"How we GOT" away from a "Sideways engine"?

[Bob Pastorello]

Thank you, Dean.  I know you're one of those with NOT "faded memories"....
    FYI - although I was NEVER able to really, truly, authenticate the reason for the 2M x 2M rule, one can find a very real, and plausible explanation, by investigating international metric housing design "standards"....
    One *could* discover that nearly ALL door frames in the known universe are at LEAST 2M of vertical opening.
    A thought to ponder....

Bob Pastorello, Oklahoma
NSRCA 199, AMA 46373
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dean Pappas 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:49 PM
  Subject: RE: "How we GOT" away from a "Sideways engine"?


  Bob,
  It is so good to hear some question the, "We always did it that way" that so often seems to be the reason we do things the way we do them.
  Regards,
      Dean P.
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bob Pastorello [mailto:rcaerobob at cox.net]
    Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:47 PM
    To: NSRCA
    Subject: Fw: "How we GOT" away from a "Sideways engine"?


    From: Bob Pastorello 
    To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:42 PM
    Subject: Re: Sideways engine?


    Inverting the engines goes back quite a ways.....When pattern was still seeking "sleek", "slim", and "fast", it was known rear-exhaust technologies of the day produced more power, AND, one could have a slimmer fuselage.  Some may recall piped-60 setups that would not permit a KPS-14II servo to be mounted abeam the middle of the fuse!!!
        Once the rear exhaust motor designers caught up, well, it was pretty much history.  Side mount airframes were seen to be "ugly", "not clean", "draggy", etc. (however many may disagree with the scientific reasons)...so the PLANE designers hung in there, practically making things IMPOSSIBLE but with a rear-exhaust motor...
        Then, to combat one-piece-wing-wear, pipe-coupler-damage, etc., the next evolution went to plug-in wings, also because it was "proven" that a higher wing (more centrally-located toward the centerline) was "better"; and so it stayed until the 4C arrived on the scene.
        A history of how motor and airframe designs evolved in the last 40 years would be VERY interesting to some....many of the things we do now "because", are simply hangers-on to "that's the way it is done", and rationale or reason behind the original change is obscured in faded memories of those no longer in the game, or passed on....

    Bob Pastorello, Oklahoma
    NSRCA 199, AMA 46373
    rcaerobob at cox.net
    www.rcaerobats.net


      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Bill Glaze 
      To: discussion at nsrca.org 
      Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:13 PM
      Subject: Re: Sideways engine?


      Del:
      Excellent point.  I sometimes find myself trying to pick the flyspecks out of pepper, when time would be better spent practicing.  As John Ferrell said elsewhere about his flying skills, my skill level also is not such as to see any difference in my side mounted Moki and my inverted Y.S. engines in my rather limited flight regime of Intermediate.  The Moki (1.8) is in a Midwest CAP 232 and I also have a R.C America CAP with a Moki 2.1 in it.  Neither have any bad tendencies I can attribute to the sideways engine placement.

      Bill Glaze.

      Del K. Rykert wrote:

        Some good points.. Not sure I could ever justify the time and expense getting the answer. Time on the sticks through focused practice is still where my time earns biggest result. < VBG >.
            
            del
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040114/cd043b63/attachment.html