PAW .049 SET UP FOR C/L STUNT...?

Levent Suberk wrote:It's BHP is .13 at 21000 RPM. Cox TD .049 BHP is .125 BHP at 21500 RPM. I think that you can use PAW .049 with every model that uses TD .049.

ffkiwi wrote:Yes they do-PAW's generally peak at fairly high rpm (for a diesel)....with the exception of the PAW55, and the one or two special models such as the 'vintage classic 80' or 'Texaco 15' that they have produced from time to time. The PAW 049 and 06 both have a single rear BR whereas the earlier 80 and 100 models were (usually) plain bearing [they even did twin BB ones...to special factory order]......however you would want to keep two things very much in mind:

(1) the PAW will be quite a bit heavier than the TD 049.....a quick check here gives 46.4g for a TD and 68.4 for a PAW 80...so about 50% heavier (the PAW 049 will be comparable....)

(2) you will need to prop it the same as a TD to get the stated power out of it....and on a 5x3 or 5x4 it will be a bit snappy...and tend to bite you whilst starting...whereas you could throw an 8x4 on it and it would be very tractable and pleasant....try doing THAT with a TD 049......but of course an 8x4 will not be much use for C/L stunt.....you might though get away with a 6x4 though-I'd be inclined to try out several options....including say a 7x4 trimmed to about 6.5 diameter....the PAW will at least have the torque to turn these whereas a TD-good though it is- will sag under that sort of load.....

  So yes you can use a PAW in place of a TD....but you will have to make some accommodations...nose length perhaps, maybe a fraction more wing area...and work out your starting method..

  ChrisM
  'ffkiwi'

ffkiwi wrote:Do you have access to Aeromodeller?   I recall a suitable 1/2A design from back in the late 80s or early 90s....looked like it had quite a lot of 'Peacemaker' ancestry....   it was a full size pullout plan in that issue. I'll have to go digging but i dareway I can lay my hands on it after a bit of a search....

ChrisM

ffkiwi wrote:Damn but I'm good sometimes...!   a quick search pull ups the Oct 91 aeromodeller with a full sized plan for the 'mini peacemaker'by well known modeller and airbrush expert ian Peacock....the plan shows a PAW 149 installed...so i reckon a 70% reduction of this would give you a good starting point-either as a reduced scale option or a starting point for your own design efforts.

Secondly I found the Nov 91 issue with  full size plan for a 'dragon Wagon' stunt trainer ---claimed the original flew on an ED .46 on 20 foot lines, but the plan shows a TD 049....in this case you could scale up, i think as a starting point.

The good news is a check confirms the Mini peacemaker plan is on Outerzone...

over to you...

 ChrisM

ffkiwi wrote:Err-if you look closely that's a 149...or rather an 09.....the 049 has a screw on head-not head screws....and no venturi insert-as I noted previously the full sized plan shows a 149 fitted...so you'd have to scale down a bit for the 049....I suggested 70%...but that's just a guess on my part. Of course if you have a 149 lying around....just build it full size and fly on 45 ft lines.....the article mentions 35 foot....but unless you're used to flying Mini goodyear, I'd suggest that's a bit on the short side for 1.5cc aerobatics...

FWIW its on MY build list....and has been for some time....

ChrisM

Ken Cook wrote:In my opinion, the A&J Freeflight kits were the nicest of them all. A&J did not die cut the parts, these were inked like old Comet Kits. You cut and shaped everything.

TD ABUSER wrote:

ffkiwi wrote:Err-if you look closely that's a 149...or rather an 09.....the 049 has a screw on head-not head screws....and no venturi insert-as I noted previously the full sized plan shows a 149 fitted...so you'd have to scale down a bit for the 049....I suggested 70%...but that's just a guess on my part. Of course if you have a 149 lying around....just build it full size and fly on 45 ft lines.....the article mentions 35 foot....but unless you're used to flying Mini goodyear, I'd suggest that's a bit on the short side for 1.5cc aerobatics...

FWIW its on MY build list....and has been for some time....

ChrisM

oops..that's a .09 but my 049 has 3 head screws and it came in a box labeled 80R/C A/C

Ken Cook wrote:            The Stork is a very uncomplicated build. The Stork is named after it's designer Duane Stork. The plane was initially kitted by A&J Freeflight. They sold to Golden State Models who in turn sold to Walter Umland who then sold to Brodak.

       In my opinion, the A&J Freeflight kits were the nicest of them all. A&J did not die cut the parts, these were inked like old Comet Kits. You cut and shaped everything.

      Golden State Models did essentially the same but the inking absolutely sucked. It was too heavy and blurry and very difficult to remove leaving inking which bleeds horrendously when doped. However, they did machine cut the fuse, doublers and larger parts.

     There's no finer kit in the world then a kit offered by Walter. From wood selection to laser cuts, to fitment. Walter makes the best. Just remember, you pay for it. Walter's health is very bad and we haven't seen anything in the past few years and I'm hoping that changes. Not only do I have several of his kits, I own some that he built.

       As for Brodak, I'm not a fan of these kits. I buy them and build them but I like to correct the changes that were made from the originals. In the case of the Stork, the entire kit is laser cut making it very nice quality and some of the details on the wingtip are in fact a improvement over the original.

  If you go to Outerzone, the Spitfire is essentially the Stork with different wingtips and fuse shape. Same plane otherwise and it's a simple constant chord wing. Cutting ribs is extremely easy to do.

944_Jim wrote:Lots of good advice here already. I do want to mention there are several OZ models that have particular (peculiar?) aspects that appeal to the beginner stunt-dude.
a) Hershey bar wing, that is, common-size rib pattern across the whole wing, with only "flap" variations as a distinguishing factor.
b) Profile fuselage, easy to cut (in any shape).
c) landing gear...which helps the stooge-launcher/solo flier

Use the OZ detailed search features to search for Trainer, Single engine, wingspan as appropriate for engine size...I'm guessing between 30 inches and 36 inches. You I'll get a short list.

I think the Mercury Monarch is sized for 1.5 cc (.09 cid) engines. There are several others. By reviewing the plans, you may encounter several from England that were originally designed around diesels. They may even be the diesels in this thread.

944_Jim wrote:Umm, TD,
Please forgive me. I wasn't implying hinged flaps for performance, but rather fixed "flaps" that change the overall shape/appearance of the wing shape. Consider these to be nothing more than wing planform shape-changers.

With respect to what I think about certain patterns vs flaps...I hold no knowledge. I can honestly say "build heavy, crash heavy," and I needed no flaps for the last landing performed by two of my now-deceased planes.

Two examples come to mind sharing a lot of similarities, and in particular, a wing full of the same ribs all the way across. While they employ hinged flaps, they could be built easily as fixed flaps.
https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=5643
https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=5642

Both planes may have the wing area you seek for your engines, despite being marketed for smaller ones.

TD ABUSER wrote:I've heard people say that flaps aren't always needed to fly the stunt pattern. They are suggesting that "rule book" squares and triangles can be flown without flaps What do you think about that...?
...
What I'm getting at is there is an "official AMA stunt pattern" where the size and angle of all the maneuvers is specified as well as the radius of the suare corners. Some AMA Stunt Flyers claim flaps aren't always needed for a plane to duplicate the Stunt Pattern.

May 1969 Flying Models wrote:The P-63 "King Cobra," chosen for its clean lines and the handling ease of a tricycle landing gear. Of course, it is fully acrobatic, being able of flying the AMA Acrobatic Pattern with ease, so if you have no Combat in your blood, the "Cobra" is an excellent sport Stunter.

GallopingGhostler wrote:



But, as I have heard a few attest here and there, that they would prefer these with a thicker airfoil. Beats me, but I guess Vince's objective may have been to fly a slightly faster speed to accommodate engines on the bottom end of power, so the neophyte still had successful flights. Not long ago, (Ken can clarify ), there was a dude who won one of the Nats championships with his S-1 flapless thinner wing Ringmaster. Went to show properly set up and constructed (weight concerns included), even with thinner wing, a skillful pilot can still win.

:

TD ABUSER wrote:

GallopingGhostler wrote:



But, as I have heard a few attest here and there, that they would prefer these with a thicker airfoil. Beats me, but I guess Vince's objective may have been to fly a slightly faster speed to accommodate engines on the bottom end of power, so the neophyte still had successful flights. Not long ago, (Ken can clarify ), there was a dude who won one of the Nats championships with his S-1 flapless thinner wing Ringmaster. Went to show properly set up and constructed (weight concerns included), even with thinner wing, a skillful pilot can still win.

:

The thicker airfoil should help regulate speed and also contribute to  doing tighter corners without stalling....all else being equal and by that I mean the pilot has taken the time to optimize the leadout position, airframe accuracy, control vthrow ratios, CG, wing tip weight, prop selection and is flying a plane that isn't built too heavy.
Would winning the Nats with a Ring Master be about the same as winning a Billiards Tounament using the handle off a garden hoe...?

TD ABUSER wrote:Would winning the Nats with a Ring Master be about the same as winning a Billiards Tounament using the handle off a garden hoe...?