Big 4-strokes + warbirds = ?

[Marty C]

OK I am very interested in trying something 'new' to the best of my knowledge anyway...
I want to try and fly a 20- 25 pound 1/5 scale P51 with a large four stroke the options being either Saito 180, and 200 V-Twin or a Y.S. 140 DZ...
These size models usualy are seen with large SuperTigres, Moki's or gas burners.
I have done a bit of research and interestingly although the RPM and H.P. is lower the torque/thrust figures of the big four strokes compare favorabily with the Moki 1.8 when swinging 20x 6 and 8 props on these big four strokes.
I am still hesitating but the four strokes could very well be a good option and the sound would well be worth the compromise for all out power...fuel economy is not of concern just looking for that super four stroke sound...

I would like to hear from anyone who is flying the big four strokes on heavier models....as this would also help me decide which way to go. Any thoughts or experiences welcome


Cheers-

[AJCoholic]

Marty,
I remember reading Clarence Lee's review of the Saito 180. He compared it directly to the Moki 180, runs the same props pretty much the same RPM's but is much lighter. I had a Moki 180 for 3 years and its a great engine. I want to try a big saito, maybe soon.

[DP01]

Marty:

While it's not a 20lb warbird. I've been running a Saito 180 with an 18X6 Mejzlk on a 13�Lb Extra 300. The power is tremendous, really far too much for "normal" flying (whatever that is nowadays). I too have speculated on how a 1/5 P51 would fly with that engine I would think it could well fly in a quite scale like manner if kept as light as possible.

Dennis

[Marty C]

Hmmm, sounds very interesting! So if a Saito 180 produces similar torque to the Moki 1.8, prop for prop it stands to reason the Y.S.140 DZ should be in between the 1.8 and 2.1 Moki's for torque.

Dennis- Have you tried a 20x6 or 20x8 prop on the Saito 180? these are the props I think would be ideal for the P51 with the 4 strokes.

[PurgatorY]

20-25 lb models are far too heavy for the 140 DZ, its just not what the engine was designed for.

[Marty C]

Hi Chad you are correct the YS was not designed specifically for my planned warbird project, but what makes you think the YS 140DZ could not do the job????
It swings the bigger Moki 2.1 size props eg 20x6 well within the manufacturers suggested 8000-8500 RPM operating range... Its all about the torque 'not' HP. So I really think it would be possible to fly a big 20 + pound warbird at scale speeds. It is all of course just my theory! I really want to try it though....

Cheers- 8)

[AJCoholic]

The Moki 180 wasnt designed to fly 30 pound scale warbirds either but it does do it as shown by some top scale competitors.

Its all relative to the wing area/loading/thrust and airspeed needed for safe flight and takeoffs/landings.

We are so used to having super overpowered aircraft these days (many times 2 and 3 times the thrust to weight in some sport planes and competitive aeobatic ones) that we can forget a "real plane" can and will fly quite nicely (and take off from grass even!) with as little as a .25 to 1 power/weight ratio.

A scale warbird doesnt need unlitmited verticle or be able to hang on the prop :)

I have flown one of my own aerobatic planes at 20 pounds with a Moki 180 turning a zinger 18-8 prop on FAI fuel (0% nitro) and you couldnt believe how much authority it flew with!

[PurgatorY]

Your quote "20-25 lb models are far too heavy for the 140 DZ, its just not what the engine was designed for."

Makes no sense. What was the motor designed for Pattern? How foolish for someone to think of using it for anything else. I guess I should take the YS out of the Lazy Ace that I use as a glider tug then.

At the Word Scale Championships that is all the japanesse team used to power all of their scale planes. I guess they were wrong too.

Marty, as Andrew has said if the power and prop size and rpm work out then there is a better than average chance there is nothing wrong with your choice of engine.

One word of warning is that these engines use a copious amount of fuel and require a greater percentage of nitro. Figuring in the cost factor of the engine and fuel needed to run it makes the gas engines look much more user friendly from the cost point of view.

Dennis

[JimMcIntyre]

At the Word Scale Championships that is all the japanesse team used to power all of their scale planes. I guess they were wrong too.

And those zeros appeared HEAVY....
and I vividly recall their team manager chastising one of the team members for flying too fast. :P

[Marty C]

Fuel consumption/cost does not concern me and I agree that cost aside these big bang four strokes would be fine as Andrew said its all relative to the application and expectations.... Andrew says he is flying the 1.8 Moki with no nitro on a 18x8 and getting great performance flying his 20 pound aerobatic ships. I am no mathamatician but serious chrunching of the numbers indicate both the 140DZ and Saito 180 running on a good fuel brew with appropriate nitro percentages, swinging either 20x6 or 20x8 props (wood?) look to me to be in the hunt for scale performance with a 25 pound reasonably low drag warbird like the Aerotech P51 or say the Yellow Spitfire for that matter. Also I am not flying out of a bean patch but a full size airfield with perfect unobstructed departure and approach paths...(Picton Airfield) That makes the decission to go 4 stroke easier as well...

Another point of interest to me also is the parabolic /prop effect of the bigger Saito 180 single as opposed to the higher HP but smaller capacity YS140?
Iam thinking maybe if HP output is relativly close between the 180 and 140DZ, when swinging the big props ala 20x6 the 180 maybe better??? being a bigger single? eg I think maybe for the big props the Saito 180 would be better, but I reckon if I go ahead and do this install I will choose the YS140DZ. due to my happy experiences running the FZ 91AC inverted, swinging a 16x6 in my smaller Model Tech P51 66" span, 10 lbs AUW.
Performance in this case was like a 120 4 stroke after switching from an O.S. 91 FS. note the prop size I was using 16x6 on the 91 is a suggested 120 class prop for many... So my faith in the 140DZ being upto the task is not unfounded...

The only down side I can think of for the bigger P51 will be the need for dead weight lead in the nose to balance potentially...

Andrew, Are you running a tuned pipe or muffler on the Moki 1.8???

Cheers-

[PurgatorY]

Hi Chad you are correct the YS was not designed specifically for my planned warbird project, but what makes you think the YS 140DZ could not do the job????
It swings the bigger Moki 2.1 size props eg 20x6 well within the manufacturers suggested 8000-8500 RPM operating range... Its all about the torque 'not' HP. So I really think it would be possible to fly a big 20 + pound warbird at scale speeds. It is all of course just my theory! I really want to try it though....

Cheers- 8)

Considering that I own three of them and have been using them for the past two years gives me a good idea of what they are good at. They need very specific rpm requirements to run properly (not to mention certain types of fuel unless you want a busted up rod), which I dont think you will get with the props you want to use, for instance the DZ wont turn a 20x6, let alone a 20x8. Running huge nitro (30% and up) you might be able to do a 19x6, but thats a might, there are no guarantees.

Go ahead and buy one to try it, but I think you will find that its going to be an expensive experiment. Remember that the DZ is unlike any other YS that has ever been produced. Also you will need to get used to the fact that you will be going through 20 oz of 30% nitro fuel in under 12 minutes at half throttle.

[PurgatorY]

In the YS in the Lazy Ace I have been running 10% nitro Wildcat 2-4 stroke pure synthetic since new. Runs like a top, nice low idle and power to pull a 78 inch biplane with a 3 meter glider on top at a consistant 25 to 30 degree angle of climb. Been flying this combo for about 6 or 7 years now. Engine is totaly enclosed in the cowl.

Dennis

[AJCoholic]

Marty,
I allways ran my Moki (it belongs to a fellow club mate now as of a week ago) with a Bisson pitts muffler, on byron fai fuel and allways an 18-8 prop (tried an 18-10 and 20-8 but liked the 18-8 for my plane.

I would say the engine gave at least 18 to 20 pounds thrust as it pulled the plane very well vertical, but not unlimited. The Moki is a great engine, I just today ordered a 1.35 for my new Cap 232 (73" size).

If what Chad says is true, ie the YS 140 is designed not to be lugged down with too much wood, maybe the saito 180 is the way to go? I would however get the opinion of a few more guys flyign the 140 in non-pattern installations to see what they have to say.

Trying to turn too much prop may take you out of the ideal power band of an engine, but it definitely wont break rods. Overheating, possibly. Running too fast breaks rods.

I allways am interested what the topgun and scale masters flyersare using in their planes. Usually MAN and RCM give a rundown on the plane/weight/engine/fuel/prop the competitors use. Maybe a good idea to dig up some past issues and see whats what?

[PurgatorY]

In the YS in the Lazy Ace I have been running 10% nitro Wildcat 2-4 stroke pure synthetic since new. Runs like a top, nice low idle and power to pull a 78 inch biplane with a 3 meter glider on top at a consistant 25 to 30 degree angle of climb. Been flying this combo for about 6 or 7 years now. Engine is totaly enclosed in the cowl.

Dennis

The DZ is a unique beast. Firstly NO fuel enters the bottom end of the engine during operation, it all goes into the head. Running the incorrect fuel will fail to provide any lubrication to the bottom of the motor, and it will fail.

Second it needs higher nitro and wont run properly on lower than about 20%, but it also wont make any power with 20%.

As I said, this is unlike any YS engine that you have ever seen.

[PurgatorY]

If what Chad says is true, ie the YS 140 is designed not to be lugged down with too much wood, maybe the saito 180 is the way to go? I would however get the opinion of a few more guys flyign the 140 in non-pattern installations to see what they have to say.

Trying to turn too much prop may take you out of the ideal power band of an engine, but it definitely wont break rods. Overheating, possibly. Running too fast breaks rods.



When the DZ runs out of the powerband (especially the low end) it overheats and you WILL take out a rod. Been there done that, dont beleive me, buy one and try it.

[AJCoholic]

Chad,
An engine is still an engine. Rods break due to over reving stress, lack of lubrication, etc.

When you run an engine and lug it down with too much prop, the head, cylinder and piston become excessively hot and thats when you have seizing problems, and related damage like distortion.

I have not yet heard of an engine running hot enough to break a rod due to heat (specifically, ie not a lack of lube problem) It may be a new design but its still a single cylinder 4 stroke engine, not magical.

Dont get mad because I am sceptical of what you say. I have a hell of a lot of engine experience in my years in this hobby, and what one guy says (even you who runs these a lot) I dont take forgranted is the gospel truth untill I talk to a few other guys. I dont intend to drop a grand on one of these anyhow so I wont get the pleasure of breaking one :)

[PurgatorY]

Chad,
An engine is still an engine. Rods break due to over reving stress, lack of lubrication, etc.

When you run an engine and lug it down with too much prop, the head, cylinder and piston become excessively hot and thats when you have seizing problems, and related damage like distortion.

I have not yet heard of an engine running hot enough to break a rod due to heat (specifically, ie not a lack of lube problem) It may be a new design but its still a single cylinder 4 stroke engine, not magical.

Dont get mad because I am sceptical of what you say. I have a hell of a lot of engine experience in my years in this hobby, and what one guy says (even you who runs these a lot) I dont take forgranted is the gospel truth untill I talk to a few other guys. I dont intend to drop a grand on one of these anyhow so I wont get the pleasure of breaking one :)

Not mad, just pointing out the facts and potential problems that will occur when ran improperly, but feel free to talk to others and get their opinions.

Over-revving is only one possible way to break a rod, there are others, in fact many others. I have witnessed rod failures from over propping an engine. Stress is stress no matter what form it comes in, when it exceeds the yield strength of the material its just a downhill fall from there. Overheating can serious effect material properties, tolerences etc, and overheating is one very common problem from over propping.

[AJCoholic]

Yes it is, but generally the rod is not the part that fails first, reread my posts...

I was online doing a bit of reading. It seems that the YS 140 due to there being no fuel entering the crank relies on blowby only for lower end lube. Now couple that to being a high performance engine more subceptible to damage from mistreatment, if you use a fuel with oil that is too viscous (or not enough of it) you will reduce the oil that gets down to the lower end = problems...

Given enough of the correct type of oil, I cant see why it wouldnt be able to turn a larger lower pitch prop that has the same load as a smaller high pitch prop.

Or develop a forced total-loss lubrication system for the lower end... :)

[AJCoholic]

I got this off the web:

After more than three years of development and testing, YS has introduced an all new 140 which departs from the usual high pressure regulator system which YS pioneered nearly 30 years ago.

The 140DZ uses a crankcase pressure driven fuel pump and direct injection which results in a very user friendly engine which is happy on fuels up to 30% nitromethane and is not prone to detonation.

The YS 140DZ is happiest when run on fuels made specifically for it's use. Several fuel manufacturer's are now mixing fuels specifically for use in the DZ. They include Cool Power, Magnum and Powermaster. Contact these manufacturers for further info.

Any prop which allows the DZ to run in the low to mid 8000 RPM range will work well depending on your application. Many people have used 16x14, 17x12, 18x8 and 18x10, but other work well as long as they turn in the correct RPM range.

Now, my question is this - the larger prop sizes are the exact same as I would use on a 1.50 to 1.80 two stroke and the RPM's will be close (maybe 500 to 800 less) but why would it break the engine to use an 18-10 or 20-8 (about the same load) if they say its OK?

I dont think Marty was thinking to throw a 24-10 three blade and lug it down to 4000 rpms... ;)

After I have read the info on it and compare pricing, I think I would go with the Saito 180 myself if you want a 4 stroke. For two strokes, Moki 2.10!!!

[PurgatorY]

Many people have used 16x14, 17x12, 18x8 and 18x10, but other work well as long as they turn in the correct RPM range.



Thanks for helping me prove my point.

Yep, but the 20-6, 20-8 that was stated in the first post will not allow the engine to do just that, hence the reasoning for not using it.

If you dont just take the gospel truth from me why take it from a website (yes I know it is from www.ysperformance.com the North American distributor of the engine and also a sponsor of mine).

I have tried a 17x12, and quickly found that it is too much prop for the engine, its most happy spinning a 16.5x12W, less load than a 20x8. You just cannot compare the two stroke engines prop sizes to what works on four strokes, it doesnt work. We do this all the time in pattern, what the 140 two stroke guys run just doesnt work as well on the 140 four stroke guys.



being a high performance engine more subceptible to damage from mistreatment

Again proving my point

In other words OVERPROPPING regardless of your type and quantity of oil.

I have more time on DZ's than anyone in this country, putting it in this application and hoping it will work is a bad idea, 15 lbs go for it, but 25 lbs is just too much to ask.

[PurgatorY]

What does the weight of the aircraft have to do with it????????????? If its to heavy it might not fly right but suggesting the weight of an aircraft causing any kind of engine damage is a bit of a stretch. As Andrew said if the right fuel is used and the right amount of cooling and using a prop that will let it get in the 8000 or better range you could attach it to a bench and run it all day without harm. The bench might not fly but I bet it would weigh well over 25 lbs. :roll:

Dennis

[AJCoholic]

Here is a thread from RCU about a fellow flying a 140DZ with a 20-6:

" thought some of you might like to know that I finally got a chance to try my Mejlik 20x6 prop on my Dingo today.
I'm still getting 9200 rpm's static with that prop. This is on the Magnum DZ blend 30% nitro fuel. Wow! What an engine!
It would probably take a 20x8 prop, but I think I'm going to leave the 20x6 on there and just use throttle management.

Jim"

So a 20-8 seems a reasonable prop then?

Dennis - I think (no offense to you Chad) that Chad is set in stone that the engine in question is for one use only, pattern, and must be flown with one prop and on a plane of a particular weight. Thats OK but I bet someone somewhere has run this thing outside of its original use.

Some of us prefer to think of other possibilities and allmost NEED the challange. :) I still think it can be done, but who knows unless you try... I have done a LOT of things in my life that the experts told me couldnt be or shouldnt be done... and have had a lot of success where I should have failed misserably!

[PurgatorY]

Yep Andrew I agree. I ended up with a damaged 7 cyl radial (Tecnopower) and was told it was an old engine and with the damage it was not worth fixing. I wanted to do it myself and they tried to discourage me as this was not the engine for the home repair type of person. Well not only is it fixed and runs great. (sounds awsome) I sent pictures of my less than 2 oz motor mount and they have asked if I would mind sharing the blue prints. I made one up and sent it to them. We have been steadily sharing information back and forth every since. I did not buy the engine from them but the support once they saw I could be taken seriously has been awsome. There are no rebuild diagrams or instructions yet Marc Linville sat down and typed out step by step instructions. He also made recommendations on an improved series of bearings and I ordered them as well. I will be trying the engine out in a P26 Peashooter this year as soon as I finish designing the exhaust collector ring. Thinking outside the box only opens a new multitude of doors for the persons who like something out of the ordinary.

Dennis

[PurgatorY]

Dennis - I think (no offense to you Chad) that Chad is set in stone that the engine in question is for one use only, pattern, and must be flown with one prop and on a plane of a particular weight.


Thanks for the laugh Andrew, obviously all of you missed the point of what I was trying to say.

I guess in the future I will just not bother responding, and keep my knowledge to myself.

I wouldnt be where I am if I didnt try new things.

[JimMcIntyre]

Don't stomp off in a huff Chad...

I've been reading your responses aside from stating your view, I don't see you supporting it with facts.

Modellers are not the type to be told something will or won't work without understanding the why. Empirical evidence is just not enough, especially for us 'older' generation who realize that most unsubstantiated warnings are the result of concern for lawsuits than logic. :roll:

Show me, don't tell me. :wink:

[PurgatorY]

Not in a huff, I was giving an opinion based on lots of experience with this motor and being told by those who have never ran it that I was wrong.

I said I didnt think it would work, that the props he wanted to use would load the engine too much which will cause problems in the long run.

I dont need to support my opinion with facts.

As I said, go ahead and try it, learn the results for yourself. Since I am sponsored by YS, the more guys that run them, the better for me :)

[AJCoholic]

Hey, laugh all you want. I honestly dont mean any disrespect to you personally, or to your obvious experience running that engine. However, like Jim said I too want/need hard proof WHY this engine will destroy itself if you want to run it in a heavy plane, or with a larger prop than the pattern crowd uses.

I wish I had a grand to drop on one to experiment. I would! But I have far too many things in line to buy first, like stuff for my next turbine jet project, more radio gear, etc.

I agree with Dennis 100%. Not everything is done buy the book. If I had to do everything the way I was told to I wouldnt get to experiment and have fun, thats boring!

Anyhow, Marty, what do youmake of all this discussion about the YS? Still considering it ? :)

I want toknow more about the Japan scale team now and the weight of their models, the props they used, rpm's, etc. Where can we find this info out??

[ronm]

With so many less expensive and better suited alternatives, I think I would heed Chad's advise based on his extensive experience with that engine, and use something different.

Things are not always cut-and dry and can have hidden problems.

I remember almost causing a friend to burn out his Super Tigre 2300 engine by suggesting he use S.T. blend fuel with a max of 12% oil, as it states in the S.T. manual for the big S.T. engines. (2000, 2500. 3000 and 3250) I was quickly corrected by the S.T. representative that the 2300 was a "different animal", and would be quickly burned-out if run with less than 16% oil.
No expert has been able to tell me "exactly" what the difference is between the engines, but I would not do it anyway.

Running that particular YS engine with a prop suitable for a 25+lb scale airplane, which would likely be a 20" or bigger prop, would cause the engine to run at an RPM not recomended by YS. I think if it were me, I would accept this and move on, as there is not much to gain, and much to (possibly) lose by experimenting with this.

Just my 2c

Ronm

[PurgatorY]

Don't feel bad one of our members bought this engine when it first came out at the Toledo show. When he asked what fuel he was told to go see the guys at Powermaster as they had the right fuel for this engine. There was not one single reference to the amount of oil content in the box and Powermaster said the giant scale fuel was sufficiant.

The engine would fly for about 4 min before it would quit. A few of us thought it was hot and richening up the settings would not allow it to lean out. Well all said and done with on the 6th flight the engine went out at a most inappropriate time and the airplane which was new was destroyed.

I took the engine apart and the wear marks in the bore were those of definite overheating and lack of lube. A call to the Supertiger distributor at that time resulted in an admission that some of the earlier boxed engines did not have the warning about using 18% oil content not the regular supertiger fuel. They asked us to send in the engine and they replaced it.

A call to Powermaster to warn them of their misinformation on the fuel they were recommending for this engine resulted in a conversation with the owner of Powermaster. He asked for my phone number and said he would call me right back. He checked with supertiger and called me back to thank me for the heads up. He then said he felt some responsibility and since supertiger was going to take care of the engine he would replace the plane and any electronics that were damaged. He did this through a one of his Canadian Distributors and the gentleman had all of his loss replaced by these two great companies.

The support shown by both Supertiger and Powermaster fuels was outstanding.

Dennis

[ronm]

I'm still curious, though. What is different about the 2300 compared to the 3000, 3250, 2500, and 2000?
Nobody has definitively answered my question yet. :?: :?:
Ron

[PurgatorY]

I am not sure what the differences were but (and I am only guessing here) from the wear patterns it looks like the clearances may be a little tighter in the 2300. Supertiger told us it was built like the standard glo engines and that is why it needed more oil content. No other explanations than that. Sorry I can't help you with any further information.

Dennis

[ronm]

That's the same explanation I heard. Does not say much!

Ron

[AJCoholic]

It says lots to me... clearances in bushed bearing surfaces determine how much oil can get "in there" and depending upon the application a fit we normally think of as correct can be way too tight. Take a high rpm/ high performance engine with a bushed crank like ducted fan engines. They are set up with about 3 thou (or should be) clearance as to allow enough fuel/oil to keep the parts properly lubricated. That much clearance to the average modeller feels "sloppy" and worn out, but is absolutely necessary in order for the rod to survive at >20,000 rpms and heavy load. Usually a sport engine is set up with 1 to 1.5 thou clearance. Maybe the ST 2300 was fit tighter than its predacessors and it could be as simple as that. I ran a 2000 for a bit but never had a 2300 to compare it to.

Engine design is more art and experimental I think than textbook science... sometimes changing the smallest little thing can make or break a particular engine.

[ronm]

Ok, so there are differences in the big S.T.'s, you say.
Why then do you argue so vigilantly against Chad's contention that the YS DZ is different from other 4-strokes, including other YS's?

After hearing from Chad, I think I would dig a lot deeper into this before just slapping a 22" prop on a new DZ, in a $1000 experiment. I would guess that there is at least "some" validity to Chad's concern.

I'm enjoying this discussion, but to me it appears that you're basing your denial of Chad's concerns on the premise that Pattern fliers can be a bit ----, and that they are not open to experimentation. :wink:

I wonder to myself if you would believe it if it was not a "Pattern Guy" giving you the info. :roll:

What if one of the Jim's said, "Don't overprop the DZ, I've seen them self-destruct when over-propped"!

Would that be hard proof enough, or would you still want to try the $1000 experiment?

Just a thought!

Ronm

[PurgatorY]

The prop mentioned was a 20 X 6 not a 22 inch prop the story gets better the longer the thread.

The point is an engine cares not the brand, pitch or diameter of the prop as long as you let the engine rev to its power band not load it up or over rev it. So you have to experiment if a pattern application is a 18 X 10 a common guideline is one inch less in pitch allows about 1 inch larger diam. Of course as the prop gets larger in diameter the mechanical advantage gets less so in theory 19 X 9 or 20 X 8 are possible. A lot will depend on the profile of the prop and the tip design.

As said before as long as the prop pitch and diameter are adjusted for optimum rpm the engine will run fine.

The only thing the weight of the aircraft will effect is the perfomance of the airframe.

I personally would not choose that engine for two reasons. First the amount of expensive fuel it will use and I can achieve the same result with a significant fuel cost savings using a gasser.

That being said it now becomes the preference of the builder - flyer.

Years ago every one said the same thing when I purchased my first YS and put it in a bipe. That bipe still flys today with the same engine turning a 6 inch pitch prop at 10,000 rpm static. The plane has been recovered 3 times, has untold gallons of 10 % nitro through it. One set of bearings and a leak free gasket set from Central Hobbies is all I have ever done to that engine. The second YS is going in a 1/4 clipped wing cub. This engine allows me to turn a large scale type prop of a lower pitch giving me a scale top speed but a very powerful thrust to weight ratio.

Everyone in the Pattern community said it could not be done that I to would damage the engine because it was not designed for what I was going to use it for.

With that type of reasoning one should only use the big gassers for aerobatic 3D type airpanes as that was the original intent of those engines. Tell that to the guys using them for aerotowing.

Read the instructions on any motor. The recommended props are only guidelines. The warnings are specific. Type of plug, specific fuel and rpm not to exceed. Some even give a recommended rpm range for high speed. Stay within those parameters and the engine will run ok.

If you read the previous posts on this subject there is someone running this engine in just the manner that Chad has said will not work. Each even though they are different applications have had success. So if I were building a pattern ship I would follow Chads suggestions as a start point and if it were a scale, large aircraft I would get in touch with the other builder.

Dennis

[AJCoholic]

Ronm,
I am definitely NOT one of the guys to listen to anyone telling me what not to do....

Let me tell you this. Do you who George Aldrich was? One of the greatest engine builders/tuners of all time. He invented the modern day CL stunt pattern and was, untill his death few years ago, still customising engines. I was lucky enough for a few years prior to his death to be in a small select group of guys (about 8 of us, from all over the world) called the "motor boys international". I was able to talk to George regulary and ask many questions regarding engines and you know what? Even then, from this expert (in the true sense of the word) I didnt take 100% of what he said forgranted as the one and only way. I even proved him wrong on a few things that I was stubborn enough to try and make work MY way. Thats the difference between a guy like me and many others who are satisfied to be told what they should and shouldnt do. Of course, it my problem if something doesnt work. I understand that and accept it in playing outside the boundaries.

So, thats just my nature, as a true to life experimentor/inventor and all around mechanical nut. I dont care if Chad was the FAI world champion pattern guy and built his own YS engines, I would still question why the engine was not able to be used for a different purpose.

I dont think pattern guys are "----" or whatever other words you put into my mouth. I think they are dedicated flyers who have little time for anything else (like me) but practising and burning fuel to get better and better. They do what they do and do it well.

So,

[PurgatorY]

I personally think the topic has been beat to death. Time to move on I think. Relax guys its only a hobby.

Dennis

[PurgatorY]

Good call Dennis, I only ever meant to give my opinion on the topic.

[Randy Brown]

.

I agree with Dennis 100%

AJ.. whats a matter with you
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Randy

[AJCoholic]

Randy, some say LOTS of things... :shock:

(I prefer to think I am pretty "normal" though... :) )