I flew over a dozen each VooDoos and Combat Cats. Plus many others, including the Sneaker, Demon, Wasp, SuperStar and others.
Airframes are all over-rated. The big thing was a quick start, and good engine run and FAST.
Paul, I respectfully disagree. The statements kinda remind me of the time the U.S. Air Force was testing the first MiG-15 they acquired thanks to a North Korean defector. Chuck Yeager flew the MiG in mock combat against an F-86 Sabre and consistently won; when the Sabre pilot complained he was at a disadvantage, Yeager started flying the Sabre. And consistently won.
Lesson: it's what ya do with what ya got!
I've written elsewhere that in the '60s and '70s my weapon was generally a small, fast wing powered by a cleaned up Fox 36X. I also coached an Olympic-style wrestling club - that produced several state and even national champions - in some of those years, and our tournaments ran to the middle of June.
One year, the first contest in our area arrived before I'd had a chance to go through my engines and planes. So I pulled out an old 500 square inch wing, mounted a new 36X, and ran it almost blubbering rich with a small prop and - now, get this - a pinch of jeweler's rouge in the fuel.
And took 1st place, with a kill in every round.
FAST was certainly my preference, but SLOW wins too if you use it correctly.
As for airframe: Take a Demon and a Sneeker to the field, fly both with the same engine, and tell us if they perform equally well doing loops and figure eights upwind in a 15-20 mph breeze.
(I'm betting you'll appreciate wing taper.)
I will certainly grant that 1-flip starts and consistent engine runs are priceless. In my opinion, THEY are the underrated elements in the competition.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!
Dennis
I must be out in the circle again,
To fly combat with another guy.
And all I ask is a FAST ship,
And his streamer to steer her by.