CLPA version of Barry Bonds?

[Peter Nevai]

A discussion on the stunt design forum here got me thinking. It is a discussion reverting back to the bigger engine is better controversy. A few points were bandied about that the largers engines have surplus power that make planes easier to fly in windy conditions and that without these big engines you are at a competitive disadvantage.

Bradley Walker posed the argument that any power that is not actively used in a stunt design is wasted and could be a source of problems. I tend to lean towards Brads argument. Anyway this got me to thinking that contrary to what most adamantly stick to, the judging of CLPA and the standards by which a flight is judged has changed.

How can I say this? Simple, if this were not the case then there is no way Bob lampione, or Gene Shaffer could have ever won the Nats, or the Worlds. How is this possible you say? Well I ask you what size engine was in Lampione's saber stunter? What engine was powering Schaffers Stunt Machine?

If judging remained the same over all these years then Lampione and Schaffer must have been super human competitors far more skilled than anyone of the champs of recent years. That is if you stick both to the argument that judging has not changed and that Big engines and Big planes are needed to be competitve.

Proparc lent credence that pilots like Schaffer and Lampione were super human compared to current champs when he said that 40 or even 51 powered models were rotationally challanged and taxed his flying skills because of needing to be cognizant of wind placement.

Many on that thread agreed with him. So one must conclude that if judging has not changed then the current crop of competitors need the big planes to overcome their lack of skill as they can not fly a rotationally challanged airplane with the same precision as the Lampione's and Schaffer's did in years past. Or we would need to believe that the pattern and the Walker cup was awarded on much llooser interpretation of what comprised a exceptional pattern.

We can not have it both ways, either bigger engines and planes are allowing lesser pilots to post better scores, or champs in the past were pretty crappy pilots but the judging was a lot looser.

Is it Barry Bonds or Hank Aron?

Let the flames begin.

[Jim Thomerson]

Judging varies, but I don't know if any one has looked to see if there has been an upward trend in top scores over the years.  In the past, I think there was more uniformity in engine size than we see today. I suspect the winners have tended to use larger engines as the years have gone by.  Also some of today's winners, Bill Werwege for example, have been winning for a long time. Hard to say, I think.

[Peter Nevai]

I agree that it is a tough equation to balance. Like most humans even Bill's skills and reflexes are not what they used to be back in his prime. So if larger designs were able to make up for declining reflexes and nerves of steel it would tend to push the argument towards lessening piloting skills.

I can remember back as clear as a bell watching Schaffer fly. His stunt machine has a OS MAX 35S in it. I had some excellent 8mm movie footage of a number of his flights with that airplane. And if there were any disadvantages with smaller lesser powered designs, you sure could have fooled me. His placement was flawless, the corners sharp as tacks. His flights were came as close as I ever seen to be called flying on rails.

So if the consensus is true that  smaller lesser powered planes magnify mistakes and are quite a bit more unstable in a breeze then Schaffer and Lampione surely must have been super human. I watched them practice many times on weekend mornings at Flushing Meadow park.

[Ted Fancher]

Peter,

I never saw "Champione" fly in his prime but I sure did watch Gene Schaffer fly a lot at my earlier nats.  To this day I think Gene flew the crispest most rulebook patterns of anybody of that era.  Paul is occassionally as precise but (over an admittedly much longer exposure) not as consistently so as was Gene. 

It is worth noting that, from my perspective, I didn't think Gene's flying the few times I saw him with "larger" airplanes was as sharp as when he was flying the smaller OS .35 ships.  I'm embarrassed that my memory suffers from "oldtimers" but the year Gene flew that little silver ship with the single sort of "Ares like" rudder with the ST .46 and the three bladed (silver) plastic 10 X 6 Tornado prop it was as close to a computer drawing of the "tricks" as I can remember.  I've repeated a number of times my impression that the engine ran just like a sewing machine ... never speeding up or slowing down -- just a consistent rumbling four stroke from beginning to end of the pattern.

It has been my opinion ever since that bigger airplanes are not "better" airplanes by default.  Gene is probably the biggest single reason I've never designed a stunt ship bigger than 660 or so square inches (save one back in 1977 when the .46 invasion seemed to demand it).

I think it is worth remembering that no matter what displacement the engine is, it still takes the same horsepower to make a given airplane fly a given speed.  The bigger engine just has to be detuned to make it perform more like the smaller one.  Not all bad, of course, because the bigger engine will always have more flexibility to adjust to conditions but, it'll still be putting out the same power to fly the same airplane the same speed.

Ted

[linheart smith]

I second Ted's opinion regarding Gene Schaffer and his ability with a the 35 size airplane.  I use to drive from Boston to the NY contest. The trip was worth it just to watch Gene flying on solid lines with the plane doing the pattern like it was on rails.   The other NY guys flew similar airplanes on solid lines with great presion, but I could never understand how a man with a nervous twitch could fly so darn well. 

 Linheart

[Paul Smith]

Babe Ruth's die hard fans submit the following:

The Babe improved the single season HR record from 27 to 60, therby breaking the record 33 times.

The Babe improved the career record from 138 to 714, therby breaking that record 576 times.

Somebody who beats a record by one has certainly broken a record, but he hasn't beaten The Babe until he piles it on a lot higher.

Babe's fans wish to add that two rule changes involving foul poles and extra-inning homers would have added 78 homers to The Babe's records, therby keeping him is First Place on both lists.

[john e. holliday]

After flying the Cotton Candy yesterday and thinking on the way home.  I really enjoyed flying the little Brodak Original Magician more.  That little Brodak 25 is such a sweet little engine and the plane was not trying to pull me out of the circle.  The Cotton Candy is a great flying design for me.  I do have a 46 being broken in for the ARF P-40 by Brodak.  Still complitating wether to cut the wing to put dehidral in it or not.  I do beleive people think bigger planes are more impressive.  The same with bigger engines.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

[Bill Little]

Hi Peter,

When Mr. '69 NATS won, he did so with an airplane that was pretty conventional for the period.  He used a Fox 35, and told me that he HAD to use a Rev Up 10-6 EXTRA WIDE to get enough punch.   Don't know about the nitro content.  Bob and Gene were as good as anybody in thatr period.  Mr. Gieseke, Mr. Rabe, Mr. Werwage, and several others were right up there, too.  It was what was being done in that time period.

The "big" planes showed up, and became the norm.  It is now what everyone is use to seeing fly the pattern.  Can anyone win the NATS now flng a Fox 35 powered 50" 500-550 sq. in. airplane?  Bob Gieseke probably held out the longest and even he had to go "bigger".  It would be nigh on impossible for the small plane to win unless everyone went back to them.  Then it would, once again, become what "everyone is use to seeing fly the pattern".

Juding more lax?  The old guys "superhuman"?  Neither are 100% true, it was just the "times".........like Dylan said, "and the times, they are a'changing'!

[Bob Kruger]

pattern and the Walker cup was awarded on much llooser interpretation of what comprised a exceptional pattern.

We can not have it both ways, either bigger engines and planes are allowing lesser pilots to post better scores, or champs in the past were pretty crappy pilots but the judging was a lot looser.

Is it Barry Bonds or Hank Aron?

Let the flames begin.

Pete;

Have it both ways?  Sure we can....

One of the characteristics of the great CLPA flyers from days of yore was their ability to manage energy.  With the less powerful engines of the classic era, energy management was just as important as precision flying.  Bleed off too much energy and you stalled or bobbled.  Airfoils from the classic era tended to be thinner, presenting less drag than the fatter airfoils we have today.  Additional lift came as needed from flaps.  With it came the tricky balancing act of dealing with windup in wind, ship weight, etc.

As you used Gene Shaeffer as an example, lets look at some of the things he did.  Its been a long time (30 plus years) since I last saw him fly, but three things impressed me.  Firstly, he had a very sharp corner and when he was on, it was hard to beat.  Secondly, he flew fast.  Thirdly, he flew clockwise.  The latter two are directly related to energy management, as his faster flying allowed him the luxury of a hard corner, and the clockwise rotation took advantage of the reaction to the rotational force of the prop helped keep his lines tight - he certainly wasn't fighting it like those of us who flew counterclockwise.  Gene didn't waste one newton of energy, and because of that he could afford the tight corners he had.  

Energy management....

I also noticed that when more powerful CLPA suitable powerplants came available in the late 60s and early 70s,  most of the top flyers embraced them quickly.  Even Bob Gieske eventually abandoned the Fox 35 for something more powerful.  And with these engines came fatter airfoils, bigger ships, longer lines, etc.  The powerplants we have today give the flyer a much larger margin of error when dealing with energy management, to the point that, although important, is not as critical today as it was 30 plus years ago.

And I don't think judging has slipped or changed much.

And yes, the newer engines make us duffers look better than we really are....

V/r

Bob

[Paul Smith]

Hopefully, there will never be a "Control Line Barry Bonds".

If such a person existed he might have:

An engine a little 15cc, or
Something on .015" lines that smells like a 51, or
A very powerful 4-motor electric that you can't quite prove is illegal.

Better we should have an Arnold Palmer or a Wayne Gretsky.

[PatRobinson]

Hi Peter,
The various topics you discuss in your post are each a valid item for discussion or debate but I saw logical disconnects in the way you tried to connect them. I think this is why most of your replys took only one topic to respond to rather than the whole post.

The "big" engine debate is a valid topic of discussion unto itself. The question is whether bigger "modern engines" are better than smaller "modern engines" which is the debate question I see bandied about.

My position on this topic is engines and power don't fly your airplane - THRUST flies your airplane and engines and power are just the tools we use to produce the thrust. So, if you have a 40 tuned pipe ship cranking up rpm
and power that is controlled by the pipe that produces "gobs" of thrust or
you have big engine with a bigger prop at slower rpm and produces "gobs" of thrust, in either case these engines produce "gobs" of thrust which is, I think everyone would agree, "a good thing". Either power setup delivers an ability to fly a full size plane in nasty wind and turbulence and survive compared to power systems in the past. Bob Kruger's discussion of energy management that was demanded of those flyers clarifies the difference in power systems from then till now.

It is perfectly valid to debate your preference in how to get that "good thing"
but you then made the leap to flyers from the past and to judging which is unrelated to the big engine discussion.  We are talking "apples and oranges"
without a logical connection to the first topic because these gentlemen used 35 size engines that has nothing to do with a debate about "modern engine" size.  Then was then and now is now.

As Bill Little said, if you place these gentlemen in the context of their time, and with the power systems they and all their competitors also had at that time then you see that they did not have to be "super-human" they only had to be very good at mastering the power systems they had available and very good at flying the pattern on a given day. No super-human required.

Now, If you want to bring up the topic "Can a superior pilot with inferior equipment beat an inferior pilot with superior equipment", then that is a valid topic for debate all by itself but this topic can be applied to any time era.
However, this point may not necessarily apply to Mr.Lampione and Mr Shaffer
and their contemporaries.
Or perhaps, you could ask how well would Paul Walker perform with the power systems of the bygone era?  Well, I guess you would have to look at his performance at the VSC or in classic events for your answers or maybe not, if Paul didn't take classic as seriously as the expert event then results may vary.
Peter, because of the logical disconnect between your two points a person could wander into all sorts of interesting suppositions most of which would probably be wrong. 

The other topic you brought "Is judging the same or has it changed?" and again this has nothing, logically, to with a debate on modern engine size.

God I hope judging has changed for the better. The Nats used to be judged by Navy personnel with little knowledge about stunt except for some training.
Since then a lot of people have done a lot of work producing a Judges Guide and conducting judge training sessions at major events and all across the country so the tools for improvement are available now and weren't available in the past.  Judges are human and humans aren't perfect so judging will never be perfect but I find people I judge with more into the process of judging and less into pre-judging the expected outcome and assigning points based on the pilot's reputation than happened in the past.

I am not diminishing the excellence of flyers from the past because they would probably have placed well anyway and many of them still do.

Peter, is "judging not changing" a straw-dog you set up just to knock down, because I am not sure how it fits logically. Who is saying judging hasn't changed , that has triggered your response.  I guess,it would be better to ask
what is the " objective reality"about the overall state of judging rather an opinion about judging.  The bottom line , is that the state of judging is a perfectly valid topic for discussion and debate but I see no logical connection to a big engine debate.
 
Peter, you give either-or conclusions that don't really hold up to examination because of logical disconnects and because you leave out a lot of other "real world" possibilities and factors you did not mention.

 The biggest problem is I am left uncertain about your position on your topics.
I think you prefer smaller modern engines or you are against big engines , I  am not sure.
I think you believe judging has changed but I am not sure.

Beyond that,I am not sure of your point.  When I first read your post I was confused and it took me a while to figure out why.

I don't do flaming or verbal attacks but you have brought
up perfectly valid topics for discussion and debate but I can't see how they are logically tied together to reach your conclusions.

Peter,tell us your position rather than referencing others as the basis of your discussion. At that point everyone can measure your position against objective reality as they perceive it and get a clearer understanding.

I am not sure what a steriod using Mr, Bonds has to do with big engines , either but I am going to just let that one slide and wish you a good day, Peter.

                                                               Pat Robinson

[Ward Van Duzer]

Some other considerations......

Those "Fox & little OS" planes flew on much shorter lines. We think 60 footers, and 10 X 6 props, but that is because it's what we were taught to think!  Many flew on shorter than 60's, And yes, they were solids. And yes they were flown faster. And my recollection was flying Foxes and the like on .010 lines. Many will deny this, but I'm sorry folks I still have some 010's, and several articles stating this.  All this adds up to more "thrust", or at least more "pull" (and less "drag") on the lines. It seem to me what we have done with the larger (and not just larger, but more horsepower per cube) is to slow down the motion (on longer lines, with heavier airplanes) and give ourselves more time to "think about it"!

Would you rather have a Nobler with a Fox .35, or a Nobler with an Aero Tiger .36?

W.

[Ken Deboy]

Would you rather have a Nobler with a Fox .35, or a Nobler with an Aero Tiger .36?

W.

I'm not sure. A Nobler with a landing gear long enough to accommodate the prop an Aero Tiger wants to spin would look kind of goofy. Think the best (looking) solution for a Nobler sized airplane with an Aero Tiger would be a Chizler with retracts.

cheers,
Ken

[Bradley Walker]

Since I was one of the first "big bore" advocates including 4 cycles and 2 cycles.  I think I am qualified to say the following.

In general terms:

-Larger engines equal larger props which equal larger patterns.  Larger patterns are not "better" patterns.
-Generally these larger props make for larger radius corners.  There are exceptions, but it is generally easier to corner tighter with a smaller propellor.
-Larger engines equal reduced load in reference to the airframe (unless you go larger) which results in an "underuse" or "unloaded" engine condition.  This results in an engine running at well below its peak output.  Some people would think this is great!!!  Let's tool around with the engine at 1/4 throttle.  Just make sure to manage that throttle, or you will not like the results (don't miss that needle!!!).  I found that this just makes for a really stupid engine...  One that runs cold and stupid and has no idea where it is. 
-Interestingly, I see a lot of the fliers using the big bore engine running more nitro and running the same props you could run on smaller engine.  The only thing gained is the weight (not to mention getting beat by fliers using smaller engines).
-Larger engines equal larger planes.  There is no competitive advantage to larger planes, especially in thin air.   We live in a 70' world, period.
-Larger engines are heavier and require bigger mufflers (which are typically heavier).
-Larger props catch more wind, especially with wider blades.
-In general, engines running closer to their peak are more consistent day to day.
-If you are running a modern .60 in a 60 oz airplane, or 40 in a 40 etc etc and are complaining of having "not enough power" the problem is not power.

I know I will be villainized for the previous statements, but I do not care...  I see it as a public service.

A really smart guy I know (Randy Smith) advocates that you need the RIGHT size engine for your plane.  Going too large or too small for your plane will result in an engine that is overused or underused.  This means the engine will not react to the load of the pattern.  I have to say I agree.  I think that the engine, to be properly sized and tuned, should use nearly all of it power somewhere in the pattern.  This means that the engine will not go stupid.

Also, we have engines is small displacements that develop more power than we can use now.  Power does not put points on the scoreboard.  Smart engines equal more points.

[Bradley Walker]

Would you rather have a Nobler with a Fox .35, or a Nobler with an Aero Tiger .36?
 

If Kenny Stevens is flying, I bet he will take the Fox, and then stomp everyone into the ground with it.

[Marvin Denny]

'Fraid you're wrong Brad.

  Bigiron

[Bradley Walker]

'Fraid you're wrong Brad.

  Bigiron

  Can you say cryptic?

I assume you are referring to smaller engines/planes getting no respect.

[Bill Little]

If Kenny Stevens is flying, I bet he will take the Fox, and then stomp everyone into the ground with it.

I understand what you're saying about Kenny, Brad.  But I am not sure that he could "stomp everyone" with the Fox, even flying Classic.

We all know that the Fox can do a tremendous job to this day flying the right size plane with the right set up.  But the Aero Tiger 36 (and a few others) can do a better job in the right size plane with the right set up, and do it in a lot more varying conditions.

Anyway, Paul can fly that Cobra with the McCoy RH pretty daggum good!   

[L0U CRANE]

Let us also remember that we are talking about the greats of nearly 40 years ago, with the NYC and NJ giants of that era...

I saw a photo of myself from the late 1960's and wondered who the H*** that was - the same face I shaved every morning... My memory played a little trick on me?

Those guys WERE masters, in an era of modest power, smallish models. Their luster in our memory is brighter in comparison to the other greats and not-so greats of the time. I have judged at VSC and also watched with the intensity of a judge on several other occasions. Usually when the flier is a solid-gold long-time hero. Several of the most notable have brought out their own designs from the original era for VSC. Compared to more modern power packages, I noticed that 'energy management' WAS carefully applied, and was not enough!

SHAPES were excellent, but speeds varied considerably. We didn't know to notice that back then, but with the power trains of the past decade or so, we see less slowing on an upward track, less regain of lost speed on the down side, less floating, leisurely sailing through top of the hemisphere figure elements...

That was how it was done, then, so we never noticed. We've learned a lot since, and developed sharper eyes for things like this. Today, top models drive solidly through all these, without apparent effort, fuss or bother. Of course, steady speed is not a judged aspect, even today. However, the less speed lost (and regained) the more impressive a figure tends to be. (The first piped stunters I saw seemed NOT to slow at all going up - but to speed up in climbs! And on the down lines, that they were backing up!)

Judging is far better now than 'back then.' Equipment is much better, and on average, WE are much more 'informed and expert' as customers and participants.

I don't see it as an either-or. I see a steady and generally positive growth and development. We may not be turning the blinding corners - or are we actually, but the models are quieter and larger, so they don't seem to be straining as hard...? That photo of Brett Buck and his NATS winner squared out of a climbing corner with the fin TE just above his head height??? Hmmm...

[Dennis Adamisin]

This will be the biggest rant I ever posted, so I'll apologize ahead of time, but, "Emperor, its about your new clothes..!"

First off, someone else tried to say it politely, I'll be blunt.  To anyone who thinks that Gene Schaefer and the Stunt Machine and Bob Gieske with his Nobler couldn't compete today, I say: JUST SHUT UP.

This may come as a shock: Gene Schaeffer's Stunt Machine & Bob Gieskes' Noblers had as much usable power (maybe MORE powerful) than anything you see today.  Gene tended to fly fast, but his speed was absolutely constant - that takes power.  If there is a single word to describe the Stunt Machine it is continuity.  He was definitely operating at a higher power regime than most of the non-GSCB contemporaries.  Remember the GSCB contingent (especially then) were known for flying a little faster and heavier than most because of their legendary turbulent home field.  Bob flew slower than any modern large airplane I have seen.  The more wind there was the harder it was to beat him - he KNEW how to fly in the wind, and brute HP has NOTHING to do with it.

Unlimited power is an overated non-sensical commodity in CLPA.  Guys, once the glass is full pouring more in dosen't make it fuller - there is only so much power you can expend in a 70' hemisphere!  That is why today's "power" airplanes cannot hold 45's (come on, stand on edge to manuvers and WATCH!), cannot fly precisely (heack watch from ANY angle) and cannot fly except in the calm.  They are pretty good at Stunt, but they are lousy at PRECISION Aerobatics.

Its actually kind of comical seeing guys trying to figure out HOW to bleed off that "big power" through selection of inefficient props and draggy airframes.  Of course, there's limits to what can be done so in the end they just go fast.  Works OK in the dead calm, provided they can outrun their own propwash, but in the wind they are toast - HP loses to preparation & technique in the wind.

Hey, I was in no danger of winning anything with the Oriental last weekend at FCM - but I think I flew well, at least on Sunday!  I was flying a 40 yo stunt trainer design with a $35 ebay 40 and none of the monster engines flew any slower than I (lots flew faster!), and NONE flew as nearly as slow as nephew Arch #3's FP-40 Talon.  People noticed what we were doing, and I was really surprised at the number of times I heard people lamenting that they hated that they "had" to fly big engines. Begs the question "if you don't like it then why are you doing it?"

You may have heard the expression: "When everybody is thinking the same, nobody is thinking."  It is quite evident that we are at one of those "lemming rush" stages now.  Folks, we are ripe for another breakthrough.  SOMEONE is going to be brave enough to build a "modern" bird (not just a classic) for one of the wonderful modern 40's.  SOMEONE is going to be a little successful, and the lemming rush will return to smaller, STILL POWERFUL and precise flying airplanes.

Next few years are going to be a BLAST!

[Bill Little]

Hi Dennis,

To go along with what you said, I overheard one of the very "top echelon" fliers "beg" another "top echelon" fliers a couple years ago at a *BIG* meet to fly is *little* plane so that the trend could reverse!

The guy with the *little* plane could fly it well enough to be at the "top".......

(names will be forever withheld to protect "the innocent", but it is true)

[john e. holliday]

Dennis,  can't wait to see that new 40 size bird of yours that is going to win the Walker Cup.  I built your Sweet Pea a few years ago and never even got a full lap out of it.  It was a cold winter day when I tried to test fly it.  It came in so fast I could not even move.  Must have had something out of alignment.  Will build another one soon as I can get to it as I liked the looks of it.  Later,  DOC Holliday

[Randy Cuberly]

This will be the biggest rant I ever posted, so I'll apologize ahead of time, but, "Emperor, its about your new clothes..!"


Its actually kind of comical seeing guys trying to figure out HOW to bleed off that "big power" through selection of inefficient props and draggy airframes.  Of course, there's limits to what can be done so in the end they just go fast.  Works OK in the dead calm, provided they can outrun their own propwash, but in the wind they are toast - HP loses to preparation & technique in the wind.

You may have heard the expression: "When everybody is thinking the same, nobody is thinking."  It is quite evident that we are at one of those "lemming rush" stages now.  Folks, we are ripe for another breakthrough.  SOMEONE is going to be brave enough to build a "modern" bird (not just a classic) for one of the wonderful modern 40's.  SOMEONE is going to be a little successful, and the lemming rush will return to smaller, STILL POWERFUL and precise flying airplanes.

Dennis,
All I can say to that diatribe is that most of the things you mentioned about problems with "big" airplanes and powerful engines are wrong...
You must be watching different people fly than I do.

The "little" airplane smaller engine thing is peridocally tried by many people and invariably they gravitate back to more power and longer lines of the larger airplanes.

Maybe the difference is that the more modern powerplants are simply easier to use and do not require the magical touch that seemed to exist in the past.

That's a good thing in my opinion.

Having flown both types of airplanes considerably, but not having the natural talent of a Werwage, Walker,etc., I can tell you that the modern 650 (or so) sq in airplane with a PA 61-65 is much easier to deal with in the wind than Fox 35's and Noblers.  If what you said were true I'm sure Billy W. would be flying his Ares with the Aerotiger 36 in World competition. 

Just ain't so.....

Randy Cuberly

[Bradley Walker]

I think everything Dennis said was right on.

[Bob Reeves]

I believe it has allot to do with preceptions, right or wrong a few preceptions from a middle Advanced guy..

Given two identical patterns the bigger airplane will score better..
A percentage of your score is from the judges preception of how well your package (airplane/engine) works..
There is a big difference between "think I can" power and "know I can" power..
"know I can" power will make you a better pilot because it gives you confidence..
"think I can" power will sooner or later cost you an airplane..

[L0U CRANE]

To Dennis' Rep:#20 -

If I gave the impression that I felt any of the late-Classic era champions could not compete today, I apologize. I had no such intention. Nor did I intentionally omit 'certain' fliers from Indy or Berea or Lexington or Miami...

However, most of the top fliers did go ST46, then ST60 during the 1970's/early80's. That, for whatever reason, seemed to win more often. Perhaps because the winningest fliers flew that 'package?' Winners tend to keep winning because they are so hard to beat... And they work very hard to stay at and near the top...

We still have several of "those guys" flying, and flying extremely well - with classic equipment for 'period' events, and  "modern" equipment for modern events. E.g., two notables - Hunt and Werwage - (perhaps two and a half with Dean Pappas as advisor?) contributed greatly to the successful appearance of tuned pipe CLPA. The others who 'stayed in' continued to be champions, and brought innovations in several areas. Those who didn't were not run off as second raters: they changed interests, or things in their lives demanded.

I agree with your remarks about the NE fliers flying shapes and angles precisely. That should be sufficient to win, but it wasn't then, and still isn't. Scores reflect the impression of the perfection of the maneuvers, on the judges with the pads and pencils. Now, at least, you don't have to fly loose and large to score well in one part of the country, tight and small in another, and Lord knows what in yet a third locale. What's left of that IS still there, but to a much lesser degree, anyway.

I'm hoping to see you fly an Orange Crate, or the Eclipse, again. I think we're more ready for a blindingly sharp turning high aspect ratio stunter these days...

[Randy Cuberly]

One thing worth mentioning here is that the larger airplanes and more powerful engines allow longer lines.  This is in my opinion the most important factor in the larger airplane/engine combos scoring better.
7-10 ft more line length significantly opens up the space required to fly the maneuvers in and makes it easier to adjust timing for us mere mortals (read old guys).
Also while the actual flying speed of a Nobler and Fox 35 may be similar to an Impact PA61 the lap times are not and the time between corners in a square loop are not.
The smaller airplane with shorter lines requires quicker action/reaction.
This has nothing to do with a difference in speed only a difference in distance covered.
Anyone who doesn't believe this should fly each one back to back...

Randy Cuberly.

[Randy Powell]

Well, I'm flying a 40 sized, smaller plane these days. About 620 square inches with a 40. Flies on 70' (center of the plane to handle) lines and seems OK. I don't know that the judges degrade me for the plane at all, though probably for the skill level.

[Randy Cuberly]

Well, I'm flying a 40 sized, smaller plane these days. About 620 square inches with a 40. Flies on 70' (center of the plane to handle) lines and seems OK. I don't know that the judges degrade me for the plane at all, though probably for the skill level.

Hi Randy,
620 Sq in is a little smaller but not what I would consider a "small' plane.  also is the 40 you mentioned in the Nobler Fox 35 class.  Probably not.
Of course 40s, even strong ones like VFs typically won't fly well on 70 ft lines here in Tucson.
Most here fly 60 class stuff on 67-68 ft lines.  Density altitude Ya know!

Randy Cuberly

[Bill Little]

Well, I'm flying a 40 sized, smaller plane these days. About 620 square inches with a 40. Flies on 70' (center of the plane to handle) lines and seems OK. I don't know that the judges degrade me for the plane at all, though probably for the skill level.

Hi Randy,

Is it the OS 40VF, or one of Randy's PAs?  Either of which will more than adequately power the old ".60 size" ships!  (or else Paul would not have won all those times with an OS 40VF in a 700 sq. in. plane! LOL!!)

You know, guys, once a plane gets bigger than a Nobler, they all *begin* to look like the same size in the air (except for those MONSTERS than Windy built!). 

I found it interesting that Billy said he designed the Juno to "present" larger than it really was.........  and his USA-1 doesn't "look" as big (at 700 squares) as some of the newer piped ships of today.

[Bradley Walker]

I understand what you're saying about Kenny, Brad.  But I am not sure that he could "stomp everyone" with the Fox, even flying Classic.

He stomped everyone is Advanced in 2002 with a Fox 35.

Most of the fliers in Advanced in 2002 are now Open level fliers.  Including the current Advanced champ, Tysor, moon, etc.

He STOMPED us all.

[Bill Little]

He stomped everyone is Advanced in 2002 with a Fox 35.

Most of the fliers in Advanced in 2002 are now Open level fliers.  Including the current Advanced champ, Tysor, moon, etc.

He STOMPED us all.

Like I said, I know Kenny, and he's good!  He flew that Cavalier and Fox 35 pretty darn good.  But, he ain't gonna win the Walker Trophy Fly Off with it.  And if Billy, Bob, Ted, Paul, etc., show up at VSC, he's gonna be in trouble.

Don't get me wrong, this ain't about Kenny.  It just "ain't gonna happen" again with the Fox 35 in a *Major* Open level competition.

Just the way it is...............