Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

SPEED TOO


NOT A SPEED SHIP BUT TOO COOL TO IGNORE. From Pete Soule.

YOU GOTTA READ THIS

A new installment by RALPH:

John, This goes way back, almost to the category of ancient history. WW1. Do you remember the French rotary-radial engine of 9 cylinders called the LeRhone Monosauppe?

This engine as well as several other mfgs. engines of those times was installed "backwards" in respect to the conventional method where the crank-shaft stuck out of the front of the engine and the propeller was mounted on it. The "Monosauppe" engines crank shaft stuck out of the rear of the engine and was "firmly flange mounted to the airframe at the firewall and did not rotate". It was stationary and it was hollow. The propeller was mounted on a dummy shaft extension protruding from the (now) front of the engine crankcase and rotated only when the entire engine, less the crank shaft, revolved. In order for the propeller to turn, the entire engine had to turn, cylinders and all. This created an enormous gyroscopic flywheel. This design had a very favorable power to weight ratio and was the engine that powered the most successful 1st WW fighter aircraft. The credit being initially given to the excellent power to weight ratio of this design.

Well some time later they found out that its high success and consequent high "kill" ratio was in fact not the power to weight ratio but was the extremely high level of the "Gyroscopic" effect that caused the aircraft to (unintentionally) perform 4 different drastic maneuvers in response to normal pitch and turn inputs, that were not normal and were totally unexpected by an enemy pursuer on your tail and not possible for him to follow with an airplane that behaved like a conventional aircraft.

Roll inputs behaved in a conventional manner however. A quick "up elevator" input would cause the extremely high level of Gyroscopic Force (without visible rudder deflection) to the pursuer to make an erratic flat uncoordinated yaw turn with no roll and the other 3 inputs did different drastic maneuvers and at 50-60 mph and 100 ft range the control surfaces, rudder, elevator and alerion movements were all visible to your pursuer and their positions were as deceitful as heck and his conventional machine was incapable of performing these unintentional severe erattic maneuvers anyhow.

Roll inputs had no gyroscopic induced effects and were used to decoy the pursuer. A quick little roll to the left with a simultaneous down input, (your control surfaces being perfectly visible to the pursuer) would put you in a very quick "climbing right turn" much sharper than a conventional plane could perform. They just couldn't follow their prey and having "seen" your control inputs had anticipated and started to follow where they thought you were going, only the wrong way and didn't have a ghost of a chance of scoring a hit or even knowing where you had gone anyhow, and the next thing the pursuer knew he was now the prey. "Bingo".

I have flown a Neuport so powered and it's a bear to get used to, believe me. This is getting off the subject a little, like Vermont, I thought all they raised in New Hampshire was long winded politicians (pun intended).

I mentioned that the crankshaft was hollow. It was so, but not for weight saving reasons. It was the air intake for the fuel injection system. The name :"Monosauppe" mono in French means "one" and sauppe means "valve". This unique design had but "one" valve per cylinder. It had nearly a 5 inch bore and a single pushrod, rocker arm operated, overhead mushroom poppet valve nearly the diameter of the bore. (4-1/2 inches).

It was a 4 cycle engine that operated this way; It is more easily understood when the cycles are described starting at the beginning of the Exhaust cycle with the piston at the bottom of its stroke (BDC) the valve is already open, it opened when the piston was 1/2 inch before reaching BDC, relieving the cylinder of exhaust gas pressure before the piston uncovered 36 bypass ports 1/8 in. dia.spaced at 10 degrees radially around the base of the entire cylinder. No transfer took place then, (no Pressure differential) The overhead valve exhausted directly into the slipstream (no exhaust manifold) this saves a bunch of weight. (the spark plug is installed horizontally into the rear of the cylinder at the top) It doesn't have a hi-tension wire connected to it. Remember now, the engine rotates, cylinders, sparkplugs and all but the crankshaft. An internally toothed ring gear mounted on the engine drives a stationary magneto mounted on the firewall whose hi-tension output terminal is passed in close proximity (1/32 inch) by the spark plug terminals. This arrangement eliminates the need of points, distributor and hi-tension leads (spark plug wires),points and capacitor. This ring gear also drives the oil pump which furnishes oil to all bearings which are either ball or roller as well through oil journals to the main and rod and wrist pin bearings and hollow push rods to the rockers and valves, This ring gear also drives the air pump, which pressures the fuel tank (fuel injection) no carburetor, more weight saved, now back to the exhaust cycle.

The piston completes its exhaust stroke and when TDC (top dead center) is reached (the) valve does not close and being open to the slipstream 100% scavenging occurs and the piston starts down on its intake stroke, remember the valve is still open and fresh air from the slipstream intakes till the piston reaches 2/3 rds of the way down, at which point the valve closes and the remainder of the intake stroke causes a partial vacuum to form in the cylinder and when the piston uncovers the 36 transfer ports it intakes the balance of the intake charge as a result of the partial vacuum in the cylinder and atmospheric pressure in the crankcase. The balance of the charge being an overly rich mixture of fuel and air (air that was sucked in through the hollow crankshaft) and fuel which is injected continuously by a fuel nozzle on the end of a fuel line that enters the crankcase through the hollow crankshaft and the nozzle being in the proximity of, and aimed at the inside base of the cylinder where the 36 transfer ports are located. The next cylinder will be there to get its charge next. remember the fuel nozzle is stationary with the crankshaft. The next stroke being the compression stroke is conventional, the next is the power stroke and it differs from the conventional power stroke in that the Poppet exhaust valve opens just before the piston uncovers the 36 transfer ports relieving exhaust pressure and preventing exhaust gasses from entering the crankcase.

Then we start all over again. With no carburetor or throttle and constant fuelpressure ther were but 2 power settings, "on" or "off" full throttle or none, no idle even. One other interesting point (and there are many more) is the fact that this whole engine rotated and it had to be precisely balanced which eliminated the utilization of castings and forgings.

Every part had to be machined to precise tolerances to accomplish the precise balancing that this design dictated. This fact made it the most beautiful engine I have ever seen. It was made of stainless steel to prevent corrosion induced imbalances with age.

Fingers are giving out John. I'm really not complaining about typing as it is a good therapy for arthritis. I only meant to rap a bit on Gyroscopic Force and got carried away. Maybe it's contagious. Life is short, enjoy.

2nd installment
This is not the data I'm saving till later but never the less an interesting and important point re: the very high power to weight ratio of this this type of engine.

As you know the major "waste" of power in a reciprocating engine is the "internal inertia loss". The power required to cause a mass from a standing start to accelerate and then to stop and reverse direction 180 degrees (it takes as much power to stop as it does to start) and then to re-accelerate and stop and so on. Any mass that just goes back and forth or up and down with out going any where takes huge amounts of energy that is not used to add to the rotation of the propeller is Inertia Loss Such as the piston, wrist pin, 1/2 of the rod, valves, rocker arms and push rods all just go back and forth. And this translates to a huge amount of power loss and vibration that requires heavy counter balancing on the rotating crank shaft, all unnecessary on this engine.

Now just think of the configuration of the Monosauppe. The crank shaft is stationary, with the crank pin at the top.The con rods (all 9 of them) the wrist pins and pistons all orbit the single crank pin. They "do not" go up and down. They just go round and round. The cylinders all "rotate" but in an eccentric orbit that cause a relative "in and out" motion differential between the pistons and the cylinders with the total absence of Inertia Loss.

This high power to weight ratio gained by eliminating these internal inertial losses, combined with the gyroscopic induced flight characteristics of the aircraft it powered made it something to be reckoned with. All of the WW1 Aces with large numbers of "kills" flew "Rotary Radial" powered planes.

Germany made several different versions but theirs all had 2 valves per cylinder. Some had an overhead exhaust valve and an intake valve in the top of each piston, like our 1940-50s Atom .09 model engines intake valve (transfer port)

Felix Wankels' success was for this same reason in his Wankel Rotary used mainly in the Japanese Mazda. They all run as smooth as an electric motor. Back in the 1950s Joe Mifkovich and I made a 2X3 lobed Wankel but had very little success with it. We lacked the ability to machine nondescript geometric shaped rotors and housings with the primitive machinery of a basement work shop. BMW, Mercedes, and a dozen all at one time or other produced vehicles with Wankel Rotarys.

The Monosauppe design was Mfg'd and used in a motorcycle in the early 1920s called the Megola.It had a 5 cylinder rotary-radial of 640 cc displacement engine mounted as the front wheel with a tire rim and spokes enclosing the engine. The front axel was the stationary crankshaft and this cycle (mfg in Germany) won all the races in Europe. It had excellent road handling ability and was void of a clutch, transmission and had all the advantages of the monosauppe designs. no chain either. I have pictorial reference to it in my Book collection, which has been my principal hobby for the past 50 years. I always wondered about the "gyroscopic effect" the front engine-wheel had on handing characteristics??? I understand it had a fuel system fed by gravity to a smaller tank mounted on the axel an derived its fuel pressure. from centrifugal force that varied with speed and had a hand throttle controlled butterfly in the hollow crank. Wish I had a scanner. later

...the Megola was supposed to be an excellent cycle, front wheel drive!

"...the farmers guide to c/l aeronautics..."

Here is another attempt by your's truly to put it together

"...parts page..."

Are you hankering to get a pulse jet?

Before you buy anything, get the JET-PACK reprint package from MIKE HAZEL of ZZPROP. It contains some great information about JET-SPEED.

CLICK HERE to get a short list of suppliers for both jet and recip's.

"...it's starting to sink in..."

When I first walked into a hobby shop about 5 years ago, I asked the proprieter about C/L speed. He told me that it was very complex and that the airplanes had morphed into single winged wonders that were very exotic.

He went on to explain that nobody but a very few diehards flew speed and that it would be nearly impossible for me to become a speed flyer [he's almost right on that].

The only part of his story I listened to was the part about single wings. As a member of the I LIKE IT IF IT'S STRANGE club, I was hooked.

I still am not sure why these things are faster than say, a good old PINK LADY, but these are some of the things I think are the reasons:

These statements are cut and pasted from parts of C/L speed review and Speed Too. They form a vaugue notion [in my football coaches mind] of why these things look and perform like they do.

"...swirl flow..."

This is the name NED and RALPH used for what I have been refering to as prop wash. Swirl flow sounds like something Kelly Johnson would say so now I will use it.

I have had a notion that swirl flow is a greater drag producer than air flow. According to Ned, I am half-right[as usual]. It seems that swirl flow at low speeds has a dramatic effect on the airframe. Swirl flow is at least part of the reason that F-40's are so difficult on take-off[along with torque reaction]. The swirl against wing, stab, rudder and COWL can induce yaw and roll.

This swirl is why con-clockwise F-40's need a sub-rudder and clockwise F-40's need an upright rudder. Conversly, a clockwise ship should handle better with an inverted engine and cowl[think about it!].

I assumed[I know, I know] that the effect was constant at all speeds. Ned says that as speed increases, the swirl is straightened out, both by airflow and by the various "wings".

To me, the following implications are;

That's what I get, How about YOU?

Call me Slip Mahoney

Ralph Lindsay wrote the following;
Hi John, I have used the term Spiral Wash but never heard the term Swirl Flow. I would consider the terms synomous however.

I always figured that the Spiral Wash on a CCW circle with a CCW eng. rotation would induce a minor CW roll tendancy opposing a greater CCW roll tendancy generated by engine torque. I also believe that static (0 speed) torque would be much greater than torque at speed RPM and the Spiral Wash would have little effect on preventing rolling up the lines. However Spiral Wash causes DRAG. I know 2 methods to minimize this DRAG.

First, on a conventional upright ship, I believe the most DRAG is caused by the wash not being parallel with the cowl C/L. Viewing the cowl as a front rudder, it should be turned a bit to the left to equalize the differential in airflow caused by the Spiral Wash. As we all know this differential is what creates lift (DRAG) horizontally and increases line pull. How much offset? You'll have to play with it, as other things such as fore and aft lead out location (we used to call this centrifugal balance) it has a significant effect on the cowls vertical angle of attack which is just one piece of the synergy that is necessary to go fast. The other method deals with the wings.

The Spiral Wash affects only the inboard half of both wings. The relative angle of attack on the inboard half of the left wing is more positive than the outboard half of same wing. So build a bit more negative incidence in the inboard half of the left wing. Do just the opposite on the right or outboard wing. It is difficult to determine or measure the gain accomplished with out a sophisticated wind tunnel but theoretically there will be an advantage to have a slight wash-in on the inboard wing and a slight wash-out on the outboard wing. I know the gain will be small, but these seemingly small gains all add up to a significant synergism in order to go fast.

I first ran into this phenomenon at the Nats in the late 50's at NAS Willow Grove, Pa. We, the Magna Model gang, had 2 identical B jobs. Both had identical Fox 29Rs, fuel, props, every thing identical. One would do 150 the other 140 ? We broke the fast one test flying, swapped engines and got 140, had a problem with the Stanzel unit, swapped the Mag spar, Stanzel unit and wing panels. Bingo 150. Later we looked at all the parts and noted a difference in incidence of the 2 wings. The spar was cockeyed. The inboard wng was washed in and the outboard wing was washed out. We didn't know then why, only that this was the only difference and the results repeated themselves every time.

It wasn't too long before we figured out the reason and improved on it when we determined that only half of each wing needed altering in the way described above.

Ralph later sent this along

John, I just read the original message I sent you and I think in the concluding paragraph I confused L w R.... yeah washed in vs out. Thats what happens when your memory goes (short term)

Did I say swirl flow?

"...now Ralph is saying swirl flow..."

I wrote to Ralph to explain his explanation. This was his reply:

Hi John. It seems to me that we put too much unnecessary emphasis on "TURNING" while swinging around a pylon ( not in coordinated flight) which requires a roll input to be able to navigate around a turn and prevent skid with the net angular force of drag inducing "lift"
Sure the "wire" does all this for us BUT Swirl Flow [??? c'mon, Ralph] exists only on the cowl, inboard 1/2 of each wing and the tail surfaces. On a ccw/ccw/std/upright ship all of the SwFl forces would tend to "roll"the plane to its' right-right? But these forces would be absent outside the propeller disc.

I maintain that to have minimum drag all "Relative incidences or angles of attack should be equal and "0" and if Swirl Flow increases the relative angle of incidence or attack on the inboard half of the left wing and decreases it on the inboard half of the right wing the left wing should have less incidence built into the inboard half and just the opposite on the right wing. The outboard half of both wings should have"0" degrees incidence. The gain from this Swirl Trim is very noticeable when the ship is grooving a foot or more below the handle and is generating an absolute minimum to no lift induced drag (this occurs when all relative lift angles are at or near "0" and the ship is "hanging" to a greater degree than you would believe on the centripetal force being opposed. The cowl slightly angled to favor the L-R angle of the SW FL [to get a 0 degree angle ,not to make it turn into the circle] , looking right into the SW FL and the whole ship balanced centrifugally with lead out placement.

Any aerodynamic method to make the ship "turn or tend to turn or just to lighten up on the line pull has to result in engine horsepower not devoted to going AROUND IN CIRCLES FAST...damned arthritis later

Ralph, you are darn eloquent!

"...if you're asking me..."

I've really been thinking alot about PRECESSION, PROP BLAST, C/G and LEADOUT LOCATION etc. So far, My "research" has lead me to believe that;

That is my take on the subject. What is your's?

To this question, Ralph Lindsay replies;

I noted above in your "BLAST,C/G and LEADOUT LOCATION" paragraph "The size of a rudder should be designed to " OFFSET" the "EFFECTS" of wind and prop-blast on the cowling. (I take it you mean the horizontal lift induced drag CAUSED by the vertical incidence, positive or negative of the engines cowling) I maintain that to correct this drag by using a rudder has to cause more drag, both aerodynamic and parasitic but never the less, more drag. I believe that proper lead out location will correct the cowlings drag angle with out adding more drag. Simply correct the centrifugal balance, get the cowl to "fly straight" by this method, I call it "Dealing With the Cause and not the Effects". There may not be a lot gained by this, but this added to a dozen or more other little bits is what "SYNERGY" is all about". I'll be looking in my snail mail box, you know what for.....Regards, Ralph

Actually, I was not suggesting using a rudder set at an angle to steer the plane. What I meant was that the surface area of the cowling should be balanced by the surface area of a vertical fin as Cliff Telford suggests in his TOP CAT article. Cliff said that any effect from wind on the cowl will slow you down, therefore a fin is needed to minimize those effects. I deduced that SPIRAL WASH[swirl flow]as it effects the cowl would also need to be balanced.

I do not know this to be true but it makes sense to me.

"...tidbits..."

A big bird told me these tidbits. I'm sure most of it is common knowledge but for those of us who could benefit;

I would imagine this to be true for assymetric airplanes too. The combination of one wing tip vortex one fuselage junction plus covering 3' of wire could explain why this type is so fast.

"...tid bits redux..."

[with apologies to John Updike]

The following is from Ralph Lindsay;

Hi John, About "burning speeds" and "release of energy" and "high revs". These three functions work together in an unusual way. My knowlege of this triumviriate of factors came originally from a publication by Henry Ford in 1945 when I worked at the Ford engine factory in Detroit. His article dealt with 3 factors which are nearly synonomous with yours.

He stated that "regular" low test gasoline has more energy in it than in high octane gasoline because the additive, Tetra- ethyl of Lead only slows the "flame front propagation", does not burn, so the net energy in the fuel is less than in regular gasoline.

It does however improve the "conversion efficency" by retarding the maximum pressure wave until the crank pin rotation reaches a point where the piston has somewhere to go. At TDC the rod is vertcal and combustion chamber pressure doesn't translate to torque or shaft power until the crank pin angle reaches a point where torque and power can be efficently produced. This also reduces bearing loads which are at max. when at TDC. and are generating excessive friction & heat, not power. A major advantage of lowered bearing loads, less heat and a smoother presure wave is that the engines reciprocating parts can be made lighter and REDUCE THE INERTIA LOSS, which is the major gain for all of the above.

This is all related to two commonly used (but seldom understood) terms.

They are close but quite different at the same time. "Pre-ignition" results in that tell - tale ping that usually results only in a loss of power. "Detonation", however is an advanced stage of pre-ign and/or a combo of too fast a flame front wave that compresses the fuel/air mixture ahead of it into the other end of the combustion chamber generating a pressure induced temp. that ignites the fuel/air mixture at that location in the combustion chamber, creating its own flame front that backs up into the original flame front, violently colliding with same and generating perpindicular explosive waves that can destroy pistons and other engine parts glow plug filaments being the first to go.

The "Hi-Revs" tend to equate to "ignition timing" and "Slower burning" as at higher RPMs it takes less time to reach the proper crank pin angle that allows better energy conversion into usable torque and power.

There is a little, but important difference between "spark ignition" and "glow plug ignition" spark ignition is a mechanical function and glo plug is a chemical= thermal function.

Mentioning Glo Plug ignition takes me back to 1942 . During WW2, when Air Raids were happening, we had frequent air raid drills. Always at night and everybody had to tape thick black- out paper to the insides of their windows and put black curtains inside their exterior doors and many other precautions against light being visible.

Air raid wardens patrolled our streets and you could be fined for any breach of visible light. Well, this imposed a burden on cigarette. smokers. A fellow modeler from Windsor, Ontario who had some chemical education, his name was Robert Gillies, came up with a cigarette lighter that showed no light and had no spark or electric ign.

It was a simple aluminum thin walled cylinder about 3/8 in dia, about 3 in. long, swedged down at both ends to a cigarettes diameter and stuffed full of loose cotton. At one end , recessed in 3/8 in. was a fine meshed platinum screen holding the cotton in place which created a receptical for the tip of the cigarette you wanted to light. The other end had no screen, you could see the cotton . Both ends had corks fastened to a common string that was fastened to the main body of the lighter, Pretty neat. Remember, this was before Glo-Plugs.

Here is how it worked. First, remove the plug opposite the end with the platinum screen, then you filled it with a "secret" lighter fluid. Next, remove the other plug, insert your cigarette and take a couple of drags and your cigarette was lit. Almost like magic. I'll bet you have already guessed what the magic lighter fluid was. Methyl Alcohol! Commonly known as Methanol . Well Oxygen - Methanol - and Platinum when combined create heat, enough to make the screen red hot. Now you know why a Glo Plug engine doesn't quit when you disconnect the battery. It didn't take Bob long to make the earliest Glo Plug and sold his idea to Champion Electric in Toledo .Ohio He had no patent and the selling price was a pretty good job with them. My arthritic fingers are about to give out.

More later. Ralph

Ralph, you gotta get backatit! [speed, that is!]

"...NITRO BURNING FUNNY CARS..."

Scott Jackson sent this explanation of how Nitro is not just good but good for you;

If you look at the chemical formulas for these, you see that they carry NO2 components instead of OH components

From this you can see that more bound oxygen is contained in the fluid which is released upon combustion, i.e. a form of 'supercharging' occurs...

I'm sure others would explain it differently.

Since the Europeans cannot readily obtain nitrated fuel components, it has been removed from CIAM/FAI fuel formulary...

TIA

Scott Jackson

(keep running around the pole - 50/60rpm may get you first place...)

Scott, I hope you are not referring to my recent bout with the pylon :)

RALPH LINDSAY

Ralph is a member of the C/L SPEED forum and is a guy who has recently returned to modeling after a 40 year hiatus.

He recently posted a message saying:

"...SPUTNIK MAGNA MODEL, 1/2A speed..."

It's been 40 yrs- time to fess up. The Stanzel mono units bell crank controlled the needle valve only.

Ralph sent this along as an addendum

John, some time ago, when you first posted the "Sputnik" plans, in the Paragraph following the F/M plans I noticed something I wanted to mention to you, re: terminology. The article said "The 1/2 A, modified Stanzel control unit controlled the THROTTLE" Not so! It controlled the "MIXTURE",( needle valve, fine adjustment). Making it possible to use a much larger venturi. As at resulting "low spray bar velocities" which always accompany big venturi and requires a wider range of fuel metering (mixture control) not capable with any system I know of.

From simple "ram air tank press. to centrifugal depth tanks, crankcase pressure, exhaust gas pressure, to all the various press. bladders of many descriptions. All tried and found wanting- All failed to do what "Sputnik" powered by "COX" with an intake almost as big as its "Bore " could do. With a spray bar velocity that ranged from "very low" to "Fairly high". A fuel metering device with similar range capabilities was necessary. Remembering that this was all before these after market tuned suction superchargers (PIPES) that do essentially the same thing by raising the BMEP , the "Volumetric efficiently" while flat pitched props let em gulp that many more times a minute, while we just gulped bigger bites at a little faster rate and had to scavenge and exhaust the mixture and products of combustion with a sacrifice in Vol. Eff..

I spent last week at Muncies' speed Circle. It's been 40 years since I have had any contact with "going around in a circle,FAST" and I felt like Rip Van Winkle . It has given me a lot to think about. John, look into this. I don't know if "superchargers" are excluded "rule Book wise"[they are. j.] And if so could not a "Tuned Pipe" be categorised as an "exhaust gas powered supercharger" Instead of "BLOWING" it "SUCKS" It still does the same thing, (enhances Vol Eff) using exhaust gas energy, as a "turbo charger" does, but with a more abstract energy source. If nothing else it's a little controversial journalism you can play with. And as I reflect on rules and interpretation it seems that if "Line Tab" was declared illegal there is more reason to out law "Tuned Pipes" if Turbochargers are not legal... hahaha

The "line tab" only disguised the fact that the altitude was controlled by the speed(adjustable). It made me chuckle when they outlawed "line tab". A little negative incidence in the stab, a little "nose heavy" combined with a little pendulum and ground effect and speed control worked fine on 35 foot lines (at 112 mph it got a bit dizzy). We did a few 152mphs with a destroked Fox 25(19) on 52 ft lines and managed to cream a few 29X & R Foxes on 60 ft lines- never had enough ball bearings to try it on D. Been inactive 40 yrs, got on the internet xmas went to the Tangerine bash in January, ran into Santo, Ned and few more diehards and have the bug (it's contagious). Been contacted by a few others and I am looking forward to seeing Frank, John, Geo, Roger and all the rest of who ever is left.

Regards,Ralph.

OK..., I was hooked. I contacted Ralph to ask for more info. He sent me a very detailed letter with drawings explaining what he had done many years ago.

His idea of N/V adjustment did not work with larger classes. He needed to control pitch with an elevator. So he developed a TWO LINE system, one line being connected to a STANZEL UNIT that twisted to control the N/V setting.

He also used pull rods for more positive control input.

Ralph explains...

"...I only used "PULL RODS" push rods tend to bow when pushing (for down elevator)

I believe that soft or no down because of push rod bowing is why a wind induced oscillation is so final-- all kinds of up-whoops- where is the down. I never had any problem in the wind once I began using 2 PULL RODS driven by a + bell crank. the rods can be very small in diameter, an upper and a downer control horn.

At speed the aerodynamic load on the elevetor control surfaces is quite high and easily flexes a soft push rod resulting in a dangerous, self inducing oscillation--you know how it goes,,,"darn- I wish it hadn't gone quite that high , the last time around" whoops!!! that down didn,t seem to get it..meanwhile it's sitting out there smoking and screaming like a pig..."

This subject has given me so much pleasure , downright fun and now the nostalgia of old friends that I really feel guilty. So guilty that I'm going to "Confess" something to you about the real reason for the 1/2A control device of mine known as "Line Tab". It did not work.

It only sufficed to theoretically provide "some" control of elevation, to satisfy the requirement in the general C/L rules. The "Tab" was loose enough so it would not interfere with the torsional rotation of the mono line unit inside the wing that controlled only the needle valve.

I had enough inherent stability in the slightly nose heavy ship with a very little pos. incidence in the stab to ride the ground effect . I had some success with both A and B using "two" lines on a conventional bell crank with the "front" line being a Stanzel mono unit doing the needle valve trick. Did a couple 152mphs with a Fox 25, destroked to .199 cu in this way. Joe Mifkovich made the shaft.

Both Bertha and Joe are survived by their son Thomas who resides in Tamaqua, Pa. Our last project was with D, a pair of Dooling 29s, in line, alternate firing, with 2 line (needle valve control) A bit trickier as the line length increased, so did the up wind/down wind osillations. I needed to be a one armed wall paper hanger and ambidextrous too.

CLICK HERE to see drawings and plans.

I immediately ordered a copy of his old F/M article on the SPUTNIK for PARTNER at NASS head-quarters.

This is an edited version of that article [and remember, this was written 40+ years ago];

"Speed is not an experts only class..."

Our primary point is to discuss the important elements ...some of the many points discussed will appear controversial...

...speed flying...is a class of modeling for any modeler who is capable of consistency, throughness and the ability to follow a pattern or system...By creating a balance, or harmony, between factors you are making the first step toward record plus speeds.

"...N/V settings..."

The hotter and dryer the weather, the LEANER the setting

"...fuel..."

It wasn't until we started to use ready-mixed fuels that we that we had any good results...Our main contention is that you {should} use only one fuel in a particular engine ...it appears that engines wear in at a specific heat range ...fuel changes cause this heat range to change until the results obtained are not consistent...

"...propellers..."

Here as with all items consistency pays. We use stock props...

"...plugs..."

We have found that the glow plugs supplied with engines suffice.

"...motor alignment..."

If the...pan is not true and parallel, the crankcase will distort as the engine heats up...cause binds and friction which result in lost revs...

"...cooling..."

We believe in plenty of it. You may have noticed when starting...in very cold weather that [engines] require [more] prime...we believe cooler engines require more fuel... the more fuel you burn...the more power...

"...Lift[drag]..."

We believe that...lift is the greatest amount of drag ...we rig our wings at minus 2 degrees incidence...we get no lift at a zero to minus 2 degrees angle of attack.

...centripetal force at 1 1/2 degrees CONTROL-LINE INCLINATION is sufficient to support the airplane...the swinging and hanging action can hold the ship above the ground if THE HANDLE IS ONE FOOT OR HIGHER ABOVE THE PATH OF THE PLANE, THE PLANE IS MOVING FAST ENOUGH and IF THE PLANE IS HEAVY ENOUGH.

Heavy planes will require lower speeds to "hang" them in the air...Flying one foot or lower than the C/L handle sounds awfully low. But remember, we have no oscillating with the wind to contend with.

"...yaw[centrifugal]..."

...Every speed job we have seen usually employs in-thrust, an offset cowl, is intentionally tail heavy, has the inboard wing ahead of the outboard wing or uses a rudder...

We go for none of these. In physics we learn that an object or mass rotating in a circle produces a fixed amount of centrifugal force depending on its weight, speed and the diameter of the circle. To develop more or less pull on the lines requires power which MUST come from the only source availible-the ENGINE. This taxing of the engine will cause a loss in thrust and result in lower speed.

Our 1/2A model has some 3 sq. in. of frontal area. 35 feet of .010" line has OVER 4sq. in. of area. As speed increases so does drag...the line nearest the plane creating more drag than the line near the handle...the CENTER OF DRAG IS NOT IN THE CENTER OF THE MODEL BUT SOMEWHERE ON THE INBOARD WING PANEL.

This creates an INBOARD YAW...with the LEADOUT [attached] at the CENTER OF GRAVITY. Our ships are set up with THE LEADOUT BEHIND THE CENTER OF GRAVITY so that they will hang out about 1 1/2 degrees.

"...TRIM[aerodynamic sensitivity]..."

...the plane does not have to be tail heavy. It should be slightly nose heavy [I'm assuming Ralph means nose heavy when hung from the leadout, ed.] to compensate for the drag of the flying line.

"...weight..."

A heavy ship has many advantages such as: the lower speed needed to get the centrifugal force to hold it up...[ability] to dampen engine vibrations, [ability to overcome] torque effect at launch. Generally, heavier models are less disrupted ...which gives them an advantage in the wind.

Lighter ships can swing more pitch [props].

"...engines..."

...leave engines stock. We believe...manufacturers are smart cookies ...a little cleaning up of rough spots...but stop there... Don't experiment at meets...

This is the gist of Ralphs article. It is HIS OPINION, do not adopt any opinion as your own unless you do careful research. I think his viewpoint has many interesting observations, I am unsure about some of them. I do believe that what he says concerning line drag and trim is what I've been told by MORRIS, FOGG, SACKETT et al. Ned once told me about having an airplane flying lower than the center of the circle is GOOD. He mentioned the CINCY circles as having that advantage.

"...implications..."

The most interesting aspects of this article are the comments on NEGATIVE INCIDENCE and lift. If this is true, it has lots of implications about wing size etc.

I am now totally confused. If a standard ship has it's drag center somewhere on the inboard wing, then a laydown assymetric [fai style] must have it's drag center SOMEWHERE OUT ON THE LINE.

If this is the case, the engine is flying the wire and the airplane is along just to provide a STABLE THRUSTLINE.

All things considered, it appears as though there are lots of ways to skin a cat. Bill Hughes makes the point that FAI style ships are going fastest [himself in B,everyone in F2a, FOGG/BROWN in D, LEGG in 1/2A, Tommy Brown in A]

Then along comes MORRIS/MATHISON...

"...harmony..."

KNUTE ROCKNE was once asked what it took to make a winning football team. His answer went something like this;

"...teamwork is the most important factor in winning football games. I don't play the 11 best players, I play the best 11.

Ralph Lindsay, in his SPUTNIK article, makes a point to explain that your airplane must have features which act in harmony in order to go fast and be consistent. Bill Garner said [in a telephone conversation] pretty much the same thing. He stated

"...there are a lot of ways to make a speed ship go besides the engine..."

He went on to explain the importance of practice, of knowing "...what she'll do..." long before the contest begins. He said he mostly ran stock engines, paying intention instead to the little details. A lot of C/L performance depends on the ability of the pilot.

Morris, Sackett, Garner and [long ago] Lindsay all seem to emphasize consistency and preparation.

Each man acknowledges the limitations and strengths of the machines they work with.

All seem to feel that performance is the result of synergy, that the whole must be made to perform greater than the sum of the parts.

I have very little doubt that the laydown sidewinder is cleaner aerodynamically, than any other type of C/L model.

The question then is; "...what's the best way to set-up...?"

I'm now troubled by something I held to be true

I'm starting to think that big wings are good only because they land the plane easier. WISNIEWSKI AND MORRIS run big stabs, not necessarily big wings [probably 70-80 sq in for D] Fogg's DEATHSTAR D has a hugh [I think it's 120-130 sq in] wing, but that could be only because he is trying to cover some wire.

I'm getting a headache. Lucky for me I made my FAST JET engine adjustable for/aft. I can at least get my wire further behind the C/G by moving the engine forward. That's comforting.

ROCK ON A STRING? My eye.

Incidently, The plan of Ralph's 1/2A calls for a stab area of 65% of the wing area. [drawings to follow]

"...SEABERT PARSONS..."

I met Seabert at the 98 NATS. He was helping to run the speed events until JET DAY at which time he became a contestant. He has the distinction of having the one of the few wives in America who can start a pulse jet WHATTA GAL!

Anyway, Seabert uses GROCERY STORE baggies for JET TANKS and PENNY BALLOONS for reciprocating engines! Here is the story.

"...jet tanks..."

You know the bags that you get at the grocery store for Veggies in the produce department? Well you can use them to go FAST.

1.The size and shape of the tank depends on the application.

2. Be sure that the containment compartment slightly exceeds the required volume.

3.For C/L, the compartment determines the put up point[?] The original idea and reason for the tank was to eliminate the recirculation of burnt and dirty fuel and to prevent foaming caused by air and fuel being together in a common tank.

4.The basic "baggy" is similar to the "TETRA" tanks used in R/C pylon racing.

5. Once the containment vessal is determined, the baggy can be sized. It should be slightly larger, about the same shape, and then checked for the required volume.

6. Baggies should be of the soft, pressure sealed variety.

7. CHECK ALL BAGGIES FOR LEAKS. I fill to about 8-10 oz., press out the air, fold and clamp with clothespins and let the bag sit overnight. [many have pin holes, toss the leakers]

8. Use a "panty hose foot" to cover the bag. Be sure it is large enough!

9. To fill, first suction out the air and pinch off. Fill and clamp-off until ready to start the engine.

10. The containment compartment must be vented.

11. To run pressure, slip another bag over the "tank" baggy and add a pressure line.

12. The point of pick-up should be to about the center of the compartment and baggy. In theory, air pressure will work equally around the the bag, forming the fuel into a sphere. For C/L, form a wedge at the C/G as I believe centrifugal force will futher shape the fuel.

For smaller tanks, use a small BALLOON. Take care not to overfill and therefore pressurize the fuel.

There it is, hard to believe. But it makes sense and I've tried it on a test stand with my FOX .36x. It worked fine through several runs and at different N/V settings. I'm gonna try it with a plane.

When assembling use a small length of brass tube inserted into a length of fuel line and tie off with a wire tie or thread. Siphon the tank with your syringe to remove air before filling.

Once again, I am not recommending you do this, I am only reporting what I've tried. It sure will beat the heck out of bladders and other labor intensive soldered tanks.

Is there a UNIFLOW EFFECT? I would think that since the bag/balloon is siphoned, there would be.[I hope so] Bob Wilkie suggested I try using a condom instead of a balloon. [what else would you use it for?]

Well, I used a balloon tank in my new/old mono-line trainer. Fox .36x on suction. Worked like it did on the ground. I like the idea and will continue to experiment. Penny balloons, can you beleive it?

"...mystery and magic..."

The following was taken from DENKER'S SEE HOW IT FLIES page.

I really like the way Denker explains aerodynamics, I thought you might like a sample.

If you would like a great explanation re:P-FACTOR AND PRECESSION, go to the Denker page.

Denker points out that an airplane is one of the few vehicles that is not always pointed in the direction that it is going. He explains that since an airplanes thrust line is not always parallel with it's direction of travel, one side of the propellor has essentially a different pitch than the other. As he explains P-factor/precession, it appears as though I was mistaken as to the effect these forces have on speed planes.

At the attack angles speed planes fly, I do not think P-factor or precession should be a concern except when you consider yaw trim.

A C/L plane as seen from overhead should [I think] have it's prop disc parallel to a radius of the circle.

If the prop is not due to yaw trim, I think there could be a problem with relative pitch.

For example, consider a plane flying con-clockwise with a normally [con-clockwise] rotating engine/prop.

Suppose the plane were to stop in mid-air and the prop were to stop at the vertical position. If the plane had no side slip or yaw, both prop blades would be pulling the same pitch.

Now imagine the plane yawed out. The top blade would appear to have less pitch while the bottom blade would appear to have more. Denker explains this a lot better than I do, but if he is correct, I take it to mean that the thrust at the bottom of the prop arc is different than it is at the top.

If the plane were flying clockwise, the thrust is greater at the top instead of the bottom.

"So What", you say and you could be right. I do not know if this is useful[cause I do not know enough], but it appears to me that trim is again crucial to getting the most out of your set-up.

Denker also treats spiral wash with a critical eye. He makes a point of saying that spiral wash[he calls it something different] has a dramatic effect at low speeds. He mentions how many full size airplanes have built in rudder offset and must be trimmed to compensate at cruising speeds.

I went to visit my neighbor, the great C/L stunt icon, Bob Hunt.

We were having a nice visit when strangely enough, our conversation turned to the topic of model aviation.

Bob Hunt knows model airplanes. He knows how they work and more importantly why they work.

He feels as though the precession/P-factor thing is VERY over-rated as it effects airplanes, all airplanes. He thinks that spiral wash has a much greater effect on trim than the prop disc effect has.

That's all for now, folks.

...my new address...

C/L SPEED REVIEW