Brett's accomplishments are notable, but no more so than many others that have chosen to repeat the pattern a zillion times.
Appreciate the notice, and aside from being in a fairly small fraternity of NATS winners, I agree that it may or may not be any more notable. You'll certainly never see me saying I am the greatest stunt flier who has ever lived! Even though I was, amusingly, #1 in the all time scoring list when Dick Byron stopped keeping it. That has more to say about the validity of scoring lists than it does about me. Billy was something like 15th. OOPS! I have a very realistic view of where I stand in the big scheme of things, and it ain't the head of the list!
I would point out, however, that in fact, I didn't do it the way many other people have, I have a relatively small fraction of the "zillion flights" that used to be a standard way to win stunt contests. And it is relevant to this thread, to some extent.
For example, I have flown maybe 500 flights in the last 10 years, and in the year leading up to my win in 2006 I flew 25 flights (from my crash at the 2005 NATs to end of the Walker flyoff in 2006), and only 3 flights from the 2005 NATs to a week before 2006. The other 22 were starting from scratch with a brand new airplane and rebuilt engine, 5 flights at home before we left, and 17 at the contest, including all the practice and the official flights.
There are a lot of reasons for this, but the way I can do this and still be competitive is because I have less-than-average piloting skills (compared to the other top competitors) but better-than-average engineering skills. I make up for my weaknesses in one area by excelling in another. That's why this event, with all the variety of skills it takes, is so accessible to everyone. As a result I am flattered by the fact that other competitors seek my assistance in the area of trim and engine/prop setup. 3 of this year's top 5, for instance. I am proud of that, I have to admit.
When these arguments come up, I have to say I do get mildly irritated/amused when I have people like David Fitzgerald and Bob Hunt seek out my advice, and pay attention (whether or not they actually use it), and other people who are maybe not as accomplished ignore it or tell me I don't know what I am talking about. Whether it irritating or amusing depends on when it happens and how, I have good and bad days like anyone else.
I do my best to provide good advice no matter who it is and am always willing to provide help as needed. I didn't get to 3500 posts here, and ~10,000 on SSW (and a few thousand on the old RCO and a thousand or so on the old compuserve forum) by refusing to help people or by trying to keep my hard-won experience to myself. No one is special enough or good enough to be "above" talking to anyone else. Although there are plenty of people who DO think they are too good for it, they are wrong - and note the contributors here, and you can see that the guys who are genuinely top experts are more than willing to answer any question you have. Like all 5 of this years Walker Flyoff pilots, who have all posted in the last few weeks.
I don't respond to threads that I don't know anything about, and I don't start a lot of threads, I answer other people's questions to the best of my ability.
Sometimes people take offense when it doesn't meet their expectations, and sometime I get bent out of shape for whatever reason, usually from someone naysaying something that is demonstrably true. We are all human and we occasionally get into arguments over silly things, that's the human experience. We get over it and move on.
Brett