stunthanger.com

General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: RC Storick on April 12, 2009, 07:02:04 AM

Title: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 12, 2009, 07:02:04 AM: 1 3/4 spinner 34.95
PA .65 369.95
header 29.95
pipe 119.95
Phelps prop 40.00
dubro tank 5.95
fuel filter 3.95
air filter 6.95
LG 29.95
wheels 5.00
Wheel pants 40.00
pipe mount 4.95
fuel line 5.00
bell crank 15.00
push rods approx 15.00
horns 20.00
hinges 5.00
Polly span 15.00
adjustable LO 4.95
-------------------
771.50

wood 100.00
paint 100.00

I am sure I have missed some things.
Title: Re: A conservitive estement on a new stunter
Post by: Matt Colan on April 12, 2009, 07:05:37 AM: It's always a lot of the little things the total cost for a new stunter up. There are only 6 items on that list that are over $40, everything else is below.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 12, 2009, 07:09:00 AM: I figure I am way low on wood and paint. This does not include any glue ,epoxy,resin,glass cloth, primer or fillet material.

So in my best guess you could easily have $1500 in material on a full blown ship. Not including labor which is free if you build it, but even that comes with a price.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Matt Colan on April 12, 2009, 07:14:47 AM: Quote from: Robert Storick on April 12, 2009, 07:09:00 AM
I figure I am way low on wood and paint. This does not include any glue ,epoxy,resin,glass cloth, primer or fillet material.

So in my best guess you could easily have $1500 in material on a full blown ship.

I think with wood, you are just about there, I priced wood for USA-1 that I was going to build and came to around $100. my grandfather spent about $100 of wood on his P-47, a mid size stunter.

Also it kind of matters how big a plane you're building, right?
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 12, 2009, 07:24:40 AM: Quote from: Matt Colan on April 12, 2009, 07:14:47 AM
I think with wood, you are just about there, I priced wood for USA-1 that I was going to build and came to around $100. my grandfather spent about $100 of wood on his P-47, a mid size stunter.

Also it kind of matters how big a plane you're building, right?

It matters on what your willing to pay for great wood. The paint I know I am low on, Lets see. I use Wicks paint (Randolph dope) 1 quart of clear is 14.95, 1 quart of white is 19.95 red ,black,blue etc.. Gal of thinner is 26.95. I use Urethane its 19.95 a quart and 14.95 for activator. So depending on the color scheme you choose with sandpaper and tape you could have 3-400 dollars wrapped up in paint. Sand paper at a dollar a sheet and 3 M tape at 6.95 a roll it adds up quick. Not including the regular masking tape.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: bob branch on April 12, 2009, 08:39:04 AM: Anyone picked up on another reason people are buying arfs yet?

$

bob
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 12, 2009, 09:24:36 AM: Quote from: bob branch on April 12, 2009, 08:39:04 AM
Anyone picked up on another reason people are buying arfs yet?

$

bob

Buy away just don't expect appearance points.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Paul Smith on April 12, 2009, 09:45:11 AM: ** Sandpaper

*** Masking tape.

********Wife appeasement costs.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Randy Powell on April 12, 2009, 10:01:47 AM: My costs are somewhat cheaper since I make a lot of that stuff, but it's still not cheap. Engines and paint you can amortize overmultiple planes, I guess. For instance, the 40VF I'm using in the new plane had been sitting in the drawer. It's been in several planes. the original purchase cost (about $125) is spread over at least 4 planes right now.

I make my own bell cranks, landing gears, wheel pants and such so the cost is a lot less, though I do it because enjoy it. The cost savings is a nice side benefit. I buy sandpaper in bulk and tend to look for deals on other stuff.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bob Reeves on April 12, 2009, 10:04:24 AM: Quote from: Robert Storick on April 12, 2009, 09:24:36 AM
Buy away just don't expect appearance points.

Not really true... We are using Marvin's sliding scale AP system in Tulsa and so far it has been received well.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 12, 2009, 10:22:57 AM: Quote from: Bob Reeves on April 12, 2009, 10:04:24 AM
Not really true... We are using Marvin's sliding scale AP system in Tulsa and so far it has been received well.

Its true at the only contest that requires it the NATS. Thats the only contest I hope never changes. Elsewhere in the country they can do as they wish. It would not be worth a weeks time off and 1 thousand dollars to go look at ARF'S.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: FLOYD CARTER on April 12, 2009, 10:55:21 AM: If you want to really spend some money on a hobby, try golf, or tennis. Greens fees, club memberships, and zoot equipment can set you back a lot! And these hobbies leave you with nothing to do on a cold, rainy day except watch the TV sports channels.

Floyd
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Larry Cunningham on April 12, 2009, 11:36:56 AM: I'm disconnected, I suppose. I typically expect to spend about $200 total on the model, and the engine, muffler, tank, prop and spinner are beyond that. I've always been a cheap bastard I suppose; at one point I was saving my balsa dust..

But such things as gear and wheel pants, I just make myself, electra lite wheels, 1/8" music wire, balsa. I guess I am also ignoring thin CA which I buy in a large bottle and use blood pipettes, and of course 30 minute and slow epoxies, and epoxolite. I make my own custom control horns, expocranks, control rods (years ago I got a huge supply of fiberglass arrowshafts and a couple of square feet of scrap aluminum sheet as well as 1' square samples of 1/8" nylon, PVC, and other plastic sheets), and cut out my own 1/8 aluminum New Mexico Universal Engine Mount Pads. I have hundreds of items like 4-40 bolts and blind nuts, as well as assortments of small hardware that I have left over, when I would buy 10 or 50 or 100 when I needed one. (This is why my garage and storage are full of stuff too..)

Also, I have probably four dozen sheets of medium and heavy silkspan on hand, a box of 1/8" OD brass tubing, etc. As well as stockpiled sandpaper, nitrate dope, clear butyrate, and on.

So, maybe if I counted all the supplies I keep on hand and actually use, my true costs are more. But nowhere in the rarified air where you guys are. But, then of course, I don't have the quality piped and 4S engines you do.

However, there is one thing I have learned about this hobby (and any worth having), that it does not need to be justified on a financial basis. That goes for motorcycles, guns, etc. right down to watercolor painting supplies.

L.

"There's no problem that you can't add some guilt to it and make it even worse." -Calvin and Hobbes
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 13, 2009, 10:31:04 AM: Quote from: Robert Storick on April 12, 2009, 10:22:57 AM
Its true at the only contest that requires it the NATS. Thats the only contest I hope never changes. Elsewhere in the country they can do as they wish. It would not be worth a weeks time off and 1 thousand dollars to go look at ARF'S.

Yah, like that USA Team Trials contest they have in Muncie every year... all ARF's...

We should boycott those stupid World Championships too. <=
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Shultzie on April 13, 2009, 10:54:46 AM: Quote from: Bradley Walker on April 13, 2009, 10:31:04 AM
Yah, like that USA Team Trials contest they have in Muncie every year... all ARF's...

We should boycott those stupid World Championships too. <=

LL~ LL~ VD~
OOOOPS! Here we go again?
IS CLPA "A BEAUTY EVENT...OR A FLYING EVENT?"

Until we can BEGIN to wrap our heads around the ages old question? Is this a beauty contest and flying contest?
...(like oil and water...never seem to mix just right in my krawwwwwww? VD~ S?P

So until we make Donnie Shultz,Teeegurrr' Woods or Kinneee'Grippeee' make their own toy airplanes, sport-kites, golf clubs and baseball bats...I guess this conflict will forever rain-rein down on our heads? LL~ HB~>
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bob Reeves on April 13, 2009, 11:05:06 AM: No reason it can't be and stay both which is what I believe we are doing in Tulsa. Even a well done or recovered/painted ARF can be pretty.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: john e. holliday on April 13, 2009, 12:05:22 PM: I see Bradley has forgotten there is no BOM in FAI competition. I think Robert is trying to show what he spends trying to make the ultimate stunt plane for his self. Some of us reuse a lot of stuff from the planes we construct. I have a Fox .35 Stunt that has been in at least 6 different planes. I like to build and fly. When I have a good engine it usually goes in the new plane. In the past I tried to keep track of what I was spending. Then it hit me, what if the wife found the list. Having fun. DOC Holliday
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: James Mills on April 13, 2009, 12:41:44 PM: Bob,

Doc made a good point about our wives finding the cost list so if you make if down for the clinic in May no tabulating when Beth is within ear shot and I just got a new compound bow for next season and don't want her comparing to much ;D.

James
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: mike hartung on April 13, 2009, 12:58:43 PM: What a bunch of wimps; try full scale planes and really watch the MONEY GO, gas @$5.00/gal, hanger rent @$150.00/mon., AD's at annual inspection time ( the sky is truly the limit$$$$$$). ~^ Its hard to to think that you work all your life and then in the last two decades you find you simple can't afford to do the things you want. Makes models look really good; so back to my roots. y1
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Randy Powell on April 13, 2009, 01:03:37 PM: >>Give or take, this is not a cheap hobby...<<

Compared to what? The RC guys I know spend a lot more than this. Trust me, the horse people and car racing people I know (even hobbyists) spend a ton more. As hobbies, pastimes or whateven you want to call this go, it's pretty cheap compared to other activities one might engage in. My son and I, back in the day, played competitive Magic. We went to tournaments and such pretty regularly. We each easily had $1500 just in the cards in our tournament decks. That's not even touching the thousands and thousands of cards in our compete sets and tournament stock. Then there was travel to tournaments, entry fees, etc. Even then it wasn't horrible compared to other things we might have done.

I guess it depends on how you look at it.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Peter Ferguson on April 13, 2009, 01:25:04 PM: In general model airplanes is a cheap hobby RC or CL. Anything to do with competition is expensive compared to sport events. I know a Wakefield guy who was tallying his expenses. You wouldn't think it was much to fly a rubber powered model unless you bought rubber like fine wines (parelli 96 etc), titanium thinwall tubes from the Ukraine, heaters for the rubber, 2 weather setups for tracking thermals, a computer and something to haul this stuff to the desert.
I like CL, I sold one of my IMAC 28-10 3 blade carbon props and bought a new Strega and some accessories. What a bargain.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Leo Mehl on April 13, 2009, 01:44:36 PM: My7 Hobbies used to be women and booze. I think modeling is way lot cheaper? HB~> HB~> HB~> HB~> mw~ HB~> HB~> S?P HB~> HB~> HB~>
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 13, 2009, 02:58:16 PM: Quote from: Bradley Walker on April 13, 2009, 10:31:04 AM
Yah, like that USA Team Trials contest they have in Muncie every year... all ARF's...

We should boycott those stupid World Championships too. <=

Really? Ted,Brett,Matt,Billy,Bob,David,Howard and a bunch more.Which of those guys is flying a ARF?

There just is no argument.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 13, 2009, 03:02:36 PM: Quote from: Shultzie on April 13, 2009, 10:54:46 AM

Until we can BEGIN to wrap our heads around the ages old question? Is this a beauty contest and flying contest?
...(like oil and water...never seem to mix just right in my krawwwwwww? VD~ S?P

This is a modeling contest which includes Building and flying. Not just flying or not just building. Its a all out modeling contest. National Aero Modeling Contest. If someone wants to fly FAI we have that too.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: John Stiles on April 13, 2009, 04:10:24 PM: That's why I make many of my own parts........my Veteran's pension doesn't allow for much flair.....but I'd certainly pay more for better balsa and plywood! H^^
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Matt Colan on April 13, 2009, 04:19:16 PM: Quote from: Robert Storick on April 13, 2009, 02:58:16 PM
Really? Ted,Brett,Matt,Billy,Bob,David,Howard and a bunch more.Which of those guys is flying a ARF?

There just is no argument.

And others at the Worlds build there own planes. No ARFS!
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: jim gilmore on April 13, 2009, 04:37:38 PM: While you call it a conservative estimate you are using 1 very expensive engine I think ?
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Larry Cunningham on April 13, 2009, 04:55:13 PM: If you are cool about it, the shock of the cost of balsa (etc.) is easily handled with the wife. Use my technique.

Carrying in about $60 worth of balsa, I looked at my wife and said, "it's ridiculous how little balsa $20 buys any more.." and shook my head. (I didn't say THIS was $20 worth of balsa.. ;-> )

L.

"There is an art of reading, as well as an art of thinking, and an art of writing." -Isaac Disraeli
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 13, 2009, 05:12:38 PM: Quote from: jim gilmore on April 13, 2009, 04:37:38 PM
While you call it a conservative estimate you are using 1 very expensive engine I think ?

Back in the day I had a mcgas .40 then supertiger.60's. The thing is, I use what works best for me. The PA is the strongest engine out there for the weight. Hi quality comes with a price (Buy American).
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 13, 2009, 05:33:05 PM: Quote from: john e. holliday on April 13, 2009, 12:05:22 PM
I see Bradley has forgotten there is no BOM in FAI competition.

No. I understand that completely. I was being sarcastic.

Of course, the Team Trials (people drive from all over the country to compete at that contest) and Worlds (people travel from all over the world for that contest) have no BOM, and they certainly are not dominated by ARF's...
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Jim Pollock on April 16, 2009, 11:14:22 PM: Ty,

If you buy just one set of clubs and you never hit any balls into the woods or water hazards, then I think golf is actually cheaper that model planes. Trouble is that my balls find all the woods and water hazards which evens things out between the two.

Hope all you landings are happy ones with the new planes!

Jim Pollock H^^
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Dan Labine on April 17, 2009, 06:37:16 AM: I fish, golf, snowmobile, ski, sail and play numerous sports. Control line flying and building is by far the least expensive. My tackle box is conservatively estimated at over $2000. My rods and reels easily top that. The boat, downriggers and trailering are costs I try to forget. Snowmobiling is a 2-3 month exercise that cost me over $2500 in insurance, trail passes and gas. A new machine costs over $10000. Golf last year cost me $3500. I didn't ski this year but lift tickets are ~$45.00 per day. I usually have to travel to the Rockies to get hills worth skiing.

With the economy the way it is I have lost my job after 34 years and am now retired. Of all the hobbies I have, CL will probably be the last one I give up.

I spent ~$2000 on control line last year. I now have enough kits(35) and engines(24) to last me a lifetime.
This is an inexpensive hobby which I can do 365 days a year. I love it..

Dan
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Jim Kraft on April 17, 2009, 07:59:50 AM: Try R/C IMAC competition. Around $6,000 to $7,000 for a competitive plane.

I have been very fortunate to have had a very good R/C pattern flying friend that quit flying about 15 years ago. He called me one day and told me to come over and pick up some balsa he had left over. I ended up with the back of my van clear full of contest balsa, all weighed, marked, and graded. I have given some away and still have more than I will use in my lifetime. The only thing is I can not justify ever buying a kit again. But then I like to scratch build so much that I built very few kits before I had this stash.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Randy Powell on April 17, 2009, 09:48:47 AM: Jim,

Yea, isn't that interesting? I have 4 kits under my bench. Pretty good ones, too. But I never seem to build them. I keep telling myself I will, but I haven't yet. Instead there's some new idea I want to try or some new bird I've drawn that I think will be good. And the kit's just don't get built. I suspect they will since my balsa stash is getting a bit low and no money to buy more right now, but still...
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Brett Buck on April 17, 2009, 10:16:29 AM: Quote from: Matt Colan on April 13, 2009, 04:19:16 PM
And others at the Worlds build there own planes. No ARFS!

Not quite. The *winners* and most of the highly competitive guys build their own, but in the field there are quite a few RTFs from Yatsenko, etc. The Yatsenko airplanes are highly competive and there's doubt in my mind that if the likely winners chose to fly one they would have a chance of winning.

Brett
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: jim gilmore on April 17, 2009, 01:26:15 PM: Mr. James Mills, So you also shoot a compound bow. How many lbs and what bow. I doo not mean to jack the thread..
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Jim Pollock on April 17, 2009, 01:49:05 PM: Brett,

So, you are saying that Orestes Hernandez doesn't have a chance of winning the Nats? Really, he's flying a Yasentko simi-arf Shark! VD~

Jim Pollock, Nuff said about arfs!
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Paul Smith on April 17, 2009, 02:58:43 PM: Quote from: Jim Pollock on April 16, 2009, 11:14:22 PM
Ty,

If you buy just one set of clubs and you never hit any balls into the woods or water hazards, then I think golf is actually cheaper that model planes. Trouble is that my balls find all the woods and water hazards which evens things out between the two.

Hope all you landings are happy ones with the new planes!

Jim Pollock H^^

I play golf and fly model airplanes. Golf is infinately less expensive.

I don't buy golf balls, I find them in the woods and cricks.
I never find glow plugs, props, engines, or gallons of fuel, except at stores that take my money.

You can lose a golf ball, take a 2-stroke penalty, and still win the match.
If you crash a stunter, you've lost the contest, a winter's work, and maybe the remainder of the season.

I like both sports, but unless you golf at Palm Springs, modeling costs a lot more.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 17, 2009, 04:02:55 PM: Quote from: Paul Smith on April 17, 2009, 02:58:43 PM
Golf is infinately less expensive.

Greens fees? Last time I checked, flying at the local flying field is free. Golf is cheaper than CL is you are chipping in your yard, I suppose. If you actually go to play, at $20 to $80 bucks a pop (depending on when and where you play) I do not think you can make any comparison at all.

You can fly every day for free.

Of course, frisbee golf *IS* cheaper. It might be the cheapest sport on the planet.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Larrys4227 on April 17, 2009, 05:03:26 PM: Nobody has even mentioned the clothing-factor to play golf. Geez, ya gotta drop a small fortune just to LOOK like your playing golf. I've got 2 sets of clubs that have balsa dust all over them .... I love the game, but cant justify it. If I do wanna play, I grab a beer and pull out the Playstation .... :-)

FlySafe! Larry (Larrys4227)
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Brett Buck on April 17, 2009, 05:30:26 PM: Quote from: Jim Pollock on April 17, 2009, 01:49:05 PM
So, you are saying that Orestes Hernandez doesn't have a chance of winning the Nats? Really, he's flying a Yasentko simi-arf Shark!

Uh, that's precisely the opposite of what I said! I said the ARFs were highly competitive and could easily win in the WC if the guys who had a chance were using them. Yuri and Andrei, and Orestes, flew BOM versions of the same models and they do just fine.

And, for the 1000th time, Orestes's airplane IS NOT AN ARF! Why is it that the competitors have no issue with it, and the guys watching from the sidelines seem to be obsessed with denigrating everything about it and Orestes' achievements. I've had about enough of hearing about it, Orestes earned everything he has gotten, period. If I of all people don't have an issue with it, you and everybody else with the same axe to grind don't really don't have any standing to say anything about it.

Over the line, Jim.

Brett
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: John Stiles on April 17, 2009, 05:39:30 PM: Quote from: jim gilmore on April 17, 2009, 01:26:15 PM
Mr. James Mills, So you also shoot a compound bow. How many lbs and what bow. I doo not mean to jack the thread..
I do too....killed two deer last october with it....it's a Martin Sabre.........I shoot 49lbs at 27" and 214fps! Uncle Ted turned me on to it! ;D
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Paul Taylor on April 17, 2009, 08:36:10 PM: Quote from: Larrys4227 on April 17, 2009, 05:03:26 PM
Nobody has even mentioned the clothing-factor to play golf. Geez, ya gotta drop a small fortune just to LOOK like your playing golf. I've got 2 sets of clubs that have balsa dust all over them .... I love the game, but cant justify it. If I do wanna play, I grab a beer and pull out the Playstation .... :-)

FlySafe! Larry (Larrys4227)

Larry you need to try http://ezeegolf.com/
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: jim gilmore on April 17, 2009, 08:57:41 PM: Robert Storick, If I spell it wrong please excuse me.
Point taken on the PA. A conservative estimate is after all relative to what one is trying to accomplish. my shark 402 is the biggest I think I can get away with in my rv and have room to move about.Might be too big time will tell. One's goal determine size and needs for best engine or cheapest working engine also.
Magic.. been trhere done that... still play magic just only the computer game by microprose .aand play it in seled deck mode.
Another example of where the guys with the bucks can afford the best stuff.

Still the bottom line isn't whats the cost... it's what does it give you back ?
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Phil Hawkins on April 17, 2009, 09:47:21 PM: Hmmm...

My level of participation:

Sig Banshee kit $40
eBay OS MAX 40 $40
CYA, epoxy $10
Roll Monokote $15
Rustoleum X2 $12
Hardware $6
___
$123
Notice I really splurged with TWO colors of Rustoleum...And I use sanding sealer for my substrate. The tank,wheels, props etc... all from the slightly used drawer, bought and paid for years ago... $0

My not be worth the effort to photograph, but fun all the same...
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Howard Rush on April 18, 2009, 01:27:38 AM: I went to the World Championships last year. There were some really nice airplanes, but most folks elected to save weight and build something functional. Overall, the airplanes there were a lot less impressive that what you'd see at the US Nats or the NW Regionals. Yes, there were ARFs. In fact, a European member of the FAI F2B Judging/Scoring Committee said that the plethora of eastern European ARFs is causing them to consider reinstating the BOM.

I have flown a Yatsenko Shark in a stunt contest. It flew well, and I did OK with it.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Larrys4227 on April 18, 2009, 04:15:36 AM: Quote from: rootbeard on April 17, 2009, 08:36:10 PM
Larry you need to try http://ezeegolf.com/

Hahaha ... I've never seen that! Pretty cool, but I wonder if it will get me a discount on greens fees. :-)

FlySafe! Larry (Larrys4227)
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Matt Colan on April 18, 2009, 06:51:23 AM: Here is what I am spending on my Oriental Plus.

PA 40UL $319.95

________

$319.95

It is nice when you have a grandfather in this hobby/sport that buys all the other little stuff ;D Also Bill Hummel gave me the kit at a contest. Thanks again Bill H^^
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 18, 2009, 07:35:30 AM: Here is how I look at it. I know I have close to 2000 in my Thunderbolt. It gave me approx 200 hrs building fun and I know I have flown it another 200 hrs (time at the field). Thats five bucks a hour. Not bad entertainment money.
Plus I have something to show for it besides a hangover.

My cable TV is 90 a month. It brings me Internet and TV. So for 3 dollars a day I can watch TV and be here. Not bad. Its all relative to how you look at things.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 18, 2009, 07:37:31 AM: Quote from: Howard Rush on April 18, 2009, 01:27:38 AM
In fact, a European member of the FAI F2B Judging/Scoring Committee said that the plethora of eastern European ARFs is causing them to consider reinstating the BOM.

Begin holding breath... 1 2 3...now.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 18, 2009, 07:41:13 AM: Quote from: Howard Rush on April 18, 2009, 01:27:38 AM
In fact, a European member of the FAI F2B Judging/Scoring Committee said that the plethora of eastern European ARFs is causing them to consider reinstating the BOM.

I had heard rumor about this and I hope they see the light.

Quote from: Bradley Walker
Begin holding breath... 1 2 3...now.

There are catching on.

If this event was truly about JUST flying we would all fly the same plane at the contest. One plane for forty guys.
Hey thats it! We need a contest where everyone flies the same plane. Lots cheaper. The guy who crashes has to pay for the plane.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 18, 2009, 08:28:05 AM: CL is cheap. It can also be done "on the cheap" if need be. When I was in college I had *no* money and I could still do it.

In fact, in some ways, it was more fun "making do" with whatever crap I could get.

Of course, back in those days there was always someone telling me that I needed "better"---read that "more expensive"--- gear to be "really competitive".

If I had a ST 46, then I would really need a "Mr. XXXX engine tuner guy" St 46 to "really get good engine runs". Nobody ever got good engine runs before the engine tuner guys (later this was replaced by the custom engine builder guys).

-If I painted with spray cans from Autozone, my finishes could never be as good as if I painted with what that guy on that video uses. I needed an air compressor, and spray guns, and 14 gallons of dope... blah, blah, blah...

-Then the pipe came along, and OOOOHHH, you had to have pipe!!! No one could be "competitive" without a pipe!!! Heck, the pipe marketing team would still be saying that today if they weren't getting beat on a regular basis by a guy without one.

-Wood props? Those are for NOOBS!!! You can't be "competitive" with one of those!!! (see pipe marketing team above) I actually had a former Nats champ tell me that the wood prop I was using would "burn up" my new PA 65. {Interstingly, carbon props are DEAD NOW. Bolly and Eather are no longer producing props. What will the marketing team tell everyone now?}

Heck it did not matter what it was... right down to what wheels you used, the type of bellcrank you had in your plane, or what fuel you burned... there was always someone touting the "good stuff" that would make you "competitive".... and let's face it, at the upper levels of stunt there are lot of "gear snobs". This is a judged sport. It is just the way it is. Some people feel it is an integral part of the being "elite" to have "elite gear". There is a lot of emphasis on who's rig you promote or what product you use. There are definite "camps" for "gear". To some people, you cannot be cool without the right "gear uniform".

I am going backwards, I admit it. I am doing less, not more. I am attempting to maximize my fun/BS ratio when it comes to "gear". I have had all the *GEAR*, it did not make anything more fun, or even make me more "competitive". It just resulted in more hassle, expense, and typically *weight*.

You know what? I will give credit where credit is due.

I owe it all to Joe Gilbert and Bill Wilson.

Joe can do more with a ARF Nobler and a $75 Brodak 40 using an old Rev Up prop than most anyone in District 8 can do with their rigs costing thousands of dollars. He is very "competitive" and has more *fun* and *flies more* than just about anyone I know (except for Bill Wilson)... and you know what? He is getting scary good doing it.

If this was a perfect world and computers judged the pattern, Joe's rig would *beat* the fancy big rigs because he can actually fly 45 degree maneuvers (something that appears to be lost in the judging world of today) with a very tight corner (what Sparky has been talking about) which garners no extra points whatsoever.

Next would be Bill Wilson. Bill has been "competitive" for some time. He does nothing "cool"... on purpose. He builds planes using stuff he buys at Home Depot and his best engine is one he bought for $40 at a swap meet. Bill is the "anti gear snob".

Truth be told you get a Vector 40 ARF/LA 46 or a TF Nobler/Brodak 40 for $150 total and beat everyone... in a perfect world where computers did the judging.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 18, 2009, 08:29:28 AM: Quote from: Robert Storick on April 18, 2009, 07:41:13 AM
If this event was truly about JUST flying we would all fly the same plane at the contest. One plane for forty guys.
Hey thats it! We need a contest where everyone flies the same plane. Lots cheaper. The guy who crashes has to pay for the plane.

Sounds like Old Time Stunt at the Nats... (no BOM).

Not fun. Everyone hates it.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Dave Adamisin on April 18, 2009, 09:12:45 AM: " I am going backwards, I admit it. I am doing less, not more. I am attempting to maximize my fun/BS ratio when it comes to "gear". I have had all the *GEAR*, it did not make anything more fun, or even make me more "competitive". It just resulted in more hassle, expense, and typically *weight*."

I prefer to think that you have just completed the circle and came back to a point that you made a good decision a while ago and you now have the knowledge to make it work.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Dalton Hammett on April 18, 2009, 10:24:47 AM: *************************************************************
This is kind of interesting so I guess I throw in an opinion. I don't think you can say any hobby or sport is more costly than another. You can make any one of them as expensive or as inexpensive as you want to. Before I became semi-retired I loved the planes, model railroading, guns, motorcycles, classic vehicles and even Guitars. I ride an $8500 Honda - could just as easily have been a $30000 Harley. In the gun cabinet I have a 30-06 Ruger bold action and a 300 H&H Browning Safari, both do just about the same thing.
The note about the clothing is a bit funny to me though, I did have someone make a comment to me two years ago at the Brodak meet that I really didn't dress like a control line flyer !!!!! I'm not sure what I have to buy to change that ?????

Dalton H.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Matt Colan on April 18, 2009, 10:54:49 AM: Quote from: Dalton Hammett on April 18, 2009, 10:24:47 AM
*************************************************************
The note about the clothing is a bit funny to me though, I did have someone make a comment to me two years ago at the Brodak meet that I really didn't dress like a control line flyer !!!!! I'm not sure what I have to buy to change that ?????

Dalton H.

Just buy a bunch of Brodak or PAMPA shirts and soak them in castor oil LL~
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Howard Rush on April 18, 2009, 11:30:25 AM: "If this was a perfect world and computers judged the pattern, Joe's rig would *beat* the fancy big rigs because he can actually fly 45 degree maneuvers (something that appears to be lost in the judging world of today) with a very tight corner (what Sparky has been talking about) which garners no extra points whatsoever."

This appears to be the "My homebody (or myself) could win the Nats, but the judges are predjudiced against him/the color of his plane/his clothes." argument.

If you could make an automated stunt judging system, I'm sure the guys who have to recruit and train judges and print and tabulate scoresheets would gladly welcome it. Go for it. Sparky says it's easy.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Howard Rush on April 18, 2009, 11:47:41 AM: "The note about the clothing is a bit funny to me though, I did have someone make a comment to me two years ago at the Brodak meet that I really didn't dress like a control line flyer !!!!! I'm not sure what I have to buy to change that ?????"

That is puzzling to me, too. Control line flyers do not dress uniformly. It depends on the event, although at a fun-fly like the Brodak thing there may be more homogeneity. Stunt flyers favor the Elvis-in-his-fat-days look. Combat flyers appear as grass-stained aging hippies. Speed, racing, and carrier people are too few to make statistically significant conclusions about.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Claudio Chacon on April 18, 2009, 12:28:03 PM: Quote from: Howard Rush on April 18, 2009, 01:27:38 AM
I went to the World Championships last year. There were some really nice airplanes, but most folks elected to save weight and build something functional. Overall, the airplanes there were a lot less impressive that what you'd see at the US Nats or the NW Regionals. Yes, there were ARFs. In fact, a European member of the FAI F2B Judging/Scoring Committee said that the plethora of eastern European ARFs is causing them to consider reinstating the BOM.

I have flown a Yatsenko Shark in a stunt contest. It flew well, and I did OK with it.

Howard,
Can you please elaborate the flight performance differences (if any) between the Yatsenko "Shark" and your current "Impact"?
This will be a VERY interesting subject (may be worth a new thread...)
Thanks in advance,
Claudio.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: John Stiles on April 18, 2009, 01:11:32 PM: Taking in everything that's been said[or hasn't] I'm beginning to form an opinion that the CL population is beginning to split right down the middle: rich guys on the right...poor guys on the left! Reminds me kinda of the Congress and life in general. I hope I'm wrong. HB~>
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: De Hill on April 18, 2009, 02:28:17 PM: Quote from: John Stiles on April 18, 2009, 01:11:32 PM
Taking in everything that's been said[or hasn't] I'm beginning to form an opinion that the CL population is beginning to split right down the middle: rich guys on the right...poor guys on the left! Reminds me kinda of the Congress and life in general. I hope I'm wrong. HB~>

Uh John,

Which side is flying the ARF'S? The Rich, or the Poor? #^
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: John Stiles on April 18, 2009, 02:38:07 PM: Quote from: De Hill on April 18, 2009, 02:28:17 PM

Uh John,

Which side is flying the ARF'S? The Rich, or the Poor? #^
Somewhre towards the middle?? LL~ ;D
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Howard Rush on April 18, 2009, 02:45:35 PM: The poor ain't flying Yatsenko ARFs.

I am not an expert on stunt plane flying qualities. My impression of the Shark relative to the Impact is that I could not corner the Shark as hard as I can the Impact. That may just be a matter of control feel. The amount of control input I give to corner the Impact was too much for the Shark, but I don't know if the actual turn radius was different. Furthermore, Mr. Walker tells me that the amount of control input needed to corner my current Impact is too much.

I only flew the Shark at the Sao Paulo contest last October in good conditions. I don't know how it flies in the wind.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 18, 2009, 02:56:33 PM: Quote from: Bradley Walker on April 18, 2009, 08:29:28 AM
Sounds like Old Time Stunt at the Nats... (no BOM).

Not fun. Everyone hates it.

Thats my point. If we did away with the BOM in Stunt what would it become. Not fun. Everyone hates it?
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 18, 2009, 02:59:05 PM: Quote from: De Hill on April 18, 2009, 02:28:17 PM

Uh John,

Which side is flying the ARF'S? The Rich, or the Poor? #^

That kinda depends on if you buy a Nobler ARF or a Yatsenko ARF at 4000.00!

Section 6 says

(Control Aerobatics additionally interprets that any model, that is pre-covered in the box is excluded from competition) copy and pasted from the book.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Jim Pollock on April 18, 2009, 03:42:47 PM: Brett,

I didn't say that Orestes did not build his Shark, I re-examined you other post when you were talking about some of the likely winners flying a Shark. I'm thinking there is a word left out before the word doubt, and that word is no! Then that would make sense with what you were saying in your next post.

Not over the line

Jim Pollock %^@
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Mike Foley on April 18, 2009, 05:38:01 PM: >>Hi quality comes with a price (Buy American).<<<

Thats why I use a Fox 35 in my Oriental. If you want Amerian yu gots to be willing to pay the Bucks!
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 18, 2009, 06:02:32 PM: Quote from: Robert Storick on April 18, 2009, 02:56:33 PM
Thats my point. If we did away with the BOM in Stunt what would it become. Not fun. Everyone hates it?

Sarcasm once again...

My point was that Old Time is fun, and everyone loves it. No BOM.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 18, 2009, 06:26:29 PM: Quote from: Bradley Walker on April 18, 2009, 06:02:32 PM
Sarcasm once again...

My point was that Old Time is fun, and everyone loves it. No BOM.

Well if FAI is talking BOM there must be a reason? :!
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Alan Hahn on April 20, 2009, 01:36:07 PM: Irrespective of the BOM, is the Shark really that good of a plane? It certainly seems to be up there, and I find that to be pretty amazing just from the design standpoint.

added--clearly the hand on the handle is the biggest factor, but it sounds like the Shark wouldn't hold back that hand.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 20, 2009, 01:48:08 PM: Quote from: Alan Hahn on April 20, 2009, 01:36:07 PM
Irrespective of the BOM, is the Shark really that good of a plane? It certainly seems to be up there, and I find that to be pretty amazing just from the design standpoint.

Yes... and yes.

It is a quantum leap forward in terms of construction. The molded balsa construction is incredible.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: sleepy gomez on April 20, 2009, 03:34:52 PM: I BUILD REALLY CHEAP PLANES out of necessity. My Double Time biplane, 710 sq. in, foam wings covered with silkspan, fabric hinges cost about $15.00. Wood spars and LE's in wings and tail are poplar. Fuselage is profile cedar laminate with foam center. I build with Titebond and Elmer's and use a dab of epoxy on the maple motor mounts. All wood is cut on my cheap table saw. Wood comes from Home Depot as does the adhesives. Bellcrank, and control horns are .200" birch ply from HD. Wood wheels and control parts are bushed with aluminum pop rivets. Wheels are made with a hole saw, stacking to get width and bushed with pop rivets. Paint is HD acrylic for color and Minwax clear for top coat, one coat each. I purchase lead out wire, 4-40 bolts and landing gear wire at the LHS. Flying my own designs allows me to adapt the plane to the available materials. Double Time weighs 46 ounces with a Thunder Tiger 36. It flies better than I do! SLEEPY
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: john e. holliday on April 20, 2009, 08:12:08 PM: As much as I hate to do this I agree with Mr. Bradley Walker.

Old Time has no BOM rule. How many Old Time Planes can be bought ready to fly? Yes I have witnessed expert flyers flying someone else's Old timer.

Now if the Yatsenko Shark has such an advantage, how come the man who designed it hasn't been winning all the contests with it?

The BOM I tought was done for now until the new proposals are brought out into the open. What if the NATS organizers/officials decided to roll back and allow only Junior, Senior and Open competition?

I have one of the expensive engines for stunt, but, do not fly it enough. Model plane competition is fun for me and when I don't have fun I ask for attitude adjustments. Right Leo and Rod? Let's get back to having fun. DOC Holliday
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Howard Rush on April 20, 2009, 08:43:31 PM: The Yatsenkos do pretty well. Andrii was 8th at the 2008 WC, just behind Orestes.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: John Stiles on April 20, 2009, 09:54:24 PM: Too many rules and regulations makes John a dull boy LL~
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 22, 2009, 10:05:41 AM: Quote from: Howard Rush on April 18, 2009, 11:30:25 AM
"If this was a perfect world and computers judged the pattern, Joe's rig would *beat* the fancy big rigs because he can actually fly 45 degree maneuvers (something that appears to be lost in the judging world of today) with a very tight corner (what Sparky has been talking about) which garners no extra points whatsoever."

This appears to be the "My homebody (or myself) could win the Nats, but the judges are predjudiced against him/the color of his plane/his clothes." argument.

If you could make an automated stunt judging system, I'm sure the guys who have to recruit and train judges and print and tabulate scoresheets would gladly welcome it. Go for it. Sparky says it's easy.

I spent some time mulling over my answer to this question….because type of response to my comments simply makes me hopping mad.

It seems that every single time that anyone (especially me) questions the effectiveness the “system” that we use to decide stunt contests, oftentimes the immediate reaction is to jump straight toward the idea that I am somehow echoing some kind of “my homebody got screwed by biased judges conspiracy theory” (this is, of course, followed by the inevitable “whiner” comments about how I want to change the system to suit “my whiner buddies”).

While I would be more than happy to discuss the “halo effect” or the “homeboy effect” (which is very, very real), the “halo effect” has no bearing whatsoever to my comments above.

Indeed, my comments above reflect my view that our current system of judging does not typically reward the flyers that fly closest the *actual* shapes defined by the rulebook. This is not a new argument, and I certainly did not invent it. Many other very smart, capable, non tinfoil hat wearing stunt people have made the *exact* same arguments before at multiple times in the history of stunt competition (of course, many of these same flyers, were indeed labeled “whiners”, “troublemakers”, etc).

I was simply trying to make the point that I *agree* with Robert on several points if we define what we are actually talking about.

Lighter planes with less barbell effect are more acrobatically capable (this is simple physics) and should win contests over heavier planes with heavier extremities *if* the goal at each contest was to fly closest to the *actual* shapes defined by the rulebook.

Stunt contests, in their current form, are not about flying shapes that are closest to the *actual* rulebook. That is just a fact proven by Bill Netzband about a million years ago.

I (as well as others) have said multiple times that bigger, heavier stunt ships win the majority of important contests. This seems to really frustrate Robert. I think if he understood the meaning of what I was trying to say (I cannot speak for anyone else), he might understand that I am not *arguing* against his ideas *if* we both understood the *purpose* of the stunt ship as currently defined by the event.

The purpose of the modern stunt ship is to fly shapes defined by the rulebook *reasonably* close to the standards defined by the rulebook so as to not look ridiculously soft, with no bobbles, and perfect bottoms. The purpose of the modern stunt ship *is in no way* designed to fly as close to the *actual* shape standards defined by the rulebook. In short, the modern stunt ship is designed to fly the shapes and “look good” or “locked in” through the pattern.

Also, this airplane must be able to perform as described in turbulence, wind, etc and still retain its element of “smoothness” and still appear “locked in”.

The airplane design that Robert is advocating, is *not* going to be superior to the higher wing loading plane when the true goals for “contest superiority” are defined.

That is why I say that in a perfect world of computer scoring (or even TOC style judging that separates shape judging from corner judging, bobble judging, and size judging) the smaller, lighter plane would be proven superior. That is physically obvious and I think Netzband proved that some time ago also….

However, in a world where rocket hard corners and tight maneuvers are not rewarded any “bonus points” over smooth, large patterns, with constant bottoms it makes no sense whatsoever to build hyper light. Planes that are too light will only detract from the flyer’s scores. I also make the argument that there is no sense for the pilot to try to fly “harder” than the *other guy*, as the judges are simply not looking for harder corners and have no standard defined in the rulebook to reward sharp (more correct) corners.

The judges are looking for BOBBLES and CROOKED LEGS because these are simple knock offs. Rewarding tighter corners and smaller patterns is an after thought.

Keep in mind hard corners and smaller patterns *cause* bobbles and crooked legs. The “bonus points” will never outweigh the resulting “knock offs” that will inevitably occur.

Soft corners and heavy planes *mask* these things and make the true scoring goals more attainable.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: sleepy gomez on April 22, 2009, 10:45:14 AM: I suppose it is time for me to make some people mad. First I speak from the outside. I am not a competitive level pilot. Second in several classifications I have challenged the rules and caused rules changes. In CONTROL LINE PA the rules spell out the pattern and how it is to be flown. Though I will never be that good, someone flying the pattern to the written rules that is beaten by others flying a big smooth/and or impressive pattern would have a LEGAL, READ LAWYER AND COURTROOM, case for suing the judges for not following the rules as written. The solution would be to change the rules to what is presently judged before the aforementioned happens. One possibility might be to have one flight scored against the written rules and a second scored on style and impression as done in other sports. IT ONLY TAKES ONE PERSON WITH A FEW BUCKS OR A LAW DEGREE TO MAKE A LOT OF CHANGES.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 22, 2009, 10:59:43 AM: Quote from: john e. holliday on April 20, 2009, 08:12:08 PM
Now if the Yatsenko Shark has such an advantage, how come the man who designed it hasn't been winning all the contests with it?

As much as I hate to do this, I must disagree with Doc here.

I am not sure anyone said that the Shark is a dominant design. It is an awesome design, but I am not sure it would have an "advantage" or "dominate" other designs at all. Most people just bitch because you can buy one RTF...

...and to make the argument that designing a superior plane has anything to do with flying ability (or vice versa) is just... well... I will leave it to the rest of you to fill in the rest.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Randy Powell on April 22, 2009, 11:09:31 AM: The FAI committee considered a trial period to try out BOM and elimination of K factor. It looks like the FAI guys are just about as intransigent as the AMA guys. They don't want to "ruin" their event. As far as I know, the trial period was not approved.

I pretty tired of arguing. Brad is younger than me and has more energy. I just want to build planes and go out an fly. This reminds me of the stuff I hear all the time from Dressage judges and competitors. There is an ongoing, long standing argument over rules and "presentation" points. Halo effect, name effect, trainer effect, yada, yada, yada. Try to change a rule, even a minor one there and you can be sure there will be screaming. Even if it's a safety rule. We are a pretty agreeable group compared to those folks.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Howard Rush on April 22, 2009, 01:51:53 PM: Bradley, I think I agree with most of what you said above. I don't agree with two of your premises, though.

"Lighter planes with less barbell effect are more acrobatically capable (this is simple physics) and should win contests over heavier planes with heavier extremities *if* the goal at each contest was to fly closest to the *actual* shapes defined by the rulebook." Obvious to you, maybe, but I don't think it's true when you include the pilot capability required to steer the thing to the perfect path in the presence of wind and gravity. It could be that the judges are following fashion, rather than going by the book, or it could be that the top flyers know something you don't. You have chosen to believe the former.

The bigger-than-45-degrees problem which you and Mr. Gomez mention was indeed a problem in Europe 20 years ago. It's not now, nor is it here, as you could see if you stood sideways to patterns at a contest. When my tricks get too big or too small, I hear about it from my coach.

I sent you the Nats program, including the finals-judge selection method for your review. I haven't heard from you. Mr. Gomez, I would be happy to send you a copy, too.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 22, 2009, 03:16:44 PM: Quote from: Howard Rush on April 22, 2009, 01:51:53 PM
The bigger-than-45-degrees problem which you and Mr. Gomez mention was indeed a problem in Europe 20 years ago. It's not now, nor is it here, as you could see if you stood sideways to patterns at a contest.

I do all the time. I flatly disagree with this...

...and yes, a side judge would solve the problem. So add one. No computer needed.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RandySmith on April 22, 2009, 03:22:17 PM: Quote from: Bradley Walker on April 22, 2009, 03:16:44 PM
I do all the time. I flatly disagree with this...

...and yes, a side judge would solve the problem. So add one. No computer needed.

This has been done at several contest, with good results, caution, you will need to give that judge a 45 degree sighting device and teach them how to use it, without that you have the same old problem of the "floating"45

Randy
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 22, 2009, 03:27:23 PM: Quote from: Howard Rush on April 22, 2009, 01:51:53 PM
Obvious to you, maybe, but I don't think it's true when you include the pilot capability required to steer the thing to the perfect path in the presence of wind and gravity. It could be that the judges are following fashion, rather than going by the book, or it could be that the top flyers know something you don't. You have chosen to believe the former.

You completely miss my point that there is no *need* to corner any harder than the "top flyers". It will not garner you one single extra point, so why bother? It will only cost you points... because harder corners cause errors (as you pointed out). I am not arguing in any way the right or wrong of it, and it is obvious that the "top flyers" have *enough* corner, coupled with all of the other aspects that make for high scores including penetration in the wind and turbulence, shapes, intersections, smoothness, bottoms, etc. Nearly all of the *other* aspects of stunt flying besides smaller sized maneuvers and very tight corners can be often times done with heavier planes. This is the point that I think Robert might be missing, and the "top flyers" are not missing. Flying rocket hard corners at a level greater than the "status quo" defined by the "top flyers" will not gain anything. It appeared, by his comments, that Robert felt it would.

A lightweight Nobler can fly a corner closer to the rulebook radius than most of the 13 oz big planes... that is just a simple fact. A 1/2A is even closer.

All that being said, I would say the top flyers are good flyers... I think if you gave Tiger Woods a set of Walmart clubs he could still dominate when he is playing well.... same can be said for flyers.

Doug Moon dominated around here when he was flying a lot... it didn't matter what he flew. He won contests at expert level flying everything from his wiz bang pipe ship all the way down to his POS bubble film covered profile with a LA 40. He can just see it.... I also keep hearing about these 560 point Ringmaster patterns out your way by the "top flyers"...
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Howard Rush on April 22, 2009, 05:50:18 PM: I think that, all else being equal, the sharper the corner, the better the score. Nats judges have testified as much on these fora. Everything else isn't equal, though. I have flown a heap of airplanes that turn tighter than my Impact-- I flew some in a contest last weekend-- but they wouldn't score well in stunt because the rest of the maneuver would suck. I have been advised at times to soften my corners. It wasn't because the corners didn't count; it was because it was beyond my capability to hit corners that tight without messing up the rest of the maneuver. I reckon you could have judges (human or automated) weigh corner radius more than they do, but I don't think it would cause me to reduce the pitch moment of inertia of my airplane. If you do think judges chronically neglect corners or some other aspect of the pattern, please review the program I sent you and show PW how to fix his judge ranking method.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Doug Moon on April 22, 2009, 10:01:22 PM: Hello Howrad,

I think you might be missing Brad's point. Let me give it a go.

When it comes to corner I am quite sure all the judges out there are watching for good solid "quick" looking corners. There is no doubt this is happening. This we can all agree on.

What I see happening is when a top level pilot is putting in a pattern with a normal tight corner and all the corners appear to be the same radius throughout the pattern they score very well. There is no way on earth they are anywhere near what the rules call for. But the fact that they all appear equal and quick or tight they simply dont jump out as errors. They help score as well. But they dont really stand out unless you watch only the corners. With these non rulebook corners all having similar tight appearing radii the pilot also has straight legs in there and it appears smooth and in control throughout.

Someone else comes along with blinding corners. I mean blisters. Quick as a cat. Much more so than the pilot above. People take real notice when this plane is in the air. Yet he gets a crooked leg here and there, not often but it is there sometimes. His scores will be lower. It just always works that way. The pattern with the tighter corners is closer to the RB because the corners themselves, and there are many all throughout the pattern, are closer to the RB's request. The crooked leg sticks out more and hurts the pilots chances of scoring well. Even though this pilot is way closer to RB requirements due to the fact that the pilot above is further away from the RB on every single corner he flys.

Also with all things equal the plane flying softer but still tight corners is going to be flying larger over all maneuver sizes. Still getting further away from the RB.

That is exactly why you are told to fly softer corners. They are telling you to fly further away from RB corners yet you will be scoring better. Being in control and flying even tight corners all across the board, even though they are much softer than you can fly, and you will score better. That is how I practice as well. It works.

No the judges are not and never are discounting corner, ever. But working one's tail off to fly harder corners than the next guy can really work against you. What you will gain from the judges human eye will not be as much as that occasional error will cost you. Otherwise your coach would have told you to stay after those blistering corners and deal with the other stuff.

Having the ability to build hyper light planes, and having done so several times, they do give me a better chance to fly tight small patterns closer to the RB requirements. The lighter plane will give you a larger window of trim to work within. As the planes get heavier that window gets smaller. The heavier the plane the more confined you are in its ability to perform. That is what I have learned over the years HERE in TX where the air density in the summer is just nil. Maybe in other areas of the country that is not the case. BUT around here is certainly is.

BUT.............................................................................

As Brad said hyper light is not required because RB patterns are not required to win. Whoever "appears" to be closest to it wins. The word appears is key to that statement. Because stunt is a judged by the human eye, and I think it should stay that way, event. The human eye is not going to be measuring radii and placement in the hemisphere concerned with 45 degrees like the GPS stuff will that people want to talk about getting to work in stunt.

If and when GPS is used to score stunt the smooth flowing and in control pattern with tight in control corners that so many talk about will be gone and in are the days of jerk stunt flown and won by combat type planes with a bit more stability. You think eliminating BOM will ruin the event. That will ruin it once and for all. No more buffed out planes because they wont even be anywhere near what it takes to get that pattern close to RB requirements.

That is all have for now,,,I have to go add 2 oz of nose weight to my plane....OUCH!!!!!!!! Now it pushes 70 oz.!!! YIKES!!!
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Howard Rush on April 22, 2009, 11:06:38 PM: Can you imagine the arguments we'd have about how to weight various pattern errors with automatic scoring? Poor Keith.

I just made a carbon tank to move my CG back.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 23, 2009, 07:18:10 AM: I think some are missing my point. The trick is to have a plane that is capable of a super sharp corner and still controllable in the rest of the maneuver. You can achieve this by foreword CG and light weights. Hope I can get some practice soon! Damn weather.

You will just have to see it with your own eyes or fly it to tell me if I am right.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 23, 2009, 07:38:10 AM: Doug gets it. :o
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 23, 2009, 07:39:56 AM: Quote from: Howard Rush on April 22, 2009, 11:06:38 PM
Can you imagine the arguments we'd have about how to weight various pattern errors with automatic scoring? Poor Keith.

Better than "whatever you think. just do it however you want".

Like painting the Mona Lisa with a roller.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Steve Fitton on April 23, 2009, 07:51:39 AM: Quote from: Robert Storick on April 23, 2009, 07:18:10 AM
I think some are missing my point. The trick is to have a plane that is capable of a super sharp corner and still controllable in the rest of the maneuver. You can achieve this by foreword CG and light weights. Hope I can get some practice soon! Damn weather.

You will just have to see it with your own eyes or fly it to tell me if I am right.

I would argue that this has already been achieved, or, achieved at least as far as technology and human beings can do in stunt. Whether its a Nobler in the 1950s, an Impact in the '90s, or a .75 powered small Star Gazer today, I think the balance between corner and control has been maximized all along. I think quantifiable improvement would require some sort of computerised assistance, like a minature stability augmentation system.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 23, 2009, 08:11:41 AM: Quote from: Robert Storick on April 23, 2009, 07:18:10 AM
I think some are missing my point. The trick is to have a plane that is capable of a super sharp corner and still controllable in the rest of the maneuver. You can achieve this by foreword CG and light weights. Hope I can get some practice soon! Damn weather.

You will just have to see it with your own eyes or fly it to tell me if I am right.

If it makes you feel any better Robert, this is EXACTLY how the Shark is designed, not to mention the Berringer models.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 23, 2009, 08:26:29 AM: Quote from: Bradley Walker on April 23, 2009, 08:11:41 AM
If it makes you feel any better Robert, this is EXACTLY how the Shark is designed, not to mention the Berringer models.

Except the ones I have seen are too heavy.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 23, 2009, 08:51:53 AM: Quote from: Robert Storick on April 23, 2009, 08:26:29 AM
Except the ones I have seen are too heavy.

The Berringer Sportster is heavy? I think Remis at the Muncie WC's was 52 oz (weighed) with a 4 cycle engine. That is not heavy.

The Shark is in the high 50's... it is over 650 square inches. That is 10 oz lighter than most of the planes that you will see in that class...
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: RC Storick on April 23, 2009, 09:53:19 AM: Quote from: Bradley Walker on April 23, 2009, 08:51:53 AM
The Berringer Sportster is heavy? I think Remis at the Muncie WC's was 52 oz (weighed) with a 4 cycle engine. That is not heavy.

The Shark is in the high 50's... it is over 650 square inches. That is 10 oz lighter than most of the planes that you will see in that class...

Humm 4 cycle in the nose , How much does that weigh? 50 oz is still more than 40. Weigh tis still weight no matter how much it is , More is not better. Less weight = more usable horse power.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 23, 2009, 10:08:11 AM: You should ask Randy about a guy named Scott Bair.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Randy Powell on April 23, 2009, 10:46:07 AM: Ultimate weight aside, obviously, if you can fly blinding corners, perfectly straight side, correct sizes, good intersections, perfectly tracked rounds and great transitions, and perfectly consistent bottoms you are going to win a lot of contests. As a judge, it's true, I look for errors. It's pretty easy when someone is flying really big or has poor tracks or the sides of squares are all over the place. It get harder when all that looks really good. You start looking for minor mistakes. Soft corners or very slight track issues or whatever. But trust me, blinding corners get a good score if the rest of the maneuver looks good. Problem comes when you have blinding corners but can't keep the plane on track.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 23, 2009, 11:04:10 AM: Quote from: Randy Powell on April 23, 2009, 10:46:07 AM
But trust me, blinding corners get a good score if the rest of the maneuver looks good.

It is all a matter of gives and takes.

If you fly with "blinding corners" and tight 45 degree maneuvers you will make more mistakes. Most likely you will be dinged more than you will be rewarded.

I do not believe that *all* of the "top flyers" are flying 45 degree maneuvers. Not at all. In fact, guys flying short lines so their maneuvers *look* smaller is pretty common.

I admit I have not been to major contest since the Muncie WC's. I attended the two previous Nats (2002/2003). From those three contests I saw a *lot* of oversized patterns from many of the "top flyers". HUGE patterns. Some pretty soft corners too...
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Randy Powell on April 23, 2009, 11:09:44 AM: >>If you fly with "blinding corners" and tight 45 degree maneuvers you will make more mistakes. Most likely you will be dinged more than you will be rewarded.<<

True if I were flying the pattern. But not true for top pilots. It really comes down to a well trimmed plane and skill level. I have seldom (very seldom) seen a 40 point maneuver. But in all cases it was from a "top pilot".
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Lauri Malila on April 23, 2009, 11:54:59 AM: Hi.

About the Yatsenko planes.. I don't think that them being pre-built is the point. Anyone can build a good model and there is lots of good designs capable of winning contests. I feel that more important thing is that they are extremely well trimmed, in terms of quality of turn and inherent stability. Part of this comes from their construction technology, it takes more skill and care to build straight and light planes with classical construction methods. Of course there is some minor work to be done because differend pilots have differend requirements and style.
Maybe 90% of the planes that I see in contests are just badly trimmed. Big time. L
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Bradley Walker on April 23, 2009, 12:01:54 PM: Quote from: Randy Powell on April 23, 2009, 11:09:44 AM
I have seldom (very seldom) seen a 40 point maneuver.

Was it a square or round? If it were square, it would have to have a 5 foot radius... which no one has. Of course, they may have taken the 5 foot radius out of the rulebook. I have not checked lately.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Randy Powell on April 23, 2009, 03:26:56 PM: Brad,

You're right. I had thought that the proposal to change it to just a sharp corner had been passed. I just looked and it hasn't. The only plane I've ever seen that could actually fly a 5 foot radius corner was Rich Porter's Ridiculous.
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Larry Cunningham on April 23, 2009, 07:30:01 PM: Helium is harder to come by, but we can split water with a flashlight battery, two electrodes, and a test tube collector; and hydrogen density is half of helium!

Isn't it time we started filling our stunt ships with hydrogen, to get some extra lift and offset the weight?

Oh I know this won't fix inertial issues, but it is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.

L.

"On the one hand, we'll never experience childbirth. On the other hand,
we can open all our own jars." -Bruce Willis, on differences between men and women
Title: Re: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter
Post by: Alan Hahn on April 24, 2009, 10:12:38 AM: Quote from: Larry Cunningham on April 23, 2009, 07:30:01 PM
Helium is harder to come by, but we can split water with a flashlight battery, two electrodes, and a test tube collector; and hydrogen density is half of helium!

Isn't it time we started filling our stunt ships with hydrogen, to get some extra lift and offset the weight?

Oh I know this won't fix inertial issues, but it is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.

L.

"On the one hand, we'll never experience childbirth. On the other hand,
we can open all our own jars." -Bruce Willis, on differences between men and women

Yes I would like to see that lit candle on a Hydrogen filled plane! I would also Nitrate Dope it to recreate the Hindenberg more closely! #^