Anyone recognise this model & builder ?

[Ron Varnas]

Hi all,

Can anyone identify this model & builder ?

I spotted it on the Garden State Circle Burners site but couldn't find any details about it,
at first glance it looks like a "Impact" or "Patternmaster 60 Classic"......"Trivial Pursuit"……not sure

RJV

[jim ballard]

Kinda looks like a Vector.

Edit: looking closer.....maybe not

[Alan Buck]

sv-11

[Curt D Contrata]

STEVE MILLET? Looks to me like his work.

There should be a way to easily search AMA numbers.

Curt

[Dane Martin]

If you're certain that's how his name is spelled, that AMA is not a match for that name.

[Ron Varnas]

SV-11  that one didn't come to mind, as I thought the SV - 11 had sharper tip style rake

[Mike Haverly]

Steve Millet was at NATS last year with an Impact.  He flew well too!

[Ron Varnas]

So is this a "Impact" by Steve Millet ? ............ 

[Dane Martin]

So is this a "Impact" by Steve Millet ? ............ 

That's not Steve's AMA number. I can check Monday to see who owns that AMA number, but hopefully someone will recognize who's plane it is.
Unless, that's not how you spell his last name?

[Brett Buck]

I spotted it on the Garden State Circle Burners site but couldn't find any details about it,
at first glance it looks like a "Impact" or "Patternmaster 60 Classic"......"Trivial Pursuit"……not sure

    It's definitely an SV-series or related, can't help you on the builder.

    Brett

[RandySmith]

Steve Millet was at NATS last year with an Impact.  He flew well too!

No he wasn't  he  flew  a  NOVAR, not an Impact

Randy

[RandySmith]

So is this a "Impact" by Steve Millet ? ............ 

No  it looks like a  VECTOR , and  its  Not Steve Millets  either

Randy

[Howard Rush]

Ron Testa, the Deli Guy, according to Jive Combat Team Investigative Services

[Ron Varnas]

The 'deli guy' ok that's one half of the puzzle solved, but what's the model ?

I'm also leaning as to its one of Randy's designs.

[Ron Varnas]

No  it looks like a  VECTOR , and  its  Not Steve Millets  either

Randy

Randy, just from a historical viewpoint was SV series out before the Impact came along ?

[wwwarbird]

 My money says Vector. 

[RandySmith]

Randy, just from a historical viewpoint was SV series out before the Impact came along ?

There are quite a few planes in the line, and  Yes  they started in the late 70s with 35 size  then 46 size, after that much too big 60 size (750 sq in)  then in the 80s went down to 700  725  676, and the New 46 size VECTOR at 630 sq in.
I did cut the  wing for the very first IMPACT  and  I think it was somewhere around 1990 maybe a year later, or earlier

Randy

[Ron Varnas]

Thanks Randy,

Interesting line up there, recall the Impact was published ( Flying Models ?) around '90 give or take a year.

[RandySmith]

Hi all,

Can anyone identify this model & builder ?

I spotted it on the Garden State Circle Burners site but couldn't find any details about it,
at first glance it looks like a "Impact" or "Patternmaster 60 Classic"......"Trivial Pursuit"……not sure

RJV

The Vector was designed in 1985 630 sq in  for 40 to 51 size engines, I also have electric packs for it, and they have been flown with a huge number of powerplants

Randy

[Brett Buck]

Thanks Randy,

Interesting line up there, recall the Impact was published ( Flying Models ?) around '90 give or take a year.

  Poor Paul, never an original thought. At least this time, he is implied to have copied something that *actually works*.

    And, aside from where it *wasn't* copied from, I don't actually know how the Impact/Bad News/Frustration's End came to be or how it started.

    Brett

[RandySmith]

  Poor Paul, never an original thought. At least this time, he is implied to have copied something that *actually works*.

    And, aside from where it *wasn't* copied from, I don't actually know how the Impact/Bad News/Frustration's End came to be or how it started.

    Brett

Hi Brett  don't know what you are insinuating, but if it is  I am saying Paul copied something, that is not true, the VECTOR is nothing like an IMPACT, smaller different airfoil, etc..  as are  the big SVs . I cut and sheeted the first Impact, and I think the closest thing to the IMPACT is the  BAD NEWS  that Paul designed and Flew before it. but with an different Stab Elev.  Paul said he got the idea for the change in the Stab Eleve  from Gid's LASER  when he saw it fly. So I believe this is when he decided to design the IMPACT
  But Paul is on here  and  can tell anyone  the info. There were many VECTORS  flying in the  80s  at the  US NATs

Randy

[RandySmith]

Hi Brett  don't know what you are insinuating, but if it is  I am saying Paul copied something, that is not true, the VECTOR is nothing like an IMPACT, smaller different airfoil, etc..  as are  the big SVs . I cut and sheeted the first Impact, and I think the closest thing to the IMPACT is the  BAD NEWS  that Paul designed and Flew before it. but with an different Stab Elev.  Paul said he got the idea for the change in the Stab Eleve  from Gid's LASER  when he saw it fly. So I believe this is when he decided to design the IMPACT
  But Paul is on here  and  can tell anyone  the info. There were many VECTORS  flying in the  80s  at the  US NATs . I personally was flying a SV at 700 SQ IN and 725 SQ IN  back in the late 70s and early 1980s , they were TOO large , that is whe I went down to the SV11  size at 675 sq in.

Randy

[Brett Buck]

Hi Brett  don't know what you are insinuating, but if it is  I am saying Paul copied something, that is not true, the VECTOR is nothing like an IMPACT, smaller different airfoil, etc..  as are  the big SVs .

   Not at all. Just that I can see people lining up to think they are related, much as they assert the Impact, Trivial Pursuit, and Infinity are "patternmaster derivatives" and the Vector 40 is "based on the flight-proven Profile Cardinal aerodynamics".

   In fact they fly quite differently from the SV series, which I think we all mostly all some of us know long predates the Impact or Bad News.

     Brett

[James Holford]

Not Steve's

[RandySmith]

   Not at all. Just that I can see people lining up to think they are related, much as they assert the Impact, Trivial Pursuit, and Infinity are "patternmaster derivatives" and the Vector 40 is "based on the flight-proven Profile Cardinal aerodynamics".

   In fact they fly quite differently from the SV series, which I think we all mostly all some of us know long predates the Impact or Bad News.

     Brett

Yep  the VECTOR 40 came along years later when I designed smaller planes for people like  Dondi Garrison, and the  Vector 40  got it's aerodynamics  from its  Big Brother  the  VECTOR , many people do not now there are  2 Vectors in the line, the first one 630 sq in  and  the  Vector 40, which is more Nobler Chipmonk sized ,  There are many in the line of the  SVs, some predate the IMPACT , some  do not . and  of course as you well  now  just from looking, the vector  or any other SV is not even close to a Pattern Master or Cardinal, both of those have whopping thick airfoils, as compared to any SV , or SC (StuntCraft)  series.

The plane shown can be pulled very well by an HP 40 ST 46  sT 51  FSR 40  45  46 , royal or Magnum 40 45  46  and I have seen all those in the VECTOR

Randy

[Ron Varnas]

Brett,

I was the one who originally posted this thread on re the I.D. of the model on the GSSC site)
& it was me that brought up the historical time lime question that Randy gratefully responded too,
I too am bemused how you intertwined  a question of a history timeline of the models to that of  "copying" ) pretty cheap shot.

Seems on a number of threads if certain "things" don't fit into your sphere of "bench marks"( Impacts/Trivial Pursuits/ Infinity's/ Rojetts on pipes etc.)
you go on the attack, god help those who mention Patternmasters or Cardinals because they usually receive one of your dissecting boring sermons.

Ron

[Brett Buck]

Brett,

I was the one who originally posted this thread on re the I.D. of the model on the GSSC site)
& it was me that brought up the historical time lime question that Randy gratefully responded too,
I too am bemused how you intertwined  a question of a history timeline of the models to that of  "copying" ) pretty cheap shot.

Seems on a number of threads if certain "things" don't fit into your sphere of "bench marks"( Impacts/Trivial Pursuits/ Infinity's/ Rojetts on pipes etc.)
you go on the attack, god help those who mention Patternmasters or Cardinals because they usually receive one of your dissecting boring sermons.

     Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

      Brett

[Ron Varnas]

This can be blown up /laminated & put up on the workshop wall as a "bench -mark" reminder

[Air Ministry .]

I fink it might be their to say several thought on similar lines , and tried variation in parameters .

The Foam wing trip sped building up . But few multi planes , canards or sail wings . 

[Brett Buck]

This can be blown up /laminated & put up on the workshop wall as a "bench -mark" reminder

  I already did, ask anybody from New Jersey.

  I would add, I fully and 100% admit my airplane is a rip-off/inspired by various ideas from other people - Ted and Paul Walker,  just not Big Jim and certainly not Windy.

    Brett

[Brett Buck]

I fink it might be their to say several thought on similar lines , and tried variation in parameters .

The Foam wing trip sped building up . But few multi planes , canards or sail wings . 

   This was the second attempt to reproduce the Imitation in a full-fuse airplane. The swept-forward hinge line was probably less-than-ideal.

    The best of the direct derivatives was the 86 NATs winner, the Citation V. The only consequential problem this airplane has is weight, caused by having a short nose to balance with an Enya 46 4-stroke, later replaced with an ST46. It was probably not the ideal ST46 airplane - that was the last of the line, the Temptation, which was small enough to fly well even if the engine was slightly off.

      Ted should be sincerely flattered should I ever finish my electric plane, because I was doing some engineering for that, and when I finished the wing and general dimensions, and addressing the weaknesses of the TP and Infinity, the result was something *very similar* overall to the Citation V. That's no surprise, as the general problem of trying to compete with the weak ST46 was a matter of efficiency and energy management. Same thing with electric, for a different reason - you want to not have to thrash the batteries within an inch of their lives, and you have nearly infinite control over the power delivery, so drag doesn't help you as much.

    Brett

[Terrence Durrill]

          You guys are a hoot.  We all know that 99$ of these 'original designs' are nothing but a NOBLER which has been tweeked to death over the last 40 years.  Hey, relax and enjoy your aircraft and forget who thought of what first.  It was actually GEORGE M. ALDRICH, rest his soul.               

[Dan McEntee]

          You guys are a hoot.  We all know that 99$ of these 'original designs' are nothing but a NOBLER which has been tweeked to death over the last 40 years.  Hey, relax and enjoy your aircraft and forget who thought of what first.  It was actually GEORGE M. ALDRICH, rest his soul.               

   With all due respect to George Aldrich, whom I met several times and considered a friend, the designs mentioned by Randy and Brett  couldn't be more removed from the Nobler than the sun, the moon and the stars! And i think if her were here, George would be the first one to tell you that, judging from the conversations that i had with him.
   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Paul Walker]

          You guys are a hoot.  We all know that 99$ of these 'original designs' are nothing but a NOBLER which has been tweeked to death over the last 40 years.  Hey, relax and enjoy your aircraft and forget who thought of what first.  It was actually GEORGE M. ALDRICH, rest his soul.               

Not quite George. You didn't go far enough back.
Jim Walker or Oba St. Claire invented controlline. George just made a small "tweak". Let's give credit where credit is due!

[Brett Buck]

          You guys are a hoot.  We all know that 99$ of these 'original designs' are nothing but a NOBLER which has been tweeked to death over the last 40 years.  Hey, relax and enjoy your aircraft and forget who thought of what first.  It was actually GEORGE M. ALDRICH, rest his soul.               

      George Aldrich was flying a modified Chief - a fact he never attempted to hide, nor take credit for improperly.

Stock Chief -> Tapered wing Chief -> Taper-wing Chief with extended tail moment (1" added) -> Nobler

    George had two innovations - first, the attempt to fly slowly/smoothly that he largely got from Bob Palmer (after a practical joke on some newbie by Palmer, Duke Fox, etc that went wrong - or very right), and the recognition that with inclusion of appearance points, the extra finish would cause the airplane to weigh more, hence you should design the airplane with that in mind. The airplane turns correctly at somewhere in the mid 40-ounce area with the original 2/3 flap motion from the plans im Stunting Can Be Smooth", Lighter, or 1:1 like the Green Box, and you get that awkward "rotate from behind the airplane" look*. Same issue effects the Ares (which is mostly a Nobler with an I-beam wing and radically different styling).

    Of course, the flaws with the Nobler were well known since the mid-50's and people starting modifying the Nobler to perform better back in the day. The Shark 45, for example, was designed as the Nobler-killer, effectively correcting the awkward turn flaw, and the first model has the word "Humbler" typed in a peice of paper and visible through the canopy.

 
      And the Chief itself was an uprated Go-Devil, same idea, taken to the next logical step. So you could argue that every stunt plane is a "slightly modified Go-Devil", so your statement appears to apply to Aldrich just like the rest of us. Of course, this treats everyone since about 1948 like they were imbeciles and/or rip-off artists, and that nothing of consequence has been gained since, or learned, which is rather insulting, but hardly original.
   
    There are still plenty of people who think the Nobler/Fox would win the NATs every year if it wasn't for the judges cheating and being morons. Those people are a hoot, too. That manages to belittle everyone in the event, which seems a little much to me.

    Brett




* BTW, you might also wonder why the Nobler had such outsized flaps. Check the LE on that one - you *could* sand the LE round enough, but most people didn't, perhaps even Aldrich himself. Next time someone goes to the AMA museum, check out the LE radius of the green/gold model, see what it looks like. Apropos of the other thread, maybe, just maybe, he misdiagnosed the problem he had, too, adding flap when the real problem was the LE radius.

[Serge_Krauss]

Brett has it right, and he knows his history. From what I've read and seen in CL stunt development, current winning designs seem as much a reaction against as for Nobler "numbers." That's the nature of development. We start with something, improve it, and improve the improvement. As engines improved and a more scientific approach was taken to further evolved configurations, we have longer tail moment arms, larger horizontal tails and less relative flap area, as I understand it. We also have better attention to where the c.g. should be and how these surfaces relate to it. GMA was an able and important contributor to stunt development, but he did not understand everything perfectly. The pencil markings on my Aldrich "Magnum" plans indicate that his understanding of c.g. placement was imperfect. I think that more modern wing sections and, especially, the re-proportioning of the aft fuselage and tail were at least as important as the nobler. All successful designs have relied on previous knowledge and achievement. That doesn't make them Nobler, or Chief, or...whatever clones.

Why don't we all "play nice."

[Brett Buck]

That's the nature of development. We start with something, improve it, and improve the improvement. As engines improved and a more scientific approach was taken to further evolved configurations, we have longer tail moment arms, larger horizontal tails and less relative flap area, as I understand it.

     What it boils down to is, just because someone finds something new doesn't mean that everyone that came before was a moron or mistaken. What is going on here is the "ancient heros" are better than "some wise guy I can see down at the field tomorrow". The "Everything was better in the good old days" effect.

  NO ONE, repeat, NO ONE sits down and invents stuff from a blank sheet of paper, in any human endeavor. Without Aristotle, there's nothing worthwhile in teh library of Alexandria to retain in the Arab world, so no Roger Bacon, no Roger Bacon, there is no Royal Academy, no Royal Academy there's no Newton, no Newton and there is no Rutherford or Einstein, or Heisenberg or  Schrödinger. Aristotle was unequivocally and demonstrably *wrong* about almost every theory in the physical world, but without him, the rest would have gotten nowhere.

    We have ours, but for all intents and purposes a similar, (not that you have to be a intellect on the level of Newton to contribute to stunt). Bob Palmer is our Newton. Anyone might come up with a different lineup after that, but mine would be Aldrich, McFarland, Rabe, Simons, Fancher, Hunt, Walker. That is not an order of who is the best flier/competitor of all time, I might add (before Bobby comes to straighten me out - although he might not like that list any more than this one...). It's a list of those who made the biggest contribution, roughly in chronological order. Finding out that maybe, say, Al Rabe had something wrong or we found something better later doesn't alter the fact that he made a huge contribution to the state of the art in several areas, without which some of the other innovations or understanding would not have been possible. 

Why don't we all "play nice."

    Why is there a "resistance" movement over the clear results of a national election? Because many people in today's society who cannot tolerate the notion that other people might have a legitimate differing opinion, particularly those who otherwise demand extreme tolerance for their pet opinions - but not the "wrong" opinions. People are now primarily invested in the fight, rather than the relevant issues. Same with this.

  It would be swell if everyone stuck the same standard and didn't take the fact that people were not mentioned or not praised effusively enough as a grave insult or fighting words. That's has not been my observation, we have a bunch of people with very strong egos and in many cases, at least somewhat-justified senses of hero worship. And are also highly competitive. So no way, as I expect we will find out very shortly.

     Brett

[Mike Griffin]

     What it boils down to is, just because someone finds something new doesn't mean that everyone that came before was a moron or mistaken. What is going on here is the "ancient heros" are better than "some wise guy I can see down at the field tomorrow". The "Everything was better in the good old days" effect.

  NO ONE, repeat, NO ONE sits down and invents stuff from a blank sheet of paper, in any human endeavor. Without Aristotle, there's nothing worthwhile in teh library of Alexandria to retain in the Arab world, so no Roger Bacon, no Roger Bacon, there is no Royal Academy, no Royal Academy there's no Newton, no Newton and there is no Rutherford or Einstein, or Heisenberg or  Schrödinger. Aristotle was unequivocally and demonstrably *wrong* about almost every theory in the physical world, but without him, the rest would have gotten nowhere.

    We have ours, but for all intents and purposes a similar, (not that you have to be a intellect on the level of Newton to contribute to stunt). Bob Palmer is our Newton. Anyone might come up with a different lineup after that, but mine would be Aldrich, McFarland, Rabe, Simons, Fancher, Hunt, Walker. That is not an order of who is the best flier/competitor of all time, I might add (before Bobby comes to straighten me out - although he might not like that list any more than this one...). It's a list of those who made the biggest contribution, roughly in order. Finding out that maybe, say, Al Rabe had something wrong or we found something better later doesn't alter the fact that he made a huge contribution to the state of the art in several areas, without which some of the other innovations or understanding would not have been possible. 


    Why is there a "resistance" movement over the clear results of a national election? Because many people in today's society who cannot tolerate the notion that other people might have a legitimate differing opinion, particularly those who otherwise demand extreme tolerance for their pet opinions - but not the "wrong" opinions. People are now primarily invested in the fight, rather than the relevant issues. Same with this.

  It would be swell if everyone stuck the same standard and didn't take the fact that people were not mentioned or not praised effusively enough as a grave insult or fighting words. That's has not been my observation, we have a bunch of people with very strong egos and in many cases, at least somewhat-justified senses of hero worship. And are also highly competitive. So no way, as I expect we will find out very shortly.

     Brett

Brett,

What contribution do you think Wild Bill made along the evolutional chain of prgression in Control line models?  I am trying to learn something here.

Thank you
Mike

[Brett Buck]

What contribution do you think Wild Bill made along the evolutional chain of prgression in Control line models?  I am trying to learn something here.

    You mean other than tolerating Bob Baron's presence for more than 5 minutes? That gets him sainthood.

   Wild Bill (who I admire greatly) was always hanging around in the background, sometimes providing critical engineering analysis when others were more worried about non-issues. On of the most disgraceful episodes (of the few not related to the usual stunt troublemakers) PAMPA ever had was when Bill more-or-less got run out of SN by people complaining that "they didn't sign up for a math lecture". I have to say, I got a bit of the same and when I saw it happen to Bill, too, that was even worse, it heavily influenced my future actions.

   But (and I talked to him about it once) he never was quite able to accept that stunt was not primarily an engineering problem. I had the same problem for a long time, and while being a good engineer helps it is not fundamentally an engineering problem. Bottom line, however, was that even though Bill knew a lot of stuff long before the rest of us picked up on it, he wasn't all that influential in stunt development. It's not really fair or just, but lots of times it takes someone with an idea who can also demonstrate it in a spectacular fashion to have any effect. It's a good thing that Bobby Hunt got involved with Rich Tower, etc, on the piped engine setup, because Bobby was prominent enough that people paid attention to him, whereas maybe Rich Tower, or a lot of other people, they don't.


      Bill Nezteband was talking about tuned pipes for CL speed and low pitch props for stunt in the mid-50's. Note that this was 10 years before even Bill Wisneiwski was able to take advantage of it and *blow everybody away by a huge margin* in FAI speed at the 68 WC. Compare that to one 7-minute period with Paul Walker flying his Impact/40VF in the second round of the Golden State meet in (I think) 1988. Everyone present - which included Ted, David, and I - knew immediately that we had better get on the bandwagon right away or never win another stunt contest. Count the winners from 1990-2017 and see how many people have not followed the same basic principle. If Paul had only been toiling away developing the system in endless practice flights at Whittier Narrows, and not shown it in the right place and the right time, maybe no one picks up on the engine setup approach or the associated flying style.

    Bill was a wonderful and very gracious gentlemen of the event, and I have nothing but admiration for him. But, truth be told, he *wasn't* all that influential in a direct way as those on my personal list. And, it's *my* list, other people may have equivalently valid lists with different people. I can (and will if necessary) explain my reasoning but it's definitely just an opinion.

    Brett

[Howard Rush]

    You mean other than tolerating Bob Baron's presence for more than 5 minutes? That gets him sainthood.

   Wild Bill (who I admire greatly) was always hanging around in the background, sometimes providing critical engineering analysis when others were more worried about non-issues. On of the most disgraceful episodes (of the few not related to the usual stunt troublemakers) PAMPA ever had was when Bill more-or-less got run out of SN by people complaining that "they didn't sign up for a math lecture". I have to say, I got a bit of the same and when I saw it happen to Bill, too, that was even worse, it heavily influenced my future actions.

   But (and I talked to him about it once) he never was quite able to accept that stunt was not primarily an engineering problem. I had the same problem for a long time, and while being a good engineer helps it is not fundamentally an engineering problem. Bottom line, however, was that even though Bill knew a lot of stuff long before the rest of us picked up on it, he wasn't all that influential in stunt development. It's not really fair or just, but lots of times it takes someone with an idea who can also demonstrate it in a spectacular fashion to have any effect. It's a good thing that Bobby Hunt got involved with Rich Tower, etc, on the piped engine setup, because Bobby was prominent enough that people paid attention to him, whereas maybe Rich Tower, or a lot of other people, they don't.


      Bill Nezteband was talking about tuned pipes for CL speed and low pitch props for stunt in the mid-50's. Note that this was 10 years before even Bill Wisneiwski was able to take advantage of it and *blow everybody away by a huge margin* in FAI speed at the 68 WC. Compare that to one 7-minute period with Paul Walker flying his Impact/40VF in the second round of the Golden State meet in (I think) 1988. Everyone present - which included Ted, David, and I - knew immediately that we had better get on the bandwagon right away or never win another stunt contest. Count the winners from 1990-2017 and see how many people have not followed the same basic principle. If Paul had only been toiling away developing the system in endless practice flights at Whittier Narrows, and not shown it in the right place and the right time, maybe no one picks up on the engine setup approach or the associated flying style.

    Bill was a wonderful and very gracious gentlemen of the event, and I have nothing but admiration for him. But, truth be told, he *wasn't* all that influential in a direct way as those on my personal list. And, it's *my* list, other people may have equivalently valid lists with different people. I can (and will if necessary) explain my reasoning but it's definitely just an opinion.

    Brett

I think that's a good summary.  Wild Bill applied some topics in airplane flight mechanics to control line airplanes and explained them well in his magazine columns and articles.  His understanding of theory was better than anybody else's I've seen until recently.  Stunt does involve engineering, but: 1) compared to full-scale airplanes, it's a lot easier to make advances experimentally relative to theoretically, and 2) stunt flight mechanics is really, really complicated, and Wild Bill only scratched the surface.  That, and the topics he chose to examine weren't necessarily the most useful.

A noticeable omission from Brett's list of influential stunters is a guy who most used engineering analysis to advance the state of the art: Igor.

[Brett Buck]

A noticeable omission from Brett's list of influential stunters is a guy who most used engineering analysis to advance the state of the art: Igor.

  As noted, mine is not the only possible list.

   And in any case, I automatically eliminate anything I may have even slightly influenced to make sure that my own ego does not affect the results. In this case it would be the electric feedback controller, which was discussed to some extent 15-16 years ago on SSW, but I have no idea how much it affected Igor. One thing I do know, is that I didn't do anything except have the idea, which may or may not have been obvious to everyone, but Igor actually did it.

    Brett

[Mike Griffin]

    You mean other than tolerating Bob Baron's presence for more than 5 minutes? That gets him sainthood.

   Wild Bill (who I admire greatly) was always hanging around in the background, sometimes providing critical engineering analysis when others were more worried about non-issues. On of the most disgraceful episodes (of the few not related to the usual stunt troublemakers) PAMPA ever had was when Bill more-or-less got run out of SN by people complaining that "they didn't sign up for a math lecture". I have to say, I got a bit of the same and when I saw it happen to Bill, too, that was even worse, it heavily influenced my future actions.

   But (and I talked to him about it once) he never was quite able to accept that stunt was not primarily an engineering problem. I had the same problem for a long time, and while being a good engineer helps it is not fundamentally an engineering problem. Bottom line, however, was that even though Bill knew a lot of stuff long before the rest of us picked up on it, he wasn't all that influential in stunt development. It's not really fair or just, but lots of times it takes someone with an idea who can also demonstrate it in a spectacular fashion to have any effect. It's a good thing that Bobby Hunt got involved with Rich Tower, etc, on the piped engine setup, because Bobby was prominent enough that people paid attention to him, whereas maybe Rich Tower, or a lot of other people, they don't.


      Bill Nezteband was talking about tuned pipes for CL speed and low pitch props for stunt in the mid-50's. Note that this was 10 years before even Bill Wisneiwski was able to take advantage of it and *blow everybody away by a huge margin* in FAI speed at the 68 WC. Compare that to one 7-minute period with Paul Walker flying his Impact/40VF in the second round of the Golden State meet in (I think) 1988. Everyone present - which included Ted, David, and I - knew immediately that we had better get on the bandwagon right away or never win another stunt contest. Count the winners from 1990-2017 and see how many people have not followed the same basic principle. If Paul had only been toiling away developing the system in endless practice flights at Whittier Narrows, and not shown it in the right place and the right time, maybe no one picks up on the engine setup approach or the associated flying style.

    Bill was a wonderful and very gracious gentlemen of the event, and I have nothing but admiration for him. But, truth be told, he *wasn't* all that influential in a direct way as those on my personal list. And, it's *my* list, other people may have equivalently valid lists with different people. I can (and will if necessary) explain my reasoning but it's definitely just an opinion.

    Brett

Thank you for taking the time to explain that Brett.  I have read some of his writings and quite frankly, he lost me in most of them but I am not an engineer and not particularly great in math.  I did however build a Doodle Bug some years ago and had fun with it.

Mike

[Serge_Krauss]

Bill was gracious and fun to talk with. He also thought more deeply into stunt design as time passed. He realized the inherent drawbacks in his "Fierce Arrow" design, but worked to make it better anyway. When I asked him why he didn't just reverse the sweep, he replied simply, "Because then it wouldn't be a 'Fierce Arrow'." He differed from those listed as innovators who changed stunt in his interest in the hows and whys for their own sake. His seemingly playful curiosity is what I liked most about him. If he could learn something, he did not seem to care that much whether an experiment failed. If he found an interesting path to follow, he would follow it systematically, until he centered in on what it could tell him. He left it for others to create the contest winners, except for his collaborations with Bob Baron to create models that could approach the 5'-radius rule in the pattern, since Bob apparently didn't mind flying models with that kind of response. He may even have shown annoyance with how these planes were accepted, but I'm convinced that he accepted what he viewed as prejudice and developed his ideas anyway. So he doesn't make these lists, but I think he contributed some ideas and education. I can only guess at this, but having experienced it myself, I believe his greatest regret was in being attacked for his generosity  by people too proud of their own ignorance.

...and that's about as far as I'm willing to go in not "playing nice," politics notwithstanding.

[john e. holliday]

Did not know Bill when he was in our area.   Read a lot about him and not being a math person glossed over most of his writings.   Met him at VSC along with most of my other heroes.  Built his Gold Brick and flew it At VSC.  Got me an award in which after the banquet he stated he was amazed that I got the award as he said he flew one year an never got an award.  He was a real gentleman to me as most every one of my heroes have been.   Plan on building another RSM Doodle  Bug but with more power.

[Warren Walker]

Last Friday, Ramona and I went down to Fallbrook to have lunch and spend the day with Charles and Phyllis Mackey.
As everyone knows Charles is truly a fine man. He was responsible for my (Fellow) award from the AMA.
He wanted us to come down because he had something he wanted to give me. It was his Grandpa's Bipe built by Wild Bill.
Bill called his, Grandpa's Crop Duster Bipe, It's on the cover of Control Line World July 2015.

We had a wonderful day, one of those days most of us control line guys are fortunate enough to have once and a while,
when you get to sit and talk, look at all the personal memorabilia, and be with a true stunt hero for hours one on one listening
 to all the great stories of a time gone by.
I had the same thing with Bob Palmer, Bill Netzeband, and Dale Kirn, all truly great moments in my life. 

Anyway, I feel truly blessed that he thought enough of me to pass along this model.

W.W.
W.W.

[TDM]

I tested the vacuum pump and tidy it up a Little so there are no things hanging from it (capacitors wires etc). Got the vaccum container done but forgot it at work. I moved the goal post for today to install the pump and container. With that I am 95 percent ready to start to make parts.
Tonight I am making the carbon balsa carbon stuff.

[Tom Luciano]

JCT Investigative services are correct. That is Ron's Vector!

Best Regards,
Tom

[Ken Culbertson]

          You guys are a hoot.  We all know that 99$ of these 'original designs' are nothing but a NOBLER which has been tweeked to death over the last 40 years.  Hey, relax and enjoy your aircraft and forget who thought of what first.  It was actually GEORGE M. ALDRICH, rest his soul.               

I am getting a real kick out of this thread.  let me quote Ben Franklin "Originality is the art of concealing your sources"  who is alleged to have overheard it from ......

Personally I am glad that Originality Points are no longer awarded separately.  At the 1964 Nats I was awarded -0- originality points since I was flying a "modified Nobler" according to the judge. 56" span 20% airfoil 1" longer nose nose and tail movements with a 24" stab and a twin tail.  At least he could have accused me of flying a modified Olympic which really was a modified Nobler!

There is not one airplane out there today that does not have it's roots in something else.  I am rebuilding my 1964 plane now using some of the more modern building stuff.  I just ordered a set of Cardinal ribs from Brodak because they will build a wing nearly identical to the one I flew in Senior at the 1964 Nats.   Same span, same tip design same airfoil. Humm, he would have been a Senior at the 64 Nats. did Windy steal from me what I stole from Bob?   Do you see how ridiculous this gets.

[Brett Buck]

I am getting a real kick out of this thread.  let me quote Ben Franklin "Originality is the art of concealing your sources"  who is alleged to have overheard it from ......

   There's nothing wrong or dishonest about it, either.

   BTW, a lot of this stems from the "The older I get, the better I used to fly" phenomenon  - Palmer and Aldrich had T-shirts for that one!

    Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

   There's nothing wrong or dishonest about it, either.

Amen - why change what works simply to be different and frankly,  who cares who did it first.  Sadly, I may have flown my best pattern in 1979 and it gets better every time I re-fly it!