Classics vs. Modern........

[Clint Ormosen]

I don't know about you guys, but I have a hard time getting excited about building a modern stunter. I'm in the middle of constructing a Legacy, but the build is just sort of "oh-hum" for me. I'm sure I'll like the finished product, it's just that it's hard to stay motivated on it. I really dig the classics. I mean, they're sorta new to me anyway since I didn't live through the "calssic" era. But just based on looks alone, I'd much rather be working on a classic model. The "newest" design I finished in the last few years was a Sig Mustang. Hardly modern. but in the same amount of time I've built a JVL Chipmunk, a Playboy, and a Tempest.  I have tons of classic kits because I want to build them all and I just can't say no to a cool classic.
I've been told I need a modern stunter. How much my flying would improve. I'm not so sure, though. I like the idea of flying with piped .65 power on longer lines. Do you think modern designs have a real advantage over classics at the Advanced level?

[Steve Helmick]

Apparently, I think just the experience of running a piped PA .51  is a good thing,  but especially when the contest day is windy. If the weather at your contests is always 5 mph wind, then the pipe isn't a huge deal, from what I've seen. But let the wind get up, and you'll love the pipe's regulation.    Steve

[Brett Buck]

I've been told I need a modern stunter. How much my flying would improve. I'm not so sure, though. I like the idea of flying with piped .65 power on longer lines. Do you think modern designs have a real advantage over classics at the Advanced level?

  Very definitely better, in anything other than ideal conditions. And for what it is worth, I think the various 61's run better than the 65s.

     Brett

[Clint Ormosen]

 Very definitely better, in anything other than ideal conditions. And for what it is worth, I think the various 61's run better than the 65s.

     Brett

I have one of those too.

[Tom Niebuhr]

Clint,

Quite frankly the best of the Classics fly just as well as some of the modern giants. The problem has been that the "perception" of the maneuvers are different, and when people got used to the big airplanes, it was hard to get scored well with the smaller airplane. The added power was also great to have. This is the reason why most joined the giant airplane club.

But remember that large engines, large airplanes, pipes, etc. will not help you fly that perfect pattern, Only practice and good coaching can do that.

There is a trend now to downsize to an airplane that is only a little larger than the typical Classic. These new airplanes are in the 620sg to 640sq range. This is partly because the modern engine of .46 to .51+ are so good, and partially because some of older fliers are getting of tired having their arms pulled off.  While I am saying this, I have nothing against the giant airplanes.

Bob Hunt just won Classic at the VSC and many have told me that is one of the best flights that they have ever seen. Bob personally told me that he felt that it was the best flight that he had ever flown. This proves the ability of a Classic airplane, but also remember that the best of our fliers have this capability with almost any airplane. Bob never went to the giant airplanes and giant engines, and is currently building airplanes in the 640 sq range.

The Classic airplane with a modern engine flies very well. I have flown Classics with a RoJet .40 and a OS LA .46 in winds of as much as 25mph and had no problem with penetration or line tension. But it helps to have experience in that kind of nightmare air.

The biggest advantage of a Classic is that it gives you a two event airplane. Lou Wolgast told me that he now flies his Classic "Fury" in both Classic and Expert events.

The decision is entirely up to you.

[Randy Powell]

Hey, not all modern planes are boring. I can think of a few that that are pretty cool.

[PJ Rowland]

I think modern designs to ALOT of things better.

From a size perspective Classics are a little easier for somefliers to manage from a pull Perspective.

I agree when conditions turn - it doesnt matter what is up the front - the design of the model doesnt bode well for deteriated conditions as Brett mentioned. - Sure more grunt helps and ive flown my Nobler in some bad winds - but nothing like flying a modern ship in bad winds..


I dont think that modern designs are boring - Look at something like Dave's Thundergazer - I think its pretty cool. 

[Clint Ormosen]

I dont think that modern designs are boring - Look at something like Dave's Thundergazer - I think its pretty cool. 

Yes, some of them are pretty cool (and David knows how much I dig his Thundergazer), but none of them are Cobra-Electra-Ares kind of cool.

[ash]

There's nothing stopping anyone from using modern construction techniques, materials and "numbers" (uh-oh!) alongside classic styling to get the best of both worlds.

[PJ Rowland]

How about going the other way and making Modern model out of classic size?

[Dennis Moritz]

Seems to to me that folks were more experimental in design during earlier eras of stunt. Willing to try something outside the envelope. Most planes I see today appear to use derivative metrics, even when the outlines differ. Planes that are variations of a number of schools of approach, rather than a leap in an untried direction. This doesn't have to be the case. I fly with a fellow who has finished top 7 a few times. True he has not won it all. May never win it all. But these placings demonstrate the competitiveness of his design. I've never seen anything like the plane he flies. Very fat airfoil. 60 inch span. Only 1 inch of leading edge rake. The look is also absolutely (if this is possible) original. A homage to 30s pylon racers. This plane has flown in high wind and low wind and gusting weirdness. Always finishes well.

[Allen Brickhaus]

Clint,

What a great Tempest at the VSC.  Glad to see Bart fly it.  I like the larger classics so they project the same as a more modern stunter.  Even many of the new breed of piped shops are smaller than my Olympus which is 724 squares.  My new one for next year will be the Plano which is 717 squares.  It is a similar time model from the Netherlands also.

Allen Brickhuas

[Airacobra]

The Plano like this one Allen. Just enough photo to tease.

[Pat Johnston]

Just to throw in a wonderful flying classic plane, the Shark 45 as a 60 sized plane, and the Shark 35 with a 46 up front are as good as you can ask for in the performance category.  RSM has both of these available.  I've had both and loved each one.  Airfoil and TVC are very modern.  Bruce Hunt flew a '45 for a few years in both Classic and Expert PA very well.  Great way to go, twice the flying on one plane.  No retraining between events.
Pat Johnston
In Awe of Bruce
Skunk Works

[john e. holliday]

Hey Clint,  your Tempest is one that should be very competitive in the Advanced Class.   Also as Pat has stated,  the big Shark would be a great one also.   I watched Dan McEntee fly his Shark numerous times to wins.   I was also standing there when Bobby Hunt stated that last flight was the best his plane had ever flown.   Remember it is the flying that gets the points and practice is what gets the flying done with a good coach.

[Clint Ormosen]

Although I appreciate the responces, I think maybe my original post was misunderstood, or I didn't express my idea correctly. I know darn good and well that most of the Classics will fly much better than I can fly them. My point was simply that from a building standpoint, I'm having a hard time getting excited about anything modern. I chose the Legacy because I thought it was the closest kitted design to a classic looking airplane (and as a bonus they fly darned good!)
I just wondered if others got stuck in the same rut I'm in? Maybe with Classic or Old Time planes? I know several flyers that really have little or no interest in anything but cutting edge modern stuff.

I feel sorry for them.

[Larry Fernandez]

Please dont feel sorry for me Clint.
You fly your classic and I'll fly my Trivial Pursuit, and I'll spank your butt.

 
See ya at Woodland.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

[Bill Little]

HI Clint,

I understood your original question just fine.  I love the Classic airplanes.  And I DEARLY loved my USA-1! (and my Vulcan, Ares, P-47, ......)   It flew just fine in some fairly nasty air.  When it comes down to "building", I, too, enjoy building a Classic model more.  It's just a bit more exciting while I'm cutting, gluing and sanding.  Maybe it's just a "nostalgia" thing.

Now, as you say, "ADVANCED" class as far as competing.  Will a Classic ship do it there?  Yes, and no.  I do agree with Brett and PJ, there are some things the "Modern" plane will do that a Classic probably won't.  I have flown a VERY good "Modern" plane, with a top line power set up and it is "different".  But, can I fly "good enough" for it to really make a difference when I go to a contest?  Probably not.  And, the top pilots can fly a Classic plane very well in all but the worst conditions (did someone mention Paul W. and his Cobra?).  It's a conundrum, which I "think" is the proper term.  (maybe not? LOL!!)  But, IMHO, it might just come down to just how good someone can actually fly, and how many gallons of fuel they can burn.  If the "stick time" is limited, then some of the finer aspects just don't come into play.  Having confidence in a well trimmed model with a good power train, makes a difference, too, for those of us at "less than top levels".  A lot of personal preference comes into play.  It's really hard to compare what I am doing now to back when I was actually flying a lot, just to make a personal comparison.  I don't feel things I felt then, and it's all a matter of laying off.

There IS a trend to "smaller" planes.  Something less than the 700 sq. in. (or even more),  now going back into the mid-low 600 sq in. category.  Bob Hunt's Genesis Mk II (.46) was 700 sq in, then he went back to his 1980 Genesis ".40", a good bit smaller.  Talking to him over recent times has revealed a trend to a plane around maybe 650 sq, in. as being what he was looking at.  Dave's Thundergazer is less than 650 sq. in., right?  I'm not sure about Brett's current plane, but I am guessing 650-670??    

Pat J. is right about the Shark's.  Either size is good to go!  A LOT depends on engines these days (or "motor" if you're into the "watts" game ) and just a change from a "vintage" engine to a "modern set up" makes a great difference.

I guess what I am saying is that as we move up the ladder, we can use planes that are not the very latest models, but to be competitive at the top levels then there are certain things that need to be in place.  At the local level though, a super zoot model/engine probably isn't necessary for several reasons, although it won't be a hindrance either, usually....  Anyway, we have to do what makes us enjoy the hobby!

Bill

[Dennis Adamisin]

Although I appreciate the responces, I think maybe my original post was misunderstood, or I didn't express my idea correctly. I know darn good and well that most of the Classics will fly much better than I can fly them. My point was simply that from a building standpoint, I'm having a hard time getting excited about anything modern. I chose the Legacy because I thought it was the closest kitted design to a classic looking airplane (and as a bonus they fly darned good!)
I just wondered if others got stuck in the same rut I'm in? Maybe with Classic or Old Time planes? I know several flyers that really have little or no interest in anything but cutting edge modern stuff.

I feel sorry for them.

Yes Clint I understand where you are coming from.  I guess my best answer is this is a hobby we do at our leisure, and life and leisure time is too darned short to mess around with building and fly anything that does not excite you or make your heart go pitter patter!

Maybe you have considered this: take your Legacy (or any other contemporary kit), change some shapes and morph it into one of your favorite classics?

[Ward Van Duzer]

So, kit-bash the Legacy! Reshape the rudder and wingtips, and maybe the landing gear. Carefully done it wont affect the aerodynamics a bit!

W.

[Clint Ormosen]

Maybe you have considered this: take your Legacy (or any other contemporary kit), change some shapes and morph it into one of your favorite classics?

So, kit-bash the Legacy! Reshape the rudder and wingtips, and maybe the landing gear. Carefully done it wont affect the aerodynamics a bit!

W.

Yup, considered doing just that. However the Legacy's shapes are kinda classic already. I did sweep the stab back a few degrees but left the elevator alone. It does need a larger canopy and cockpit detail. Any ideas what else could be done?

[Balsa Butcher]

Ask Floyd Carter to e-mail you a picture of his kit-bashed Legacy or better yet...Floyd - please post it here! It is the coolest treatment of that design I have seen and really brings out the "classic" in it. 

[Dennis Adamisin]

I am kinda fond of the classic jets, Bob Reeves Started with a Legacy wing but made it a trike, and generally "jetted" it out with a side mounted Saito :

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=12174.0

Stock Legacy wing tips do not shut you out from a Tempest either.

If you are thinking classis in the Aries/Argus/Atom/Airon vein then that's long wheelpants and a really killer cowl scoop, then you start the bottom taper to the tail right behind the cowl and run it back in a straight line with a 3/4" or so bottom block and you keep it rounded.  Except for the Airon, tha also means a low turtle deck with a small canopy fairly far aft.Oh yeah, the fin: taller than the Legacy with a more abrobt LE and a big continous sweeping curve into the overhanging tail.

Or put a stinger tail on it an move the fin forward like the Neptune.  

[RandySmith]

"There IS a trend to "smaller" planes.  Something less than the 700 sq. in. (or even more),  now going back into the mid-low 600 sq in. category.  Bob Hunt's Genesis Mk II (.46) was 700 sq in, then he went back to his 1980 Genesis ".40", a good bit smaller.  Talking to him over recent times has revealed a trend to a plane around maybe 650 sq, in. as being what he was looking at.  Dave's Thundergazer is less than 650 sq. in., right?  I'm not sure about Brett's current plane, but I am guessing 650-670??  "



Hi A brief account of my thinking:
The "trend" started for me back in the 70s, I built a 700 sq in Design of mine back in 1973 based on Shark 45 numbers loosely, It was not powered up enough (for me)as i found out flying in bad conditions, I went back to the unfinished 560 sq in ship as I thought about a new lighter thinner design with more power . After 1975 NATs I came home and finished the first 2 Stunt Crafts, 1 570 and the other 725 sq in, They both worked but the 725 sq in was just too big for the hemisphere I was flying on, so I built the next Big white Jet look StuntCraft at 700 sq in, It was better but I thought it needed to be smaller, in 1977 The 675 StuntCraft was done along with a start of a 680 sq in P-40 StuntCraft, They both were the size I was looking for, What followed was the 637 SQ In Apex, 637 sq IN Vector, 647 sq in Vectra SV-10(Dreadnought) and the 675 sq in SV-11, That almost took up the 80s. The Apex I built and flew had a hybrid Magnum wing I used instead of the SCV wing I drew, was not as good as the Vector which was the sister ship and needed to have more wing area.
I feel the 630 to 690 size ships are about perfect for the size hemisphere we fly on.
By the way the Shrike, Satona, Staris planes are about 640 sq in and are Vector and SV-10 formula planes,  they work very well with 40s  and  65s

So The trend is not at all new

Regards
Randy

[Brett Buck]

"There IS a trend to "smaller" planes.  Something less than the 700 sq. in. (or even more),  now going back into the mid-low 600 sq in. category.  Bob Hunt's Genesis Mk II (.46) was 700 sq in, then he went back to his 1980 Genesis ".40", a good bit smaller.  Talking to him over recent times has revealed a trend to a plane around maybe 650 sq, in. as being what he was looking at.  Dave's Thundergazer is less than 650 sq. in., right?  I'm not sure about Brett's current plane, but I am guessing 650-670??  "

     That's the size we have been flying all along. All of Ted's, for instance, are in that range. Mine is 655, by the way.

    Brett

[Randy Powell]

My last couple of planes have been around 600-620 squares

[Dennis Moritz]

Seems to me rolling your own should be practical for many who compete in Advanced. I've seen Fancherized Twisters competitive in Advanced at Brodak. Not winners but close. A very simple design. Yes. Well done. A winner. People have bashed the outline and wing shape many times and come up with similarly competitive birds. A full fues plane could be arrived at the same way. I think folks are too cautious when it comes to designing their own. It's possible to experiment with shape and aerodynamic number and be in the hunt. Open or Expert is different perhaps, especially at the NATs where hitting top 20 or top 5 is difficult to do even with the best setps. Nevertheless I've seen a few ARCs in top 20. ARCs are almost always compromised in one way or another. If more folks rolled their own, the modern ships would be more interesting and engaging. I think that is an implicit element in the opening statement of the thread. Where's the originality of approach in stunt design today. In eras past the push to original design was obvious. And I am referring to the general CL folks. Not the name designers. When I became a retread eight years back or so, within a year or two I had designed my own plane. A Buster looking thing with a thick airfoil. Flew O.K. with enough power. It was built with medium weight wood, too heavy, the wings too short and stubby, the airfoil probably too thick and not shaped carefully enough. Certainly the plane would do a beginner pattern. Which is where I belonged then. Things have been too busy since for me to try again. Besides ARFs hit the market. My Brodak kit Buster flew much better. Lucky light kit wood.  Down the road I plan to try again designing my own. Expect the results will be better than the last time.

[Ted Fancher]

Bigger is definitely not inherently better.  Couple of observations.

A hundred or so years ago I met Windy for the first time at the Nats and he was flying a Sweeper.  Hugely impressive in many ways (including, of course, an exceptional finish).  It was also impressive in the air but not always in a good way.  It did all the tricks very well (good pilot and all that) but, while doing so gave the appearance of an elephant on ice skates doing double axels in a doll house!  An outstanding achievement but one that got your attention more for the novelty than the bottom line.  Please note I mean no disrespect to Windy.  The Sweeper was a ground breaking look into the future of the event (anybody else used a .60 lately?).  Not unexpectedly, the first shot out of the foxhole was not the one that ultimately won the war!

I later designed the Doctor (my first ever attempt at an unflapped ship) and made some errors in so doing.  I wanted it to fly competitively and, frankly, over "wagged" the wing area necessary to compensate for the lack of flaps.  The original flies very well in good conditions but turns into sort of a kite when the wind blows.  Anyone that has flown stunt kites in high winds will understand the problem.  I'm a pretty good pilot and could sort of finesse it to look OK but, for the target audience, that inherent "kite gene" didn't make for good DNA!  I wouldn't have published the original version.

The published plan was digitally shrunk to a more reasonable size (don't ask for precise numbers because of antiquity and old-timers disease) and the result was a better airplane for all around performance.

One last comment on the subject matter at hand.  When comparing modern and classic designs, one of the most important things to keep in mind was the tendency for classic era designers to put too much emphasis on "lift" (large flaps on very light airplanes) and essentially reducing tail size and stab/elevator distribution to "TLAR" wet fingers in the air.

If you want a good demonstration of the relative importance of flaps(lift) versus tail configuration (steering the airplane) in terms of doing tricks try taking the flaps off of a classic stunter and flying it.  At any reasonable weight you'll find it entirely capable of flying tricks and it will likely be more responsive as well. 

Now, take the tail off and try the same experiment...

Ted

p.s. IOW, when thinking about campaigning a Classic ship in top level competition, direct your efforts toward a design on which the designer (by virtue of giving it adequate thought or simply thru serendipitous TLAR) came up with a big tail and less than "era representative" flap area.  A good example of the thought process was Bob G.'s significant reduction in the flap size (and perhaps increase in tail effectiveness) of the marvelous Gieseke Nobler.  I've just sent off for plans of two airplanes that look like they might satisfy those criteria.  Before I start building something I want to thoroughly investigate the subject.

[FLOYD CARTER]

LEGACY isn't a classic plane, but can be made sort of..

Kit bashing is fun, and results in something a little different from all the rest.

LARCENY started as a Brodak Legacy kit, but with cosmetic changes.  Basically, still a Legacy.  Power is a T&L S.T. G51.   The name morphed from LEGACY to LARCENY.  Paint scheme is copied from Brett.

Going a step further, TIBURON uses a Brodak rib set for the Legacy.  Follows Legacy, except TVC is a bit more.  The rest was built from scratch.  Power is a Stalker 51.  TIBURON means "Shark" in Spanish.

Floyd

[Balsa Butcher]

Thanks Floyd, to me the Larceny in particular has a real classic vibe. Mine is in the on-deck circle and will incorporate many of your design ideas. Just can't build stock...except for true classic era designs. 

[Jim Pollock]

Hello,

It would be easy to turn the Legacy into a large version of the "Caviler".  In fact I may do that with  my Legacy when I get around to building it! 

Jim Pollock       

[Clint Ormosen]

Wouldn't it be easier to just build a 660 Cavalier than modify a different design?

Probably. But that seems waaay to easy.