plate" pressure, i.e., what you feel when you stick your hand out of a car window at highway speeds**.

** Unless you're in the Midwest and it's hailing.  Then you feel pain.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Trostle

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3338
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2018, 02:10:04 PM »
Like Tim W. just said, listen to Brett regarding 70' lines.  Another factor and closely related to what Brett explained is that it takes more pilot skill to present a pattern with a larger airplane as long as we are confined to the 70' lines.  There was a trend some time ago to 750+ sq in wings and the top pilots were having some success with these.  When pilots with somewhat less skill flew these airplanes, there was a problem of presenting a pattern that would score well.  The larger airplanes are not a help to the less skilled pilot to get good scores.  Those larger airplanes basically put too much machinery in our hemisphere.  If you take larger and larger airplanes to some extreme level, it becomes more clear that the really larger airplane will obviously be difficult to score just because it is confined on that hemisphere regardless of the skill of the pilot.  Now with the power plants that are available (IC and electric), they can be integrated into a more "moderate" size model and will be easier to fly on our hemisphere, regardless of the skill of the pilot, and will still be able to cope with unfavorable wind conditions.  I think that is a reason we are now seeing the trend for many of the top airplanes appearing in the 650 to 680 sq in range.  Yes, there are good outliers on either side of this range flown by really good pilots, but for the state of the art now, we see this trend.

Keith

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2018, 05:26:58 PM »
Brett - there was no premise in my message, just an observation and a question.

  I meant the premise that bigger airplanes fly better. I do not agree with that at all, particularly when the line length is limited. We had bigger airplanes for a while, then hit the limit, backed off a bit, and arrived at the current range. 700 square inches seems to be about the rational limit, and at seems to be true even though we have piped 88s to power it with instead of ST46s.

     In fact, at one point we all thought that 720 square inches was just right for an ST46 - and the last ST46 airplane (and arguably the best) was *610*, 15 years later.

    Change the line length to 90', then, maybe.

     Brett

Online Igor Burger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2165
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2018, 11:13:57 PM »

Igor - your reply just supported my observation that the planes are not getting any bigger (and even smaller now).  Can you elaborate on why you decided to "downsize"?

That was time when some guys around asked me how to make models cheaper. I flew piped PAs and Jetts and it was simply too expensive and difficult to have that time (in Slovakia). So I decided to make airplane for LA46 which was available for good money in our shops and slim aluminum pipes. Soon my calculator for model parameters gave me numbers showing that model has too small AoA for planned corners (r=3.5m) and too low wing load making him sensitive for turbullence and "hopping" in corners, so instead of trimming by flap size or deflection I simply cut almost 10% of wing area at its tips. It gave planform which I use till now and it is used also in Max Bee. Means higher aspect ratio and sweep back. Later we found it performs very well also with ST60 as used by Richie Kornmeier and after that he won WCh, so looks like it was sucessfull modiffication. 

the old model:
http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/stunt/thenext.htm

resized:
http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/stunt/the_max.htm

and the same with logarithimic flaps (making flaps move less)
http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/stunt/the_max_ii.htm

this is the model I used on my first WChamp in Sebnitz (very turbullent place) and placed 10th in finals. Except Todd Lee, all larger models and engines.
http://www.go-cl.se/wch02-f2b.html

Offline TDM

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2018, 06:00:15 AM »
A more scientific answer is that the Reynolds numbers for bigger planes are better and that is an indication of better performance.
Each goal you meet is a moment of happiness
Happiness is the harmony between what you think and what you do. Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2018, 09:53:25 AM »
A more scientific answer is that the Reynolds numbers for bigger planes are better and that is an indication of better performance.

   
    Different performance, maybe, not necessarily better. Besides, what parameters do you think define "performance" in a stunt plane? Because I only have a vague idea what those parameters might be. Which ones do you optimize, and why?

     Brett

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2018, 12:11:07 PM »
  " Brett - there was no premise in my message, just an observation and a question.  The observation was that for a good while (say, 1950s->1990s), the planes were getting bigger, and flew better, including, and especially, in worse weather conditions.  If there was no benefit from going bigger, most everyone at the NATS would still be flying something like a Nobler derivative, not an Impact/Trivial Pursuit/GEO XL/SV-11 etc derivative.
Then comes the question: why did the size stop increasing beyond +/- 650 sq.in. of wing area?
You mention the 70-ft  line length limitation.  How does this limit us from increasing the linear dimensions of an airplane by a mere ~10" in wing span and even less in fuselage length?  Does it have anything to do with the human visual perception that a larger airplane cannot ascribe the infamous 5-ft radius turn as well as a smaller one? (Even though they are quite capable of it, and not just theoretically, as was shown by Scott Bair and his Stunt Fire)."

Hi Mike

I will tell you my thoughts  and  experience,  I went to a 700 sq in plane in 1973, then in 75 when I developed what would become the  Stuntcraft  airfoil system , that would then later lead-in to the  SV airfoil  system, Then the  next plane started in 1975  would be  750 sq in.  When I flew it, it was nice, except I kept feeling it was  too large for the  size of the circle I was using.  Next one started 1976 was trimmed  to 725,  this flew well  but I still got the "too large for the circle I was using"  So agin it was trimmed down in 78 to just under 700 sq in, that  seemed about right, but in the next 2 years  I wanted to try moving the  size  down again, So I designed  the  Vector and  Apex , these were just over 630 sq in,  and  right behind that  I designed the larger of the 2, The  VECTRA  DREADNOUGHT, it was  around 650 and was / is , the  size  I have settled on. It was  designed mid 1980s, this was an eliptical  wing plane  plane  and  I also wanted a straight taper one , So  in 87 I started the   SV-11 , I was very please with the  size of  the last 3 planes  in the  SV  series   so  to this day I am stuck on this  size,  I believe  its  the best size for  a  70 ft circle, and  some, even use  2 to 3 feet smaller  circle  size ( 65 to 67)
I did make  make  the later  eliptical designs,  Tempest  DREADNOUGHT ,  Cutlass, STARFIRE  etc   680 to 690 sq in  just because  of the  reverse  tip sweep.  But I would  not  go back to  the  larger  ships.

I will also tell you  that , to me, it looks like  Les McDonald  sorta  did the same thing, He had  a  600  or so size  Stiletto , then 1975  showed up with a  700  sq in version, right after that  came  the  660 Stiletto ,  I have his last one  here  and  it looks to  be  640ish ,  You may see other around the  country that also  followed  this  trend

Regtards
Randy

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2018, 01:41:34 PM »
Which ones do you optimize, and why?

The ones that Paul Walker tells me to, because if I don't the entire Seattle-area contingent will beat me up.  I live in fear of those Washington guys.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2018, 04:06:49 PM »
We were discussing this very topic at the field last weekend.  Since I have yet to build my PA ship for next year I am torn between building a smaller (630-650sq) for an 46 size engine or 670-700sq and get one of the 60+ engines.  So, my question is - does it really matter how big the plane is?
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2018, 06:11:58 PM »
We were discussing this very topic at the field last weekend.  Since I have yet to build my PA ship for next year I am torn between building a smaller (630-650sq) for an 46 size engine or 670-700sq and get one of the 60+ engines.  So, my question is - does it really matter how big the plane is?

    My airplane is about 660 square inches and was designed around a OS40VF. I currently fly it with a RO-Jett 61, and people have flown them with Jett 76s. As long as you use a conventional piped stunt engine, I think anything that will fit will work.

    Brett

Offline Dave_Trible

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6132
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2018, 07:48:21 AM »
We were discussing this very topic at the field last weekend.  Since I have yet to build my PA ship for next year I am torn between building a smaller (630-650sq) for an 46 size engine or 670-700sq and get one of the 60+ engines.  So, my question is - does it really matter how big the plane is?
My choice has been to design (or Choose) the airplane around the engine I want to use.  Thats the first choice to make.  Today I think your best choices are going to be the RO Jett .61 or .67 or PA .65 or the larger class RO Jett .76 , PA .75, K77.  My own experience would have me choose about 640 to 670 sq, for the .61-.67 and 670 sq. to 700 for the larger class.  It's not much but noticeable .  I've scaled my airplane up and down to best sense this.  You can absolutely put the larger engines in the smaller airplanes but they weight a little more and might require more fuel that will change trim and ,in my case , made the airplanes less friendly to trim and fly.  You can drop the smaller engines in the larger planes and they do OK but loose their edge in the wind and overhead.  You can run the engine harder but I don't care to hear the engines jumping in and out of cycles constantly and still the plane feels underpowered.  There really aren't many engines these days under the .61 that I feel are competitive-if you intend to compete.  If you wish to go smaller I think electric might be better given what engines are readily available .
So is bigger better?  I think so up to the point where we are to take the best advantage of the power plants we have and the line length we fly on.  When I drifted back to the contest circuit about a decade ago I was flying a superb set of RO Jett .40 airplanes but found I was simply outclassed on the LPad.  Hate to say it-but size, or the lack of, isn't too impressive next to larger airplanes.  They CAN fly as well and maybe present better square maneuvers in the given space.  They just won't get you much score.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2018, 08:07:18 AM by Dave_Trible »
AMA 20934
FAA Certificate FA3ATY4T94

Offline Mike Alimov

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2018, 10:56:17 AM »
Thanks to all who have replied so far.  It was very surprising to read, to be honest.  In this day and age, when the stunt community is discussing the most seemingly minute aspects of airplane design in an attempt to eke out some competitive advantage, and is capable of numerically modeling virtually every parameter (e.g. pitching force due to propeller gyroscopic precession and the compensating downward pitching due to landing gear drag); when we know how to adjust engine compression, prop pitch, and nitro content for a given density altitude...  we seem to pass on (I think) the granddaddy of them all, the Reynolds number.
To summarize what I've heard so far, the stunt planes don't grow bigger anymore because:
- they feel too large for the 70' circle; (didn't stop Paul from taking B-17 to the Worlds)
- others have tried to go bigger about 50 yrs ago with ST-46 power and backed off;
-  smaller planes fit better in a pickup truck (true);
- bigger planes require bigger engines which cost too much ( very true! Not to mention fuel costs);
- and then there's Tim,  who was forced at gunpoint by the Walker-led Washington cabal to promote the "differential dynamic pressure" conspiracy theory.

 :-\

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2018, 11:12:21 AM »
  They CAN fly as well and maybe present better square maneuvers in the given space.  They just won't get you much score.
And you just confirmed our conclusion.  It is not the plane, it is the judges.  If you want to win you need to be big.  Flying well is not enough, you have to do it with a big airplane, or should I say a big engine.

Ken


AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Dave_Trible

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6132
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #19 on: August 08, 2018, 05:24:03 PM »
And you just confirmed our conclusion.  It is not the plane, it is the judges.  If you want to win you need to be big.  Flying well is not enough, you have to do it with a big airplane, or should I say a big engine.

Ken
In a nutshell that's mostly true..  It's still an impression game.  You still have to fly that larger airplane very well.  Just being big isn't a gimme', but being small is a give-away.

Dave
AMA 20934
FAA Certificate FA3ATY4T94

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2018, 05:26:20 PM »
To summarize what I've heard so far, the stunt planes don't grow bigger anymore because:
- they feel too large for the 70' circle; (didn't stop Paul from taking B-17 to the Worlds)
- others have tried to go bigger about 50 yrs ago with ST-46 power and backed off;
-  smaller planes fit better in a pickup truck (true);
- bigger planes require bigger engines which cost too much ( very true! Not to mention fuel costs);

So, if you already knew the answer, why did you ask?

    Brett

       

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2018, 07:31:25 PM »
In a nutshell that's mostly true..  It's still an impression game.  You still have to fly that larger airplane very well.  Just being big isn't a gimme', but being small is a give-away.

   It has *never* been an "impression game". I have spent about 40 years hanging around with, coaching, judging, and competing with some of the most successful people in the history of the event. You know how much time we have spent discussion "impression" and/or "presenting",or whatever mysterious "X" factors that "everybody knows about"? Virtually ZERO. The only time this topic is ever discussed is when someone else mentions how important all these secret magic factors are, and we tell them to go fly more accurate patterns instead of worrying about "impression".

     My advice to everyone, even Mike who already knows better - build and fly whatever results in you flying more accurate and mistake-free patterns. If you want to know "what the judges are buying" I will tell you the big secret - the judges want to see accurate geometric shapes of the right size and positioning. or in other words, something that looks like the drawings provided in the rule book. . It is nothing more complex, or ephemeral, than that. It's hard to achieve but you should *always*, repeat, *always" make decisions that result in superior and more accurate patterns - and do not waste a lot of time worrying or considering these crazy theories of what "presents" better or gives better "impression". If you can do more accurate patterns with a Shark 15 than you can with a Sweeper, then you will *get better scores with the Shark 15*.

  No one ever wants to believe it could be that simple, so I know it will just bounce off again. But if you want advice on how to become competitive in stunt, that's it.

    Brett

Offline Chris Wilson

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1710
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2018, 11:19:08 PM »
So, if you already knew the answer, why did you ask?

    Brett

     

He asked the question on post 1 and summarised it on post 18.

He didn't know originally and now he does but are you claiming that he knew before post 1?
MAAA AUS 73427

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.
 Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.  It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required

Offline Paul Smith

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5793
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2018, 08:43:45 AM »
Looks like I need a bigger truck.

Very true.  That and/or a trailer. 
Paul Smith

Offline Mike Alimov

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2018, 09:29:49 AM »
So, if you already knew the answer, why did you ask?

    Brett

     

I did not know the answer when I asked, and I still don't.  But I do listen (despite the impression), and in fact after all the replies I got so far, I'm seriously reconsidering that 800-sq.in project I had in mind. 

What I was trying to say is that none of the arguments for not going beyond 650-700 sq.in was technical in nature.  I expected something like this:
"Per the model scaling rules, the weight grows as a cube of linear dimensions while wing area grows as a square, so bigger planes inevitably build heavier.  At ~800 sq.in. size, the resulting expected ~15 oz/ft^2 wing loading is too large to allow the plane to fly anywhere close to the rulebook (5ft ?..) corners..."
-or like this-
"At 75-80 oz flying weight, the line pull will create physical loads that will result in too much pilot fatigue to fly 5-10 flights a day."
-or even the least plausible-
"According to a  NACA paper from 1965, the Reynolds number and its effect do not apply to wings between 650-1000 sq.in area, so there was no additional benefit from increasing the size beyond 650".

Instead, it all came down to "they feel too big".
Hence my hesitation as to the validity of such conclusion.  But then again, the stunt folklore and people's practical experiences all carry a grain of truth to them.  I'm trying to find that grain.  That's all.

Offline Mike Alimov

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2018, 10:20:17 AM »
   It has *never* been an "impression game".
[snip]
 The only time this topic is ever discussed is when someone else mentions how important all these secret magic factors are, and we tell them to go fly more accurate patterns instead of worrying about "impression".

[snip]   
 If you want to know "what the judges are buying" I will tell you the big secret - the judges want to see accurate geometric shapes of the right size and positioning. or in other words, something that looks like the drawings provided in the rule book. . It is nothing more complex, or ephemeral, than that.
[snip]
 do not waste a lot of time worrying or considering these crazy theories of what "presents" better or gives better "impression".
[snip]

    Brett

On 7/20/18, Paul Walker posted the following in the thread "The corner conversation" on the General Forum:

"I learned clearly in 1990 that it is not how tight your corner is, but the illusion of that. In 1990, VCR's were available and good enough to record stunt flights. That happened at the 1990 Nat's. I thought I had a tight corner, but judges and other pilots told me that Jimmy did. I was puzzled.
Once home with a  copy of those flights I played them over and over tracing the path of both Jimmy's and my plane. It wasn't even close!!!

My plane turned a much tighter radius, BUT Jimmy's looked tighter due to its paint scheme and speed. It flew faster and that made it look tighter also. I have never forgotten that demonstration and used it to fashion my corner presentation. I further worked on the stop of the corner to be as abrupt as the start. That also adds to the illusion."

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2018, 10:26:55 AM »
What I was trying to say is that none of the arguments for not going beyond 650-700 sq.in was technical in nature.  I expected something like this:
"Per the model scaling rules, the weight grows as a cube of linear dimensions while wing area grows as a square, so bigger planes inevitably build heavier.  At ~800 sq.in. size, the resulting expected ~15 oz/ft^2 wing loading is too large to allow the plane to fly anywhere close to the rulebook (5ft ?..) corners..."
-or like this-
"At 75-80 oz flying weight, the line pull will create physical loads that will result in too much pilot fatigue to fly 5-10 flights a day."
-or even the least plausible-
"According to a  NACA paper from 1965, the Reynolds number and its effect do not apply to wings between 650-1000 sq.in area, so there was no additional benefit from increasing the size beyond 650".

Instead, it all came down to "they feel too big".
Hence my hesitation as to the validity of such conclusion.  But then again, the stunt folklore and people's practical experiences all carry a grain of truth to them.  I'm trying to find that grain.  That's all.

The 15% difference in dynamic pressure from tip to tip wasn't technical enough?  Would you feel better if I'd said :


The spanwise dynamic pressure gradient of an aircraft flying a 72 foot diameter circle is found by solving the following equation for point-wise dynamic pressure, taking the derivative, and then normalizing for angular velocity:

pd(x) = 1/2 rho v(x)2  (1)

where x is the distance from the center of the circle, rho is the density of the air, and v(x) can be found from

v(x) = 2 * pi * w * x  (2)

where w is the angular velocity in radians per second.

Substituting (2) into (1):

pd(x) = 1/2 rho (2 * pi * w * x)2  (3)

Taking the derivative and simplifying:

d/dx pd(x) = 4 rho pi2 * w2 * x  (4)

Taking x0 as 22 meters and evaluating (4) and normalizing, we find that the pressure density gradient at the nominal maximum aircraft flight radius is

(4 rho pi2 * w2 * 22m)/(1/2 rho (2 * pi * w * 22m)2), or about a 9% change in dynamic pressure per meter.  For an aircraft wingspan of 1500mm, this variation is quite significant.


Does that help?  Does one egghead with a whitepaper that's composed of a kernel of supposition surrounded by a blizzard of mathematics supersede the testimony of the practical experience of dozens of actual practitioners?  And in a sport that's as touchy-feely as stunt, why should we trust hard numbers anyway?

One thing I've learned in almost 30 years of being an engineer: if it's been tried a dozen times and failed every time, then barring you doing something quite different, there's very little chance that you're going to be lucky 13.  Unless you've got a really compelling reason to think that you've discovered a loophole, if you go down that path chances are you'll fail, too.  You should always listen to the egghead with the whitepaper, in case they've found that loophole -- but you ignore your end-users and your service personnel at your own risk.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Dave_Trible

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6132
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2018, 10:35:58 AM »
I think a look at the results of this years’ World Champs might lead one to think visual impressions count.  Those “hot #+?!! High tech, snot mobiles” got better scores-deserved or not.

Dave
AMA 20934
FAA Certificate FA3ATY4T94

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #28 on: August 09, 2018, 11:22:13 AM »
On 7/20/18, Paul Walker posted the following in the thread "The corner conversation" on the General Forum:

"I learned clearly in 1990 that it is not how tight your corner is, but the illusion of that. In 1990, VCR's were available and good enough to record stunt flights. That happened at the 1990 Nat's. I thought I had a tight corner, but judges and other pilots told me that Jimmy did. I was puzzled.
Once home with a  copy of those flights I played them over and over tracing the path of both Jimmy's and my plane. It wasn't even close!!!

My plane turned a much tighter radius, BUT Jimmy's looked tighter due to its paint scheme and speed. It flew faster and that made it look tighter also. I have never forgotten that demonstration and used it to fashion my corner presentation. I further worked on the stop of the corner to be as abrupt as the start. That also adds to the illusion."
Bob Gieseke told me he cut the top off of his rudder and always painted a white stripe on the side to draw the judges attention to his flats.  He never said it was to draw attention away from the corners but it is hard to watch one thing when you are attracted to another.
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Mike Alimov

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #29 on: August 09, 2018, 11:31:01 AM »
The 15% difference in dynamic pressure from tip to tip wasn't technical enough?  Would you feel better if I'd said :
[snip]
 the pressure density gradient at the nominal maximum aircraft flight radius is

(4 rho pi2 * w2 * 22m)/(1/2 rho (2 * pi * w * 22m)2), or about a 9% change in dynamic pressure per meter.  For an aircraft wingspan of 1500mm, this variation is quite significant.
[/color]

Does that help? 

--(MA) Thanks for running through the calc, Tim, but no, it doesn't help.  It shows that the outer console of an airplane with equal wing panels experiences more pressure than the inner one, which is not an unwelcome effect if I want to keep the plane from turning in on me.  It can only go so far, being constrained by the leadout guides. Introduce unequal panels, and the effect can be mitigated or eliminated.
Plus, no one else has brought up the differential dynamic pressure as a factor.  If that was one thing that kept us from going bigger, it would be mentioned more than once.


Does one egghead with a whitepaper that's composed of a kernel of supposition surrounded by a blizzard of mathematics supersede the testimony of the practical experience of dozens of actual practitioners?
 
--(MA) If the kernel contained in a whitepaper is valid, it should not contradict the experiences and empirical findings of the dozens of actual practitioners; instead, it should explain them, and (hopefully) offer a vision on how to improve/expand upon them.  Einstein's theory of relativity explained phenomena that Newton's laws couldn't.  It doesn't invalidate them, but can only be observed/measured at distances and speeds that were unthinkable in Newtonian times.  But I digress...


 And in a sport that's as touchy-feely as stunt, why should we trust hard numbers anyway?

--(MA) Because only hard numbers can explain what we feel at the end of the lines. I didn't understand that for a long time, and it wasn't until I started re-weighing and re-measuring my old airplanes and crunching some numbers that I began to understand why some flew better than others.  It's all about physics laws in action, and precision in implementing them into hardware.  Ted crunched quite a few numbers for his Imitation article, and Igor runs an even more (I think) comprehensive calculator.  If that wasn't the case, they'd be spending that time playing with vivid paint color schemes in Corel Draw.
Of all people, I didn't expect you to make that argument.


One thing I've learned in almost 30 years of being an engineer: if it's been tried a dozen times and failed every time, then barring you doing something quite different, there's very little chance that you're going to be lucky 13.

--(MA) As an engineer with 22 years of experience, I could not agree more on that. (The key phrase being "barring something quite different").


 Unless you've got a really compelling reason to think that you've discovered a loophole, if you go down that path chances are you'll fail, too.  You should always listen to the egghead with the whitepaper, in case they've found that loophole -- but you ignore your end-users and your service personnel at your own risk.


--(MA) I'm not ignoring the end users. In fact, I'm the end user myself.  But if the answer to the question "why are you doing things this way?" was always "because we've done it this way for years", the technology around us would not progress much beyond Edison's incandescent light bulbs.
In this particular case, yes, I think there are reasons to re-visit this argument.  What has changed since the 1970's and 1980's: 
- composites and vacuum forming technology is now accessible to home modelers like myself, not just defense contractors; this allows to build stronger, lighter, more accurate structures;
- available power plants are abundant, the limit on combustion engines was lifted from 0.60 to 0.90 cu.in, and more importantly, our knowledge of how to control that power is greater than ever;
- our understanding of control line aerodynamics is better than ever before, which means we can design to achieve certain positive effects  and trim out the negative effects.


Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #30 on: August 09, 2018, 11:43:44 PM »
There's a simple test for this conversation.

Build a straight, well trimmed Brodak Nobler, drop in a well broken in LA .46, clip on a set of .018 X 40' cables and go fly against Dave, Derek, Paul and the rest of the current best.

In fact;in turn, give each of them a dozen flights to get comfy with the Nobler and then have a flyoff with the others flying their own ships, each developed to maximize their performance in the airspace allotted by the rule book.  Add up the number of times the Top Gun flying the Nobler on  40' lines comes out on top.

Ted

p.s. try to get some of those cool tracer videos of the Nobler's 45 degree square eights


Offline Mike Alimov

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2018, 06:37:05 AM »
Ted, now we are talking about the human factor. 
An assassin with a katana and an empty-handed hero square off at a sushi bar.  Assassin swings and misses, and the hero stabs him in the eye with a dirty chopstick.  We all know how this movie ends; the hero always wins due to his sheer skill and prowess (and because the truth is on his side!).
No argument there.  (Although... are you volunteering David's plane if I build him a Brodak Nobler?  I've always wanted to try a celebrity plane, so I'll take you up on that   #^ )

To be a little more serious, if we eliminate the "pros vs amateurs" factor from your hypothetical competition, then such thing already takes place - every other year - and it's called Worlds.  I doubt David, Paul, Derek, etc would take a Nobler to represent the US against the best of the rest.
The question is, what could our Top 3 take with them to the Worlds to stem the composite Shark infestation?



Offline Trostle

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3338
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2018, 07:55:53 AM »
Mike,

From what you have written on this thread, it seems you have not read nor comprehend what has been mentioned several times.  There was a trend for some of the top pilots to use larger airplanes approaching 800 sq in in area.  These top pilots were successful because they had the skill to present these large airplanes in our 70 foot radius hemisphere.  When pilots with comparative lesser skills in trimming and flying tried these larger airplanes, were disappointed with their results.  Then, with better power plants available (IC and electric) the trend has been to use more power and the models appear to be maxing out usually to something less than 700 sq in.  This combination of size and power has the ability to perform in various weather conditions.   This is the trend for the top pilots and the masses seem to also be more comfortable with this size.

One exercise some time ago that is interesting to consider.  A top pilot/competitor designed and flew several airplanes that were around 1,000 sq in or more.  These models were not successful in any major competition of which I am aware.  Obviously, those things were just too big and too much machinery to be flying within the confines of our 70 foot radius hemisphere.  Models of that size cannot possibly make a presentable square loop that is confined to a 45o segment of the circle with an elevation of 45o as specified by the rule book.  So, is 650 sq in, plus or minus the optimum size for our current power plants, maybe not, but that is certainly the trend for the top flyers.  The field is open for naysayers to prove the experts wrong.

Keith

Offline Mike Alimov

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #33 on: August 10, 2018, 09:58:01 AM »
Keith, thank you for all your replies.  I read every post very carefully (and try to comprehend to the extent of my ability).  Moreover, I'm not the kind that posts questions only to rebuke everyone and proceed to the contrary anyway.
As I mentioned earlier, it was because of all the replies I received (and yours specifically), I am re-considering starting a near-800 sq.in project I had in mind.  Your statements, along with a few others, reaffirm my earlier understanding that how our planes actually fly and how they appear to fly when viewed from outside the circle are often two different things.  This is not a knock on judges.  I've judged myself, and I know that every honest judge strives to score only the flight path, and ignore the plane shape and paint scheme, plane finish and pedigree, pilot's reputation, etc. etc.  But if one looks in any college psychology textbook, they learn that human perception is susceptible to deceiving visual effects which are near impossible to overcome. 
Here's what it translates to: if I show up at the NATS with a 800 sq.in airplane and fly rulebook corners, it will likely be perceived to fly larger corners, thus scoring lower; there is historical evidence to that effect.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understood you.  And I now see how that is very much possible, which is why I'm no longer headed in that direction.

To Ted, Brett:  if I understand your argument correctly, it can be formulated as following: "We've done the work for you.  Stop wasting your time trying to design your own world beater.  Just take one of the top existing designs, build it well, and fly the socks off of it."  I hear you as well, and it is a very solid argument.

As far as I'm concerned, I have my answers, and the topic can be closed now.  I'd like to thank everyone for their input.

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2018, 11:00:29 AM »
Keith, thank you for all your replies.  I read every post very carefully (and try to comprehend to the extent of my ability).  Moreover, I'm not the kind that posts questions only to rebuke everyone and proceed to the contrary anyway.
As I mentioned earlier, it was because of all the replies I received (and yours specifically), I am re-considering starting a near-800 sq.in project I had in mind.  Your statements, along with a few others, reaffirm my earlier understanding that how our planes actually fly and how they appear to fly when viewed from outside the circle are often two different things.  This is not a knock on judges.  I've judged myself, and I know that every honest judge strives to score only the flight path, and ignore the plane shape and paint scheme, plane finish and pedigree, pilot's reputation, etc. etc.  But if one looks in any college psychology textbook, they learn that human perception is susceptible to deceiving visual effects which are near impossible to overcome. 
Here's what it translates to: if I show up at the NATS with a 800 sq.in airplane and fly rulebook corners, it will likely be perceived to fly larger corners, thus scoring lower; there is historical evidence to that effect.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understood you.  And I now see how that is very much possible, which is why I'm no longer headed in that direction.

To Ted, Brett:  if I understand your argument correctly, it can be formulated as following: "We've done the work for you.  Stop wasting your time trying to design your own world beater.  Just take one of the top existing designs, build it well, and fly the socks off of it."  I hear you as well, and it is a very solid argument.

As far as I'm concerned, I have my answers, and the topic can be closed now.  I'd like to thank everyone for their input.
Well put.  I believe I have my answers as well.  The topic seems to have split into "Do larger planes FLY better" or "do they PRESENT better".  I agree that the 700sq limit that, IMHO changes a "Maybe/Yes" to a "No/Maybe".  Right now I have two competitive planes.  One is an 500sq 36oz 35 powered ARF Nobler that all I have done to it is change the flap/elevator ratio.  The other is a 630sq 52oz 46 powered ship with modern ratio's.  I have measured the minimum turning radius without a stall on the 500sq ship to be around 10' and the 630sq to be around 12'.  That is nearly a 10% difference in the length of the flats yet which one PRESENTS the squares better - the big one.

One other observation from my judging days - In a crowd of larger ships, the elevations of the smaller ship will appear larger than they are .
Ken
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 11:18:07 AM by Ken Culbertson »
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Trostle

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3338
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2018, 11:50:55 AM »

(Clip)

 That is nearly a 10% difference in the length of the flats yet which one PRESENTS the squares better - the big one.

(Clip)

Ken

From your viewpoint, you may sense that the larger model "PRESENTS" better.  With that argument, then bigger is better.  However, go a step further.  Take that 1,000 sq in beast with a fuselage that is well over 4 ft long.  How is that going to "PRESENT" in a square 45o loop on our hemisphere?   It will not do well, regardless of the skill of the pilot or even if it has some magical quality to turn a corner that really looks tight, even with the advantage of superior Reynold's Numbers.  I think there is a limit to how big these models can get and still "PRESENT" well.  Right now, that limit seems to be in the 650 sq +/- arena.  Of course, an enterprising designer may take a departure from this with his own innovative "larger" design and show that there is another way to get a "larger' model to "PRESENT" better.  Please show us the way.

By the way, how are you able to measure 10' and 12' radii on your turns?  Those are impressive!

Keith

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2018, 01:12:15 PM »
From your viewpoint, you may sense that the larger model "PRESENTS" better.  With that argument, then bigger is better.  However, go a step further.  Take that 1,000 sq in beast with a fuselage that is well over 4 ft long.  How is that going to "PRESENT" in a square 45o loop on our hemisphere?   It will not do well, regardless of the skill of the pilot or even if it has some magical quality to turn a corner that really looks tight, even with the advantage of superior Reynold's Numbers.  I think there is a limit to how big these models can get and still "PRESENT" well.  Right now, that limit seems to be in the 650 sq +/- arena.  Of course, an enterprising designer may take a departure from this with his own innovative "larger" design and show that there is another way to get a "larger' model to "PRESENT" better.  Please show us the way.

By the way, how are you able to measure 10' and 12' radii on your turns?  Those are impressive!

Keith
No, the size range tops out at 700.  Within that range bigger presents better.

The corners were measured by slow motion video and I cranked it as hard as I could without stalling.  You can measure the distance traveled from the point the turn starts till the nose is pointed straight up.  In real life I would probably be kinder to my flap horn and make them around 14.  On 65' lines 14 looks really tight at full speed.  I have always been able to do real tight corners.  It is what's in-between them that sucks!  What astounded me the first time I watched this was the difference in the lower corners and the upper ones.  If you are turning hard, the 6th and 14th corners in the Square 8 actually appear to approach that impossible 5'.  It is like the nose stops going up and the whole plane rotates around the CG and drifts up some as it rotates.   I have noticed that on a lot of other vidio's of some of our top fliers too.  Love that YouTube slow motion!

Ken

AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #37 on: August 10, 2018, 01:14:27 PM »

To Ted, Brett:  if I understand your argument correctly, it can be formulated as following: "We've done the work for you.  Stop wasting your time trying to design your own world beater.  Just take one of the top existing designs, build it well, and fly the socks off of it."  I hear you as well, and it is a very solid argument.

  That is absurd. Your basic idea is wrong, and your concern over "impression" and that it is enhanced by larger airplanes is also, probably, wrong, and you are getting offended over the fact that we do not agree with your pseudo-question  (which wasn't really a question, but an assertion that had a question mark after it).  So you are mis-stating our position to mock it.

   You are, and anyone else  is, absolutely welcome to build any airplane you want and compete and fly with it in any way you want. No one at all wants to stifle your creativity and you can explore any avenue you want. Usually, when people go out of their way to ignore everyone else and "show us all" it doesn't work out, but we could be wrong. The rules permit essentially anything aside from limiting the line length to 70', so it's wide open.

     By way of advice (and I think it is highly relevant and critically important, a lot more important for success than almost any other aspect of stunt), a  hallmark characteristic of most/all of the winners over the last 35 or so years has been their almost complete disinterest in "impression" or "how it presents", in favor of more fruitful pursuits like trimming, engine setup, coaching, and other items that result in superior accuracy and precision of the flight compared to the rule book. An even more important characteristic is listening to (if not always following) advice from people with vastly more experience and success, and studying how each other approaches the problem. Those, too, could have been mere coincidences - but you know they aren't.

   This approach has been so successful that at one point, it was considered a conspiracy. And *no one* wanted or wants to believe the truth, because it's so simple that is seems impossible. 

    But, it's just advice, no one is compelled to take it.

   So, bottom line - anyone can do anything they want, any time they want, with very few restrictions. We have a very accurate and repeatable test method to determine who is right and who is wrong, so we can all see the results. Good luck!

   Brett

Online Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #38 on: August 10, 2018, 01:45:28 PM »
You are, and anyone else  is, absolutely welcome to build any airplane you want and compete and fly with it in any way you want. No one at all wants to stifle your creativity and you can explore any avenue you want. Usually, when people go out of their way to ignore everyone else and "show us all" it doesn't work out, but we could be wrong. The rules permit essentially anything aside from limiting the line length to 70', so it's wide open.

This is one of the cool things about model aviation.  You aren't bound by what the boss wants. 
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Online Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #39 on: August 10, 2018, 02:00:31 PM »
Without giving this much thought, two things come to mind:

First, a given corner radius will be a different fraction of airplane size for different size airplanes. Brett observed awhile back that tail length may be determined by corner radius.  For example an airplane that's too big may have to operate at extreme tail angle of attack in corners.

Second, perhaps powerplant selection determines airplane size.  If the best powerplant is a PA .75, one might size an airplane for a PA .75.  Electric power might make for a different size airplane, but from what I've seen so far, competitive electric and acoustic airplanes are about the same size. 
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Mike Alimov

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #40 on: August 10, 2018, 04:54:38 PM »
  That is absurd. Your basic idea is wrong, and your concern over "impression" and that it is enhanced by larger airplanes is also, probably, wrong, and you are getting offended over the fact that we do not agree with your pseudo-question  (which wasn't really a question, but an assertion that had a question mark after it).  So you are mis-stating our position to mock it.

   You are, and anyone else  is, absolutely welcome to build any airplane you want and compete and fly with it in any way you want. No one at all wants to stifle your creativity and you can explore any avenue you want. Usually, when people go out of their way to ignore everyone else and "show us all" it doesn't work out, but we could be wrong. The rules permit essentially anything aside from limiting the line length to 70', so it's wide open.

     By way of advice (and I think it is highly relevant and critically important, a lot more important for success than almost any other aspect of stunt), a  hallmark characteristic of most/all of the winners over the last 35 or so years has been their almost complete disinterest in "impression" or "how it presents", in favor of more fruitful pursuits like trimming, engine setup, coaching, and other items that result in superior accuracy and precision of the flight compared to the rule book. An even more important characteristic is listening to (if not always following) advice from people with vastly more experience and success, and studying how each other approaches the problem. Those, too, could have been mere coincidences - but you know they aren't.

   This approach has been so successful that at one point, it was considered a conspiracy. And *no one* wanted or wants to believe the truth, because it's so simple that is seems impossible. 

    But, it's just advice, no one is compelled to take it.

   So, bottom line - anyone can do anything they want, any time they want, with very few restrictions. We have a very accurate and repeatable test method to determine who is right and who is wrong, so we can all see the results. Good luck!

   Brett

I was just about to congratulate everybody on keeping things civil, and now this.  This post once again reminded me why I (and many others) usually stay away from the forums.  It all started with a purely technical question on why not take advantage of better Re numbers, in order to improve airplane behavior in bad air (and not chase some sort of *impression*, I never alluded to that).  I was not asking about what my creative freedom limits are (but thanks for the reminder, anyway). So far, Howard remarked about critical tail AoA, and Keith commented that very large planes simply look too large in the limited hemisphere, and require a lot of skill to handle.  Your point was that it's been tried and abandoned. Ted pointed out that the Top 5 (10? 20?) can beat the rest of us with a Nobler, no matter what we fly.  All points taken.

And just to remind all the *elite* flyers: the rest of us, "les stunt miserables", also work on trimming, engine setups, and coaching when we go flying.  Occasionally, doing so causes questions, which people then ask, including on this forum.  And this is what they get - someone completely losing temper, just because they've been misunderstood, misquoted,  given evidence that somehow invalidates or undermines their opinion, or simply hurts their fragile ego.
 It's no wonder, then, why people prefer to fly at Brodak's over NATS.  It's this. Attitude.

So long, gentlemen.
Signing off - for a long while.

Offline proparc

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2391
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #41 on: August 10, 2018, 08:42:56 PM »
The short answer is in RC is, yes. "Bigger flies better" in that arena has been undisputed for 'like forever". But for obvious reasons, not in our world. I personally have built A LOT of 750sq ships. I currently have 2 at home with me right now. But as for me, the approx. 650sq. class seems to fit me about right. We started at around 550sq. class in our world, went to 650sq class., tried 750sq class. and to no surprise "up the middle" for most of us seemed to work out best.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2018, 06:04:51 AM by proparc »
Milton "Proparc" Graham

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2018, 04:11:09 PM »
Ted, now we are talking about the human factor. 
An assassin with a katana and an empty-handed hero square off at a sushi bar.  Assassin swings and misses, and the hero stabs him in the eye with a dirty chopstick.  We all know how this movie ends; the hero always wins due to his sheer skill and prowess (and because the truth is on his side!).
No argument there.  (Although... are you volunteering David's plane if I build him a Brodak Nobler?  I've always wanted to try a celebrity plane, so I'll take you up on that   #^ )

To be a little more serious, if we eliminate the "pros vs amateurs" factor from your hypothetical competition, then such thing already takes place - every other year - and it's called Worlds.  I doubt David, Paul, Derek, etc would take a Nobler to represent the US against the best of the rest.
The question is, what could our Top 3 take with them to the Worlds to stem the composite Shark infestation?

Hi Mike,

I think you missed my point...although, after re-reading it, I didn't make the point all that clear so, for that, mea culpa!  Below in red, I'm reasonably certain, is the sentence to which your post was addressed:

"In fact;in turn, give each of them a dozen flights to get comfy with the Nobler and then have a flyoff with the others flying their own ships, each developed to maximize their performance in the airspace allotted by the rule book.  Add up the number of times the Top Gun flying the Nobler on  40' lines comes out on top."


The phrases "...in turn..." and "...others flying their own ships..." did, in fact refer back to the previous paragraph's "...go fly against Dave, Derek, Paul and the rest of the current best...".  I agree the meaning of the paragraph was open to interpretation.

The intent of the "test" I suggested was that each of the Daves, Dereks, Pauls and/or other current top guns would take turns getting used to the Nobler on 40' lines and then compete with it in a judged contest against the other Top Guns flying their own "designed, built and trimmed for the available airspace" ship.  The question was: After each "top gun" had his/her opportunity with the big airplane on short lines against the other "top guns" with their own equipment,  how many would have won the competition when they flew the Nobler on the short lines?  My guess would be a big fat zero. 

If my suggestion of the old as the hills Nobler instead of their own Impact/Thundergazer etc. is your concern I feel the outcome of each flyer flying "his own" ship on 40' lines would be the same; zero wins.

I was trying to demonstrate--rather than pontificate--that the amount of airspace available is among the most critical factors to be considered when developing a competitive stunt model.  Was it an extreme example?  Yes, and purposely so, so as to make the cause/effect obvious.

Re your Reynolds number observation...

Although I recognize the validity of Reynolds numbers and the desirability of greater chord length in the pursuit of performance I think its  importance vis a vis stunt ships confined to neighborhood park sized flying sites pales in comparison to other factors, specifically aspect ratio of area appropriate wings and appropriately configured high lift devices (flaps and...I guess I have to throw them in...vortex generators [icccck!] I said it).  Within reason, I don't feel today's competitive stunters have a wing loading which is restricting our turn radii.

There was a period of time in what is now almost ancient stunt history where many thought we should be flying 725+ square inch stunt ships on S.T. .46s. While some success was achieved the "appropriate" (yeah, I recognize the ambivalence)  size was more like 650 square inches.  What we even later learned was that even with .75s and .82s we were still comfortable with airplanes in the 650 to 700 square inch range.

Of pertinent interest is that since the advent of that revolution (the .45/6 generation) we've increased the size of the powertrains but not found much to be gained by making ships bigger.

I know, TMI Mike.  My only real purpose in the lengthy explanation is to hopefully help you to understand that it was never my intent to suggest that what I called "Top Guns" could whip the not quite yet top guns flying an overpowered Nobler on 40' lines.

Quite the opposite, my intention was that whichever T.G. was flying the airplane too big for the available airspace was going to lose big time.

Ted

p.s.  Just as I was about to post this novel I noted a post from Proparc in the "topic summary" below this window saying pretty much the same thing in less than three lines.  Now, I could'a done that too but I get a little teary eyed thinking about all the letters and punctuation marks that would never have had their chance to shine.  thus, I'll post it anyhow. Z@@ZZZ Z@@ZZZ

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #43 on: August 11, 2018, 05:30:15 PM »
If my suggestion of the old as the hills Nobler instead of their own Impact/Thundergazer etc. is your concern I feel the outcome of each flyer flying "his own" ship on 40' lines would be the same; zero wins.

A better test (although it would be hard to talk Paul et all into it) would be their own ships on 40' lines vs. either whatever they purpose-design to fly on 40' lines or one serious 1/2-A ship on 40' lines.  The smaller plane would win, I think.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Mark Mc

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 718
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2018, 10:57:51 PM »
This is one of the cool things about model aviation.  You aren't bound by what the boss wants.

Really?  When I want to fly, and the boss wants us to go talk to the contractor, I'm pretty bound if I don't want cold food and dirty clothes building up....

Mark

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #45 on: August 11, 2018, 11:32:16 PM »
Really?  When I want to fly, and the boss wants us to go talk to the contractor, I'm pretty bound if I don't want cold food and dirty clothes building up....

Mark
Is Howard Single?
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #46 on: August 12, 2018, 01:23:32 PM »
A better test (although it would be hard to talk Paul et all into it) would be their own ships on 40' lines vs. either whatever they purpose-design to fly on 40' lines or one serious 1/2-A ship on 40' lines.  The smaller plane would win, I think.

Exactly my point, Tim.

One could illustrate the same thing by suggesting flying a full size 747 on 40 foot lines and trying to do a pattern.  The quantity of airspace in which one has to work is probably the primary element necessary to be considered when speaking of designing for constrained flight aerobatics.

p.s.  Another element that I feel is worth considering when speaking of line length (and, thus, airspace) is that the shorter of "competitively compatitble" line lengths for a given ship should be seriously considered as a possibly better choice  than just assuming max line legal line length as "optimum" for a "modern sized" competitive stunter. 

To go "tiny' one last time; a  competitive stunt ship capable of performing controllably on, say, 10 foot lines would be much easier to hit bottoms with than an equally competent ship flown on, say, 100 feet of wire.  The closer the plane is to the pilot the easier it is to "place the ship" accurately at the five foot/45degree/90degree definitions by which we attempt to comply with the rule book.  (Note that the 10' number was used to make the point as to the ability to accurately "place" maneuver segments.  It was "not" intended to be a "for real" suggestion!  Lots of reasons, none of which would be worth discussing due to its absurdity. 

The only .40+ powered ship I ever flew on max length lines was the original Trivial Pursuit...for very distinct reasons.  Let's just say it would have never floated with a "child's" life vest.  It did, however, have a reasonably distinguished record despite what was, at the time, considered to be an un-competitive wing loading (~72 oz on ~650 sq").  It placed 2nd at it's first Nats in 1992 and won the 1993 Team Trials powered by a piped .40VF.

Ted

Offline Curare

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 779
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #47 on: August 12, 2018, 11:23:35 PM »
The only .40+ powered ship I ever flew on max length lines was the original Trivial Pursuit...for very distinct reasons.  Let's just say it would have never floated with a "child's" life vest.  It did, however, have a reasonably distinguished record despite what was, at the time, considered to be an un-competitive wing loading (~72 oz on ~650 sq").  It placed 2nd at it's first Nats in 1992 and won the 1993 Team Trials powered by a piped .40VF.

Ted

OK Ted, you can't throw a statement like that out there and not have someone bite! What benefit did you get out of flying on longer lines with a heavy TP? Was it merely to get the thing flying faster, but retaining a 'sensible' lap time?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Greg Kowalski
AUS 36694

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #48 on: August 14, 2018, 12:37:15 PM »
OK Ted, you can't throw a statement like that out there and not have someone bite! What benefit did you get out of flying on longer lines with a heavy TP? Was it merely to get the thing flying faster, but retaining a 'sensible' lap time?
Enquiring minds want to know!

Hi Curare,

Per the highlighted quote above: BINGO!

In my defense, however, it's important to recognize that the TP was my first ever voyage into the wonderful world of tuned pipes (early 1990s and the powerplant du jour was the "little" OS .40 VF right in the heart of the East Coast love affair with the big bore ST .60s).  When the ship tipped the scales at levels felt, at the time, to be uncharted territory and unlikely to be successful let alone competitive my approach to flight trim/airspace was precisely driven by the substance of your observation.  If the pig was going to get off the ground let alone "compete" it was "obviously" going to have to do so at a brisk pace.  The natural approach was exactly as you suggested; hang it as far out as legal and fly it fast.

Ultimately I learned a lot about the chutzpah contained in that little .40 coupled to the tuned pipe and a "very" low pitched prop spinning at massive revs.  At the '92 Nats I didn't yet even borrow let alone own a tachometer of my own nor did I check lap times for the same reason...no stop watch.  I was spinning some kind of 12+ in X 3 something prop at ear splitting revs and the thing flew like a nimble truck on the end of the lines.  Years later Randy Smith commented to me that he had filmed/taped (???) many flights at that Nats and the TP was the slowest of the bunch at (he said) 5.8 sec/laps.  I remain a little skeptical to this day but I don't question that the lap times were modest and extremely flyable.

Just FYI, after the success of the ship with that sub 4 pitch prop I started what turned out to be a fairly lengthy exchange with  Brian Eather down in Sydney about getting some of his beautiful three blade props in that 3.5 or so pitch range (edit! Just went to the shop and dug out a huge box of props and found them…labeled 3.25).

He made some and mailed them to me and I took them out to give ‘em a try.  Damn! They barely got the hoggish TP in the air and lap times fast enough to maybe make the thing “stunt” a bit weren’t obtainable.  I went back to the two blade that had worked so well.

Just diddling around with the prop one day I noted something odd and laid a straight edge chordwise across the back side and noted light passing between the prop and the straight edge.  The danged thing had undercamber.  Briefed Brian during my next layover down under and he said “mail ‘em back to me!”.  I did so and a week or two later got them back with under-camber (~3/64" or so sanded into the back of each blade) and a request that I retest them.

I did so and it was more or less like magic.  Excellent performance! For some time Brian was selling both flat back and undercambered 2 and 3 blade props and I’ve got probably two dozen of them in my boxes of stuff.  When I re-engined the TP with-first-Randy’s .61 and later with the Ro-Jett I slightly preferred-I was running under cambered 12” diameter props with pitches of 3.25-3.5 increased to 3.6 to 3.75 for the last inch or so at the tips.  Those were the props I used on the TP for the next couple of years plus several rebirths due to the loss of later models . 

Overall that overweight pig flew at seven Nats finishing 2nd four times, 3rd and 4th once each and 7th once: three Team Trials, 1st once, 4th once and 7th once.  It flew in its first Nats in 1992 and it’s last in 2007, I’m guessing one of the longest “career” records of any one off stunter!  I had a few arguably “better” airplanes in those years all of which met untimely demises due to lousy structural engineering by the designer or dumb mistakes at the stick by the same guy.

Bet you’ll never ask me a question again, huh!  Good catch, by the way.

Ted

p.s. Most of those years it flew on 66’ of wire just slightly less than whatever it took originally when it flew on max handle to centerline that first year.

p.p.s. There were some interesting “other” developments during the TP’s career related to the wing loading issues and creative corrective mods that later raised their heads more prominently…like turbulators (different forms of airflow modifiers now represented widely by VGs) and non conventional variations of flap/elevator ratios, optimal CGs, pitching moments etc. but I think I’d best shut up instead.

p.p.p.s A big thank you to one of the Stunt world's biggest heroes, Wynn Paul.  The data above on the TPs competitive record was available solely because he was kind enough while working on his hopefully soon to be published Stunt History to send me a breakdown from his records of my national and international history clear back to my first Nats as a Junior in 1959.




Offline Curare

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 779
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #49 on: August 14, 2018, 03:46:32 PM »
Thanks for elaborating Ted, I'm sure I'm not the only one who likes to read your stories, a lot of posts are one liners, and may or may not be helpful, but yours (as proven) always contain nuggets of gold and are not only entertaining, but well worth reading.

Stuff like this is very encouraging for those of us who consider ourselves stunt pilgrims, it's good to know others have walked the path, and been horrified when they've built overweight models, and that all is not necessarily lost if we do, and not only do you take the time to explain the problem, the where's and the hows of the fix are also equally important to me.

Dont stop!
Greg Kowalski
AUS 36694

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #50 on: August 14, 2018, 04:02:31 PM »
Thanks for elaborating Ted, I'm sure I'm not the only one who likes to read your stories, a lot of posts are one liners, and may or may not be helpful, but yours (as proven) always contain nuggets of gold and are not only entertaining, but well worth reading.

Stuff like this is very encouraging for those of us who consider ourselves stunt pilgrims, it's good to know others have walked the path, and been horrified when they've built overweight models, and that all is not necessarily lost if we do, and not only do you take the time to explain the problem, the where's and the hows of the fix are also equally important to me.

Dont stop!
Ditto's - Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #51 on: August 15, 2018, 11:15:42 AM »
Ken and Curare,

Thank you.  You're very welcome.

Ted

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #52 on: August 15, 2018, 03:09:17 PM »
" Ultimately I learned a lot about the chutzpah contained in that little .40 coupled to the tuned pipe and a "very" low pitched prop spinning at massive revs.  At the '92 Nats I didn't yet even borrow let alone own a tachometer of my own nor did I check lap times for the same reason...no stop watch.  I was spinning some kind of 12+ in X 3 something prop at ear splitting revs and the thing flew like a nimble truck on the end of the lines.  Years later Randy Smith commented to me that he had filmed/taped (???) many flights at that Nats and the TP was the slowest of the bunch at (he said) 5.8 sec/laps.  I remain a little skeptical to this day but I don't question that the lap times were modest and extremely flyable. "


Hi Ted
Great info, I do remember that well, you were using full length lines, and I believe you were over 12,000  and  maybe sneaking up on 13000  RPMs  at  some times...  The Airplane  looked,  or  really sounded like it was going  fast, but  5.5 to 5.8  lap times  at the  patterns I filmed,  and  You were using some of  my  OS  VFs  that  were  46s, some  special  AAC  46s,  the 46 is much stronger than the  40,  and  it would easily turn  the  12 inch 3 blades,  the  40 VF  hated  the  12 inch props, 3 blade  or  2 blade .
And at some NATs  you were using  Bolly  12 x 4  3 blades , ummm  the  Lubbock NATs comes  to mind...  when many  needed  cowling protectors :-)

Regards
Randy

Dwayne

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #53 on: August 15, 2018, 07:41:39 PM »
Igor and Brett - thank you for your inputs.
Igor - your reply just supported my observation that the planes are not getting any bigger (and even smaller now).  Can you elaborate on why you decided to "downsize"?



I'll explain the background to my question.  In support of my 10-yr old who is getting into RC, I recently took him to the local 3D fly-in.  It was then, after watching these guys do some insane 3D about 10 ft off the ground in gusty, turbulent 18-mph winds with their 1/3-scale IMAC-legal Extras running two-cylinder gasoline monsters without so much a twitch, that "bigger is better" phrase came back to my mind.  My kid's 60" foam Apprentice 15e was getting blown backwards relative to the ground when pointed into the wind at full power.

So, why are stunt planes not getting bigger, again?

A lot of those if not all them 3d planes have stabilizers in them the Aura8 being the most popular where I fly.

Offline phil c

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #54 on: August 15, 2018, 08:36:48 PM »
   It has *never* been an "impression game". I have spent about 40 years hanging around with, coaching, judging, and competing with some of the most successful people in the history of the event. You know how much time we have spent discussion "impression" and/or "presenting",or whatever mysterious "X" factors that "everybody knows about"? Virtually ZERO. The only time this topic is ever discussed is when someone else mentions how important all these secret magic factors are, and we tell them to go fly more accurate patterns instead of worrying about "impression".

     My advice to everyone, even Mike who already knows better - build and fly whatever results in you flying more accurate and mistake-free patterns. If you want to know "what the judges are buying" I will tell you the big secret - the judges want to see accurate geometric shapes of the right size and positioning. or in other words, something that looks like the drawings provided in the rule book. . It is nothing more complex, or ephemeral, than that. It's hard to achieve but you should *always*, repeat, *always" make decisions that result in superior and more accurate patterns - and do not waste a lot of time worrying or considering these crazy theories of what "presents" better or gives better "impression". If you can do more accurate patterns with a Shark 15 than you can with a Sweeper, then you will *get better scores with the Shark 15*.

  No one ever wants to believe it could be that simple, so I know it will just bounce off again. But if you want advice on how to become competitive in stunt, that's it.

    Brett

I have to side with Brett on this one, at least for the Nationals.  A number of years ago I got copies of video of all the flights on  the last day.  After watching each flight is was easy to  see that every pilot made lots of minor mistakes- intersections off a foot or two, square loops with minor variations in angles, one loop off track, etc.  On one flight the pilot tracked so well on the squares, the triangles, and the round eights that he kept the plane on track within the height of the fuselage.  3 stand out maneuvers on one flight.  The judges awarded him something like 15 more points for that and he won the championship.  The rest of the flyers were all down 10 points from the winner and had a point spread of 15-20 points or so.  So second and third were determined by just a few points, and on down the line.

On one other flight, which I watched from behind the judges, the 3rd turn in the reverse wingover looked like he way over turned and then straightened out. On the video it was easy to see that the flaps really put a kink in the line of smoke coming from the engine while the plane actually flew a fairly wide(maybe 20ft) corner and went perfectly vertical.  There were other places where the engine exhaust really obscured what the plane was doing.

At least at the nationals, with more than the usual 2-3 judges, it's certainly possible to win decisively by just flying better. 
phil Cartier

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #55 on: August 15, 2018, 09:55:41 PM »

On one other flight, which I watched from behind the judges, the 3rd turn in the reverse wingover looked like he way over turned and then straightened out. On the video it was easy to see that the flaps really put a kink in the line of smoke coming from the engine while the plane actually flew a fairly wide(maybe 20ft) corner and went perfectly vertical.  There were other places where the engine exhaust really obscured what the plane was doing.

At least at the nationals, with more than the usual 2-3 judges, it's certainly possible to win decisively by just flying better.
In a way aren't you actually making the argument that impression matters by this observation.  The exhaust deflection gave the impression that he overturned and since the judges did not have the luxury of a video replay he probably lost points.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #56 on: August 15, 2018, 11:56:28 PM »
If you know your stunt, you don't leave a smoke trail.
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Online Steve Thompson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 163
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #57 on: August 16, 2018, 12:22:49 PM »
Bob Gieseke might have had a different opinion.

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #58 on: August 16, 2018, 01:31:10 PM »
(snip)
Hi Ted
Great info, I do remember that well, you were using full length lines, and I believe you were over 12,000  and  maybe sneaking up on 13000  RPMs  at  some times...  The Airplane  looked,  or  really sounded like it was going  fast, but  5.5 to 5.8  lap times  at the  patterns I filmed,  and  You were using some of  my  OS  VFs  that  were  46s, some  special  AAC  46s,  the 46 is much stronger than the  40,  and  it would easily turn  the  12 inch 3 blades,  the  40 VF  hated  the  12 inch props, 3 blade  or  2 blade .
And at some NATs  you were using  Bolly  12 x 4  3 blades , ummm  the  Lubbock NATs comes  to mind...  when many  needed  cowling protectors :-)

Regards
Randy

OMG, Randy.  You're absolutely right.  I did start my tuned pipe "career" on the .46 vice the .40.  (We're talking almost thirty years ago versus old-timer's disease here, after all!).  Doing so...motors one step bigger than the norm...was sort of my thing over the years.  It's like, despite all of Brett's cheer leading for the the FP .20, when it came time for me to get something to put into that Shoestring I built for VSC12 (OMG again...almost 20 years ago!)  I opted for the .25.  It's kinda funny that after I wrote that initial message to Curare I dug out a file of Nats paper work Shareen had kept from 1980 through 1997 which included plane/engine data I expect came from Wynn Paul.  I looked up that first TP year and was surprised to see he had "erred", stating it was the .46VF.  After reading your note I realized I had two strikes against me and I'd better guard the plate...er, uh...fess up.

I was also reminded of when you had the AAC piston and sleeves made for the .46s how impressed I was with them.  There was something in particular that I found a significant improvement but time has chosen to eliminate it from my memory in favor of something more  age appropriate...alas.  What little flying I do nowadays (haven't been out since late fall last year as a knee replacement has sidelined be until, hopefully, the end of this month) had been with the 1986 winning Citation V with one of the .46 AAC sets in it and I was once again reminded of why I liked it so much back then.  Magnificent power delivery and consistency flight after flight.

I don't believe, however, I ever used any three blade props on the TP other than Brian's.  The two blade from '92 was probably a Bolly as they were sorta the only place to get such props in those days IIRC but I don't recall ever having/using any three bladers after Brian got his into "production"...couldn't believe how much handwork he put into each and every one of those beautiful things.  Built the plugs with which to make the molds, cast 'em, deburred 'em, sanded, buffed and essentially balanced them before they ever left his back yard shop.

Ah, yes!  the Lubbock Nats slash destruction derby.  Were you referring back to my ground to the nub three blade destruction takeoff attempt? Wasn't there some kind'a cowboy song with a line about happiness being Lubbock, Texas in the rear view mirror?  As I recall the song struck a responsive nerve whenever I heard it for quite some time.

Enough,  thanks for straightening out the facts.

Ted

p.s.  Thought I'd throw in a pic of my contest ship for the Ted Goyet Memorial Contest the end of the month.  It's a three-fer: Profile/Classic/Expert!    First flights in a long time.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2018, 07:09:53 PM by Ted Fancher »

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #59 on: August 17, 2018, 09:21:17 PM »
  " Ah, yes!  the Lubbock Nats slash destruction derby.  Were you referring back to my ground to the nub three blade destruction takeoff attempt? Wasn't there some kind'a cowboy song with a line about happiness being Lubbock, Texas in the rear view mirror?  As I recall the song struck a responsive nerve whenever I heard it for quite some time.  "


AHhhh  Yes  Ted, I was referring  to Lubbock!,  It took a toll on more than 1 pilot, many felt the  winds and  heat, You were running Bolly 3 blades, as after you went thru some of your  3 blades,  You ask me for more of those 3 blade cowling protectors, The winds were very bad about getting under the tail of the planes, where you were taking off at, and  it was so bad, Brett  told me, he didn't want to launch you any more because he thought, he , may have been doing something  wrong !!  he felt so bad about the shattered props  , I assured him it was the  high swirling winds, and  not his launching technique,  You may remember I was trying to bring a little bit of levity in the situation, by calling them  "cowl protectors"  and  by George , they DID do the job of keeping  that  100 labor hour cowl  perfect !  :-)   
You may remember my "Ca Ching" line when you bought more 3 blades from me

I sold many dozens of Bollys  at the Lubbock  NATs

Regards
Randy

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #60 on: August 17, 2018, 10:00:57 PM »

AHhhh  Yes  Ted, I was referring  to Lubbock!,  It took a toll on more than 1 pilot, many felt the  winds and  heat, You were running Bolly 3 blades, as after you went thru some of your  3 blades,  You ask me for more of those 3 blade cowling protectors, The winds were very bad about getting under the tail of the planes, where you were taking off at, and  it was so bad, Brett  told me, he didn't want to launch you any more because he thought, he , may have been doing something  wrong !!

  We still have issues with who is launching for whom at times, as recently as May, we decided that David wasn't going to launch my airplane any more for the weekend- but that lasted less than 24 hours.

     Ted's Maroon/Cream Trivial Pursuit was very prone to that for almost all of it's life, finally, he bent the LG forward or something and it was fine afterward.

    There may have been Bollys involved at some point and I know you sold more than a few. However, the airplane flew best on a Eather 11.5-3.5 "purple" undercambered 3-blade, and that's what kept getting destroyed. It had a very mild undercamber that Brian was sanding in by hand on each one. We were down to his last prop, so I took one of the flat-back props (which was the same as what Brian started with to make the undercambered version), and with a piece of 80-grit sandpaper on a short bit of header tubing, sat down on the stark white couch at the Residence Inn in Lubbock, and started sanding. It took a while, but eventually I got it, it balanced on the first try, and was within a few thousandths of an original, we pitched it like the other ones, and it worked the same and that one lasted the rest of the week.

   I guarantee that they are still getting black dust out of that couch.

    Brett

   

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #61 on: August 17, 2018, 10:54:46 PM »
  We still have issues with who is launching for whom at times, as recently as May, we decided that David wasn't going to launch my airplane any more for the weekend- but that lasted less than 24 hours.

     Ted's Maroon/Cream Trivial Pursuit was very prone to that for almost all of it's life, finally, he bent the LG forward or something and it was fine afterward.

    There may have been Bollys involved at some point and I know you sold more than a few. However, the airplane flew best on a Eather 11.5-3.5 "purple" undercambered 3-blade, and that's what kept getting destroyed. It had a very mild undercamber that Brian was sanding in by hand on each one. We were down to his last prop, so I took one of the flat-back props (which was the same as what Brian started with to make the undercambered version), and with a piece of 80-grit sandpaper on a short bit of header tubing, sat down on the stark white couch at the Residence Inn in Lubbock, and started sanding. It took a while, but eventually I got it, it balanced on the first try, and was within a few thousandths of an original, we pitched it like the other ones, and it worked the same and that one lasted the rest of the week.

   I guarantee that they are still getting black dust out of that couch.

    Brett

 

OMG!  Save me from guys who still have memories!!!!!

Outside of grinding some kind of prop down to the spinner holes the only thing I remember about Lubbock was some lousy cheeseburgers when we first arrived and cheering as I saw the "Welcome to  Lubbock signs" in our rear view mirror...oh, except for waiting for Brett to catch up to us as we awaited his arrival one exit after he had the "opportunity to meet a Texas highway patrolman" as he described the incident on our walkie tackies as we raced toward the western Texas border!

Ted

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #62 on: August 17, 2018, 11:19:03 PM »
 

    There may have been Bollys involved at some point and I know you sold more than a few. However, the airplane flew best on a Eather 11.5-3.5 "purple" undercambered 3-blade, and that's what kept getting destroyed. It had a very mild undercamber that Brian was sanding in by hand on each one. We were down to his last prop, so I took one of the flat-back props (which was the same as what Brian started with to make the undercambered version), and with a piece of 80-grit sandpaper on a short bit of header tubing, sat down on the stark white couch at the Residence Inn in Lubbock, and started sanding. It took a while, but eventually I got it, it balanced on the first try, and was within a few thousandths of an original, we pitched it like the other ones, and it worked the same and that one lasted the rest of the week.

   I guarantee that they are still getting black dust out of that couch.

    Brett

 

Hi Brett

 I am  sure you correct about sanding  props, I do not know  what Ted did  with the 3 blades he got from me,  I do  remember the  CaChing  and  Ted asking  for 3 blade  cowl protectors.
Ted was correct, It was me that was making  and  supplying  the  pipe props in CF, that we could repitch, I remember  doing  that with 5 and 6 pitch props to start, it was  work,  Until  I got Bolly to make  new mold for the  NEW props, That took a while  and  i was  very happy  to get them for pilots.
That NATs was  also  the  very first NATs of the   PA Engines  that had  just came  out.  I had furnished about 8 to 10 pilots with  PA 40s,  I think they did  OK ALL of them finished in the top 20 finals  and  Paul  won that  NATs with a  PA 40, Fun times !
That was the NATs  that   Billy  coined  the  phase  "STUNT PRISON " , when we first got there, the wind  was  so high, all we could do was look out the  windows and watch the  trees  bending over.. and some of the  fastest tumble weeds I have ever seen.

Randy

By the way  Nice  Shoestring  Ted, I had  all of the GoldBerg kits, actually many of the same ones, The Shoestring  was by far the best flying of the bunch

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #63 on: August 18, 2018, 02:23:01 PM »
Hi Brett

 I am  sure you correct about sanding  props, I do not know  what Ted did  with the 3 blades he got from me,  I do  remember the  CaChing  and  Ted asking  for 3 blade  cowl protectors.
Ted was correct, It was me that was making  and  supplying  the  pipe props in CF, that we could repitch, I remember  doing  that with 5 and 6 pitch props to start, it was  work,  Until  I got Bolly to make  new mold for the  NEW props, That took a while  and  i was  very happy  to get them for pilots.
That NATs was  also  the  very first NATs of the   PA Engines  that had  just came  out.  I had furnished about 8 to 10 pilots with  PA 40s,  I think they did  OK ALL of them finished in the top 20 finals  and  Paul  won that  NATs with a  PA 40, Fun times !

   It was indeed!  I mean, really, it was pretty miserable all week, and I would never vote to have another NATs there, but it was fun. I crashed my airplane literally the last flight before we left, Ted, David, Bill and I put it back together with a new wing that David just happened to have, it was assembled and mostly painted in day and a half, no flights before we got there, first flight in a 25 mph wind - needed a tweak, but otherwise, worked great even though it picked up something like 8 ounces. I had not one moment of difficulty getting through flights at any time, 5.4 second laps, 20 mph, no problem.

   That was when I first grasped the enormity of the breakthrough from piped engines. The remaining ST60 runners were generally going sub 5 seconds and one notable ended up at 4.6 seconds - with a clearly failed wing spar - in the flyoff.

     Brett


p.s.  I do recall you telling me it wasn't my fault, by the way, and that was helpful. I didn't really think I was doing anything different, but you never know for sure.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2018, 07:03:45 PM by Brett Buck »

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #64 on: August 19, 2018, 02:26:22 PM »
OMG, Randy.  You're absolutely right.  I did start my tuned pipe "career" on the .46 vice the .40.  (We're talking almost thirty years ago versus old-timer's disease here, after all!).  Doing so...motors one step bigger than the norm...was sort of my thing over the years.  It's like, despite all of Brett's cheer leading for the the FP .20, when it came time for me to get something to put into that Shoestring I built for VSC12 (OMG again...almost 20 years ago!)  I opted for the .25.  ghts in a long time.

   Oh, dear, I think we might have some misremembering here. I was present for the very first piped flight you flew with your own airplane, which was a stock 40VF. Set per the theory of the day, peak out lean, then back off just enough to keep it from going over the top. That was the session where the engine ingested metal chips from the area where you relieved the tank at the front to clear the header. I did my first flights, also with a 40VF,  the next weekend.

    I think that engine was used for the duration of the "Temptation" life, with the internal muffler conversion that piped the  exhaust to the tail. I actually have the engine, which somehow got to Randy Powell, and I later bought. That's the engine we used for the engine testing with the thrust stand, proving that the 40VF had 2.5 times the static thrust of an ST46 (when set for stunt runs) - that no one on SSW "believed" could be true. It may have even been in the old airplane the last time I flew it, still works fine.

I tested your 46VF for you shortly after that, and it was *far* too much power for the props we had (where were depitched Rev Up 12-4s), and I had no idea how I could have possibly used that much power.  But it led to the 46VF AAC with the 12-3.25 Bolly, which may have been in there for the unfortunate Rossi Plug Flameout that destroyed the Temptation once and for all.

     In fact, I seem to recall taking your engine apart at some place we flew in Gilroy (not Gilroy High School) where the circlip "sproinged" into the decayed blacktop parking lot. You wanted to just give up, assuming (as you should have) that we would never find it again. With my extensive experience finding contact lenses, I got down on the ground, and found it, and we put the engine back together. That may have been the first day with the AAC.

  All the really good success was with the 46AAC and the Trivial Pursuit, of course.

     BTW, I have a potential upgrade in run reliability for the Shoestring that we can try out if we get a chance. But, I think I should come by this week and fix your replacement tank for the Citation, and use that instead. You can still beat me in Stunt 25 and Profle with the Shoestring, and beat me again in real stunt with the Citation - just like the previous 200 times.

    Brett

p.s. I also have a Randy *40*VF AAC that goes into my 3000-flight, finally worn out, #1 40VF.

     

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #65 on: August 19, 2018, 06:54:09 PM »
   Oh, dear, I think we might have some misremembering here. I was present for the very first piped flight you flew with your own airplane, which was a stock 40VF. Set per the theory of the day, peak out lean, then back off just enough to keep it from going over the top. That was the session where the engine ingested metal chips from the area where you relieved the tank at the front to clear the header. I did my first flights, also with a 40VF,  the next weekend.

    I think that engine was used for the duration of the "Temptation" life, with the internal muffler conversion that piped the  exhaust to the tail. I actually have the engine, which somehow got to Randy Powell, and I later bought. That's the engine we used for the engine testing with the thrust stand, proving that the 40VF had 2.5 times the static thrust of an ST46 (when set for stunt runs) - that no one on SSW "believed" could be true. It may have even been in the old airplane the last time I flew it, still works fine.

I tested your 46VF for you shortly after that, and it was *far* too much power for the props we had (where were depitched Rev Up 12-4s), and I had no idea how I could have possibly used that much power.  But it led to the 46VF AAC with the 12-3.25 Bolly, which may have been in there for the unfortunate Rossi Plug Flameout that destroyed the Temptation once and for all.

     In fact, I seem to recall taking your engine apart at some place we flew in Gilroy (not Gilroy High School) where the circlip "sproinged" into the decayed blacktop parking lot. You wanted to just give up, assuming (as you should have) that we would never find it again. With my extensive experience finding contact lenses, I got down on the ground, and found it, and we put the engine back together. That may have been the first day with the AAC.

  All the really good success was with the 46AAC and the Trivial Pursuit, of course.

     BTW, I have a potential upgrade in run reliability for the Shoestring that we can try out if we get a chance. But, I think I should come by this week and fix your replacement tank for the Citation, and use that instead. You can still beat me in Stunt 25 and Profle with the Shoestring, and beat me again in real stunt with the Citation - just like the previous 200 times.

    Brett

p.s. I also have a Randy *40*VF AAC that goes into my 3000-flight, finally worn out, #1 40VF.

   

Once again Brett's frankly amazing memory astounds me. 

As a result of Randy's earlier comments about the .46 being my first piped adventure I did some more research in the paperwork Shareen had of the 1980 through 1997 nats and was reminded of the Temptation experiment with the .40VF. about which I'd totally forgotten (although I did remember the flame out the AM of the top five flyoff in 1991 which, IIRC (no need to laugh I already am) was still with the .40VF.  I don't,however, recall the exhaust piped to the tail end but it does sound like the silly sort of thing I might have done! 

Those records showed that I flew the Temptation in 1989 with its original ST.46; then, in 1990, flew the ST .46 powered Citation V; then flew the Temptation again to its 1991 demise due to the .40VF's flame out.  Finally, in 1992 I flew the Trivial Pursuit in its first Nats with TA DA!!!!--at last--the .46VF which may or may not have been an AAC equipped one.  I expect without since I do remember modifying my existing .46(S) and recognizing the improvement.

Finally, at some point I re-engined the Citation V with a .46 VF which I'm certain was AAC fitted.  Paul Pomposo borrowed and flew it for a few years before I made him give it back to me and it still hangs from the ceiling in my shop waiting to go once again.

My further adventures with Randy's AAC versions were in the 1994 Shanghai WC airplane Great Expectations which won the 1995 nats and then got repainted in purple pond scum colors, renamed Final Edition and won again in 2000 with one of Randy's P.A. .61s.  It's "swan song" after all those years of good service was a "swan dive" from the top of the circle on a test flight with Brett's first RoJett .61 unwittingly purring away in the nose.  Unfortunately, the dim witted pilot couldn't decide whether to pull out of the vertical descent upright or inverted and, instead, let it fly straight into the parking lot at the college leaving bits and pieces of pond scum and Ro Jett detritus scattered about a small hole in the black top.  The sort of thing I did from time to time as a young teenager with Ringmasters and Sterling Yaks.

See!  There are a few things I can remember.   I think that's the end of Ted's toy plane motor trail.

Ted

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #66 on: August 19, 2018, 07:41:44 PM »
I don't,however, recall the exhaust piped to the tail end but it does sound like the silly sort of thing I might have done! 

  Well, it was less than entirely successful, but a very interesting idea, not silly at all.  I think I was present for the failure, or shortly thereafter, in an uncharacteristic late afternoon flying session. 1/64 ply "oval" tube about 1/4"x3/4" from the end of the pipe tunnel to the aft fuselage, and three rather small aluminum tubes going out the tail post and flush with the inside of the (significantly deflected) rudder. It worked for a few flights.

   I actually don't recall how that got in the airplane, it was converted from the ST46, so maybe you cut the entire bottom off, put the extension in, and then a half tunnel.  It probably would have worked if it was make out of a carbon "finger trap" tube like the pipe, and if the outlet had been much larger.

   I wasn't present for the NATs flame-out. You came back and said it was due to Rossi plugs. I listened, but more-or-less dismissed it, because I had run them before in other engines with no problems. I put one in the engine, fired right up, sounded good, and I just nudged the needle a micron richer - and it quit like someone had disconnected the spark plug lead. OK, that's got to be an abberation, fired it right back up, no problem, I got about 5 steps towards the handle, and, again, sudden silence. I subsequently tried all varieties of Rossi plugs (on the ground...) and eventually, for one reason or another, they *all* did it eventually, usually when I tweaked the needle richer, almost the instant I touched it - just like you said happened to you!   

     I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but eventually it dawned on me that there were a lot of guys who knew/know *a lot more about this than I did/do* and that paying attention might be a wise approach. Particularly when they beat me 200 times in a row, every other weekend, for 10 years.

      Brett

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #67 on: August 20, 2018, 02:21:32 PM »
Once again Brett's frankly amazing memory astounds me. 

As a result of Randy's earlier comments about the .46 being my first piped adventure I did some more research in the paperwork Shareen had of the 1980 through 1997 nats and was reminded of the Temptation experiment with the .40VF. about which I'd totally forgotten (although I did remember the flame out the AM of the top five flyoff in 1991 which, IIRC (no need to laugh I already am) was still with the .40VF.  I don't,however, recall the exhaust piped to the tail end but it does sound like the silly sort of thing I might have done! 

Those records showed that I flew the Temptation in 1989 with its original ST.46; then, in 1990, flew the ST .46 powered Citation V; then flew the Temptation again to its 1991 demise due to the .40VF's flame out.  Finally, in 1992 I flew the Trivial Pursuit in its first Nats with TA DA!!!!--at last--the .46VF which may or may not have been an AAC equipped one.  I expect without since I do remember modifying my existing .46(S) and recognizing the improvement.

Finally, at some point I re-engined the Citation V with a .46 VF which I'm certain was AAC fitted.  Paul Pomposo borrowed and flew it for a few years before I made him give it back to me and it still hangs from the ceiling in my shop waiting to go once again.

My further adventures with Randy's AAC versions were in the 1994 Shanghai WC airplane Great Expectations which won the 1995 nats and then got repainted in purple pond scum colors, renamed Final Edition and won again in 2000 with one of Randy's P.A. .61s.  It's "swan song" after all those years of good service was a "swan dive" from the top of the circle on a test flight with Brett's first RoJett .61 unwittingly purring away in the nose.  Unfortunately, the dim witted pilot couldn't decide whether to pull out of the vertical descent upright or inverted and, instead, let it fly straight into the parking lot at the college leaving bits and pieces of pond scum and Ro Jett detritus scattered about a small hole in the black top.  The sort of thing I did from time to time as a young teenager with Ringmasters and Sterling Yaks.

See!  There are a few things I can remember.   I think that's the end of Ted's toy plane motor trail.

Ted


Hi Ted

I wasn't  saying that you never ran a  VF 40, I had no idea what your were testing or  running while at home, My comment was just at most of the  VF days at the NATs  and  TTs,  You ran one of the  46 VF  AACs  that  I did for you, and  anything you were using with a  12 in 3 blade, was most likely a 46, Bill Rich  and several other Like the BEAR  were also using the  AAC 46 VFs.
They were good engines, and I setup  100s of them for many people, and  today there  are  still  AAC VFs  flying in stuntships.
I also remember a certain NATs that was hot humid, and the  46 VF was not performing as you wanted, It may have been in the refinished ship, You said you were not going to fly that NATs,  But  your Buddy  David, sorta  took the  bull by the horns and  force feed  your  TP a  PA 61  engine, The flights after that were much improved, and you flew that NATs, and I saw no issues afterwards :-)  I also remember a trip to you room  to bring a  new  PA 61  for your  further enjoyment... Although  you did  Insist I sell you a  61  instead of a  60.... something about you were NEVER  going to  use a  60...... but  a  61   was  OK  :-)

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Is bigger still better?
« Reply #68 on: August 20, 2018, 02:43:42 PM »

Hi Ted

I wasn't  saying that you never ran a  VF 40, I had no idea what your were testing or  running while at home, My comment was just at most of the  VF days at the NATs  and  TTs,  You ran one of the  46 VF  AACs  that  I did for you, and  anything you were using with a  12 in 3 blade, was most likely a 46, Bill Rich  and several other Like the BEAR  were also using the  AAC 46 VFs.
They were good engines, and I setup  100s of them for many people, and  today there  are  still  AAC VFs  flying in stuntships.
I also remember a certain NATs that was hot humid, and the  46 VF was not performing as you wanted, It may have been in the refinished ship, You said you were not going to fly that NATs,  But  your Buddy  David, sorta  took the  bull by the horns and  force feed  your  TP a  PA 61  engine, The flights after that were much improved, and you flew that NATs, and I saw no issues afterwards :-)  I also remember a trip to you room  to bring a  new  PA 61  for your  further enjoyment... Although  you did  Insist I sell you a  61  instead of a  60.... something about you were NEVER  going to  use a  60...... but  a  61   was  OK  :-)

 Never thought you'd implied that, Randy.  It's just been fun for me to try going back in time to align my so called memory with "what really happened" back in the dark ages of stunt...or, at least, of the tuned pipe revolution.  Got me to dig into my piles of junk to pull out stuff I hadn't looked at for literally decades which served the dual purpose of reviving some pleasant memories of those years.

As for the .60/.61 thing...I certainly didn't want to be thought of as caving into our friends back east!  I've owned .59s and I've owned .61s but I've never owned a .60!  VD~ VD~ 

Thanks for keeping me from making wrong turns at confusing hysteric...um...er... historical intersections.

Ted


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here