Ganbatte

Consider also the location of the mounts relative to the axis of thrust. Typically, the mounts do not "surround" the thrust line, so the engine under thrust will tip upward, closer to parallel with the hoop. Or phrased another way, the upper mounts are under compression and the lowers are under tension when you're generating thrust. Several degrees of "sag" when it's not running are a deliberate design feature intended to compensate for that tilt-under-power effect. Your frame/engine may differ, but at least some are set up that way.

#2's a beast! I've long wondered why someone couldn't make an engine as smooth as an atom but maybe 50% more hp. So many people would love to fly an atom, but... just not powerful enough for that weight. The 200 and 185 engines shake way more, not sure why.

Very impressive! How do they compare to the commercial engines?

2/3 or 3/4 does sound fair, thanks, guys!

One question is what's the *bottom* of the wing's weight rating. Too lightly loaded and you get less-than-optimal behaviors.

Ah, I didn't realize v1 didn't have that. TY

The new one looks different? Huh, I've been told the v2 looks identical to v1. Maybe yours is an (undeclared) v2.5? I do wish mfrs would be more transparent, but then I wish the Great Pumpkin were real. Can you post a pic of your new one?

I don't want to get anyone n trouble w skymax, but I'm hoping the exhaust is reliable. Waiting on hard data.

New data: Not trying to cause trouble for anyone, but apparently I can't buy the skymax exhaust in the US, reason being "they all blow up". I don't know if the version 2 fixes (whatever) problem, but the situation is what it is. I'll remain interested in hearing any new data people have experienced directly.

Ok, it's been a while, and I've heard some chatter about how the skymax exhaust "blows up all the time". I don't know what "blows up" means (develops crack? explodes in flight? There's a bit of difference between the two). I don't know what "all the time" means, and I don't know if that's results of the version 1 or 2 or if there's any difference. So... Does anyone have any data to illuminate this issue? One poster mentioned he'd received one, any update there? Thanks in advance!

That's a point, but does a frame have any warranty exposure? I agree re an engine, but frame? They're pretty much fine until we break em, which doesn't justify a warranty claim, yes?

So, another pilot and I are structuring a deal: He wants a new frame (larger hoop), so what we're looking at is he buys the new frame, I buy his old one. We each have engines and harness, so this is just a frame in play. Also they're the same model, just different variations. His is only a few months old, no detectable damage, good condition. It doesn't seem reasonable to pay full retail for used gear, but this is also a friendly deal; neither is trying to take advantage of the other. So I expect some discount from new price, but since I'm not trying to skin him, I'm undecided what sort of terms to push for. So I'm soliciting the crowd's opinions: What percentage discount would *you* think was fair to both parties? Thanks in advance!

Manual says fully closed.

I'd like a look at both, justaposed. Barring that, detailed review by someone, here, 'tube, wherever, would still be something. If we were discussing a $5 item, the answer would be "buy one, try it out, see what you think". Not as cheap/easy w one of these machines, so due dilligence is appropriate.

Yes, ok, "power curve". Tornado has a reputation of "breathe on the throttle, get face planted"; my practical interest is "does the new head flatten out that curve enough to be considered a bit more civilized/comfortable? To that end, it'd be nice to see how much those curves differ. A few percent, meh, forget it. If the new curve is something an honest person would call "reasonably linear", then that's a horse of a different color, as they say.

This discussion of reflex wing principles is all very interesting, but... I'm hoping someone knows something about the thrust curve produced by this new cylinder head?

So, a lower compression ratio will mean (perhaps slightly) lower efficiency, but nobody buys a tornado for fuel economy. Probably lower operating temps, which is generally happy news, but the big thing is its effect on the power curve, and that's not obvious or intuitive. I do wish AC would publish curves.

ok, looking forward to published data, which seems to not be the custom in this industry. But I can hope.

And its effect on the power curve?

Does anyone here have either published data or personal experience with the new XC head for tornado? It's just out, and I've heard it flattens the infamous tornado power curve, at the cost of some power. From the name, I'm wondering if its fuel economy might be a little better too. Even links to hands on reviews would be welcome; I've found very little info on it.

It does look a little clunky, but we don't know what's inside. I'm hoping for happy report, but will wait on the actual data, before I let hope overwhelm reason. And I'll happily take clunky if it comes along with 3.5 # weight saving.

Cool beans, and "quieter" is nice to see. Now go put 50 hours on it please.

Interested to hear your results. FWIW, were I doing a project like that, I'd be scouring motorcycle resources on the principle they'd have experience/knowledge in this area.

Yes, that's an ancient coupler design (industrially), dunno why it's not used much. Maybe it fatigues fast?

... and hoping the skymax qualifies. But not willing to let hope overwhelm data. If I can find some data.