News:



  • March 28, 2024, 04:02:10 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Is bigger still better?  (Read 28663 times)

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6036
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

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6036
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

Offline 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

Offline 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

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
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

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
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 »

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
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

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
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