A Hypotethecal Question

[Chuck_Smith]

Suppose...

That someone had the wherewithall to create a stunt ship with relaxed static stability that could actually turn the mythical 5 foot corner. I'm convinced  the technology exists today... what would the reception be in the stunt world. If the pilot is putiing in control inputs via the controlines, what's the verdict?

Are judges too used to conventional patterns that they would score it lower?

Chuck

[Howard Rush]

I think it would take more than that: how much is tail lift robbing turn capability?  If you can fly all the tricks accurately and turn sharply, you'll get a lot of points.  At my operating point (controls jargon), my score is roughly proportional to turn radius. 

[Tim Wescott]

It's been done, with some ultra-light, really high aspect ratio planes sporting screaming-fast 1/2-A engines on (IIRC from the magazine articles) way long lines for 1/2-A.

The answer was: not well.

As part of getting from Beginner to Intermediate I had to go through trying too hard for tight corners in the squares.  A 5:1 aspect ratio Skyray really slows down when you try that, and a 4:1 Flight Streak is worse.  And I can make a much tighter corner with my Fancherized Twister than I really should -- and it really slows down.

So I think much tighter corners are possible, but with current aspect ratios and powerplants, the effect on the rest of the square maneuvers is going to be severe enough that it'll probably make the whole look bad.

I'm not entirely sure that the technology does exist today to make that corner without compromising performance somehow.  I think it's not mostly a matter of the static stability -- I think it's more a matter of getting the corner exactly the right angle when you don't have time to react, not burbling coming out of the corner, not having the thing roll or yaw too much, and dealing with the severe loss of airspeed as a consequence of going around the corner.

The airspeed loss thing would need to have some sort of a technical solution -- either an Igor Burger-ish control system that gooses the motor on tight corners, or a high aspect-ratio wing (and consequent problems in the wind).

[Rob Roberts]

I have seen Dan Banjock do it with this plane www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/user_files/25958.jpg

[Dave_Trible]

My experience tells me many judges will grade really hard corners lower. We sure can fly tighter corners but they might seem harsh and jerky.  Few strive for that any more.

Dave

After thinking this over some I believe if corners were to become more important (again) we'd go back to the .35-.40 size which were far more capable in corners.  Much harder to do with the greater masses we now sling around in the nose IC or electric.

[Bob Reeves]

My experience tells me many judges will grade really hard corners lower. We sure can fly tighter corners but they might seem harsh and jerky.  Few strive for that any more.

Dave

This has been my experience.. My 4 strokes will turn extremely tight without slowing down but had to soften my corners before I started scoring well.

[Valentin Apostolov]

Chuck, it is a good question you place.My knowledge and pracice is that if you want to make the 5 foot corner
just like a snap is very dificult. In order to reach that the Load p/sq dcm must be -/30-35 max/.Multiply by 1.6 than devide it to the line length and max lift force. The total length of the model also matters. I think have to open the 'books'
The air dencity and air speed pressure also is important as is the total surface area of stabilizer and it's Cy/ max.
Of course some more other things are involved also. It is not only the engines.

Valentin Apostolov

[Valentin Apostolov]

BTW, during the recent years Judges do not care too much about the 5-7 foot radiuses
and you have to stick to their appreciations before the real scoring starts.
If you put yourself on their's point of viewing this radius from a distance more than 50 meters from the model over the sphere?? Can you imagine what  a " corner "they must sea??

V.Apostolov

[Dennis Leonhardi]

Suppose...

That someone had the wherewithall to create a stunt ship with relaxed static stability that could actually turn the mythical 5 foot corner. I'm convinced  the technology exists today... what would the reception be in the stunt world. If the pilot is putiing in control inputs via the controlines, what's the verdict?

Are judges too used to conventional patterns that they would score it lower?

Chuck

I watched Al Rabe win the Nats many years ago with loops that topped out at 60 degrees and vertical eights that topped out at 120 degrees.  Does that answer the question?

In my opinion, judges for years have looked beyond the rule book for "artistry" if you will.  That's fine with me if everyone understands the game, but it surely makes a joke of the rule book.  Which is one reason I've had no interest in competing in the event at any serious level.  I suspect more than a few others share my opinion.

I've been a very competitive person by nature.  Perhaps that goes back to being a part of a state championship wrestling team in high school.  I went on to coach several state and even a national champion in Olympic-style wrestling, and I've often felt the best thing I did as a coach was to officiate on a national championship and Olympic Trials level.  I knew the rules backwards and forwards, and did my best to insure that my wrestlers did so too.

Question for thought: What does the word "discipline" mean to you?

I'm betting six bits many will first answer "punishment", but to me the first thoughts are about "structure, order, a system of rules".  I believe the rules for any competitive event should tell me what to do to WIN.  After all, that's what competition is all about.

(Some years ago, a friend called and asked if I wanted to go to a contest in another state to "see how we can do in combat".  I was actually irritated - he should have known me better after many years - and told him "I'm not driving 300 miles to see how I can do, but I might to WIN".)

I've long thought that either (1) the written rules should be used to judge, especially at major contests where contestants might be driving many miles to compete, or (2) the rules should undergo major changes.

If the prettiest airplane, the "name" flier, or the smoothest manuevers are going to receive disproportionately higher scores in the flight, Just Say So!  Write rules that tell me what I must do to WIN!


Dennis,
ducking now
 

[Paul Smith]

Your point is well taken vis-a-vis the tolerance of oversize figures without downgrading. 

You are also right about the loss of points for overly sharp corners.  I found that my scores went up when I opened my turns up to the specified 5-foot radius.

[Tim Wescott]

Dennis, check the rules.  I haven't downloaded the 2013-14 rules yet, but the 2011-12 rules say that turns "shall be of a tight radius", not that they should be five feet.  And, to the best of my knowledge, the top flyers in the Pacific Northwest (including Paul Walker) are putting the tops of their maneuvers at 45 degrees.  I've seen overheads that go past 90 degrees in the hands of those same flyers, but I'm not sure that those weren't downgraded.

[Howard Rush]

We practice and are coached to fly per the book.  Judges at the Nats Have a training session that tells judges to judge by the book. Tight turns get points, but the ability to come out of the turn at the correct angle degrades rapidly as radius goes down.  Most people pick the turn radius that maximizes their expected value of points.  I tend to turn a little tighter than that. 

[phil c]

We practice and are coached to fly per the book.  Judges at the Nats Have a training session that tells judges to judge by the book. Tight turns get points, but the ability to come out of the turn at the correct angle degrades rapidly as radius goes down.  Most people pick the turn radius that maximizes their expected value of points.  I tend to turn a little tighter than that. 

A typical "of a tight radius" corner takes about .25 seconds.  It takes a tremendous amount of practice to develop the muscle memory to do that consistently.  Not to mention a perfectly trimmed series of planes that all fly exactly the same.

Opening the corner 2 ft. gives you about 13% more time(.33 sec) in the corner.  At that point good reflexes and eye-hand coordination make it possible to actually fly through the corner.

A 10 ft. corner on one of Rich Porter's planes, flying at about 45 mph on 53 ft. lines would give you .35 sec. to do the corner.  But Rich never got the stability and pointability trimmed out to do that cleanly.

[Brett Buck]

My experience tells me many judges will grade really hard corners lower. We sure can fly tighter corners but they might seem harsh and jerky.  Few strive for that any more.

Dave

After thinking this over some I believe if corners were to become more important (again) we'd go back to the .35-.40 size which were far more capable in corners.  Much harder to do with the greater masses we now sling around in the nose IC or electric.

   Small airplanes back in the good old days were nowhere near as capable as they are now, not even close. You might be able to do better now with a significantly smaller airplane because of the superior power. But one of the reasons the current models fly so well at the radii they do is that they are capable of MUCH tighter corners than anyone is capable of flying.

    I don't know what you guys are all talking about, tight-looking corners and correct maneuver sizes are what win contests, particularly big contests like the NATs, TT, NWR, Golden State, etc. NO ONE is getting downgraded for tight corners - unless they screw up in some other way.

     Of course, 99% of the flights where very tight corners are attempted ARE screwed up in other ways and results in more of a downgrade than was gained by reducing the corner radius. That's because most airplanes are very poorly trimmed and if you try to fly tight corners they get so far out of shape that other, far more relevant errors are made.

   Good judges always, repeat, always, reward tighter corners with no other, bigger errors.

      The limits to competitive corner radii are currently only in the ability to reliably pilot the airplane through the corner. We are coming nowhere near the technical capability of the airplanes because you can't react fast enough to control it when the entire corner takes <200 milliseconds. Those who do it the best are those who win all the big contests.

    Brett

[proparc]

I watched a man by the name of Gene Schaeffer cracks those mythical corners year after year. I have never seen ANYBODY duplicate it since.

Although, I've seen Dave Fitzgerald in action,( I made a point to get up good and close)with his Stargazer and man, that was good-stuff.

[Valentin Apostolov]

The reason to have been a World Champion. I do not know who is better -Dave or Paul.
Both made fantastic flights during the competition in Bulgaria.

V. Apostolov