Handle with bias caused crash of my Vector ?

[Steve Hines]

I got a new hard point handle no bias. Pancaked two more plane, I thing the ground is higher here in Michigan. 

Steve
   

[john e. holliday]

It's not the handle, it's the pilot not getting the lines in neutral position.   I have not had a problem with my hard point handles,  other than the better feel/control of the planes.

Could have been the planes fault also by being out of allignment.jeh

[Bob Reeves]

Based on what I've read I doubt that Hunt does anything like he did in the 70's.  No wife, no kids, and very nose heavy ships.

Still makes me wonder how the pattern flown by Bobby at the 76 NATS using a handle with everything wrong by today's thinking would stack up against patterns flown today. Something we will never be able to determin but interesting to think about. I do remember when watching Bobby fly back then I was awe struck by his bottoms and intersections. Still have the handle I bought from him at the 76 NATS and use it from time to time, it's fine on an airplane with fast controls.

[Joe Yau]

I got a new hard point handle no bias. Pancaked two more plane, I thing the ground is higher here in Michigan. 

Steve
   

What line spacing did you have the handle set at?  and how much overhang.

[Joseph Lijoi]

Still makes me wonder how the pattern flown by Bobby at the 76 NATS using a handle with everything wrong by today's thinking would stack up against patterns flown today. Something we will never be able to determin but interesting to think about. I do remember when watching Bobby fly back then I was awe struck by his bottoms and intersections. Still have the handle I bought from him at the 76 NATS and use it from time to time, it's fine on an airplane with fast controls.

Bob

In the Saturn construction article Hunt stated that Bill Werwage couldn't even get one of Bobs airplanes off of the ground because it was so nose heavy.  If you look at Gene Schaeffers Stunt Machine plans the CG is at the leading edge of the root chord.  A real common practice for trimming back then seemed to be brass crankcase covers and flywheels. 

I'm sure that was a great pattern you saw in 1976.  Bub Hunt put a lot of effert and practice into it.

[Steve Hines]

The line spacing was just over 3.75 and the over hang is about 1/2". I think I raise my arm up when I get close to the ground just like I do when it is right side up, and this it what my problem is. I do like the new brodak handle.

Steve

[Bill Little]

Bob

In the Saturn construction article Hunt stated that Bill Werwage couldn't even get one of Bobs airplanes off of the ground because it was so nose heavy.  If you look at Gene Schaeffers Stunt Machine plans the CG is at the leading edge of the root chord.  A real common practice for trimming back then seemed to be brass crankcase covers and flywheels. 

I'm sure that was a great pattern you saw in 1976.  Bub Hunt put a lot of effert and practice into it.

Hi Joseph,

I have talked to Bob about that story.  Billy thought something was wrong with the plane and had Bob come out and get the plane.  Bob then went into a program to balance his models more like Billy did (which Bob felt was VERY tail heavy at the time).  As was mentioned, Bob at that time was balancing his models very nose heavy and yanking them around the corners.
That was very typical at the time in the NE.  Bob says his conversion was the best thing that happened to his flying.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

[Brett Buck]

Still makes me wonder how the pattern flown by Bobby at the 76 NATS using a handle with everything wrong by today's thinking would stack up against patterns flown today.

    Most of the improvements haven't necessarily changed the ultimate performance, but they almost all make it easier. You can ask Bubba himself and he sure doesn't use the same handle, or do much else like he did in 76.

    That having been said, it's pretty clear that the best performances have gotten a lot better if you go back far enough. A stock Nobler or any close derivative is utterly incapable of flying like, say, Paul Walker flew the Impact in the early 90s. Its just impossible to make the corners look like that (i.e. correct) with a Nobler.

    I am far less convinced that we have made a lot/any improvement since the late 80's/Early 90s in terms of ultimate performance.

     Brett

[PJ Rowland]

A stock Nobler or any close derivative is utterly incapable of flying like, say, Paul Walker flew the Impact in the early 90s. Its just impossible to make the corners look like that (i.e. correct) with a Nobler.

I cannot disagree with the above statement in any way.

During Open Top 20 last year I asked Paul to critque a practice session with my .61 Gieseke Nobler in an attempt to extract the most performance I could. The consenus was there wasnt much more I could do. I think Paul said words to the effect of ( Your getting as much out of it as possible ) I doubt anyone has flown a Nobler with an equivilant power to weight ratio so we can expect performance to be good compared to today.

The issue is the performance envelope has increased so far that the older designs just do not go where the modern ships go - I knew where I wanted to put it, but the limitations of the design were such that it just wouldnt track along the lines it needed to go.

Think of it like a F1 car vs a high performance sports car ; no matter how hard you try one cannot go that deep into a corner to match its performance. 
This was a similar issue , could not go as deep as I needed to - the stopping force was in design. Tracking rounds were closer... but the pattern is much more than simple rounds or tracking.


I am far less convinced that we have made a lot/any improvement since the late 80's/Early 90s in terms of ultimate performance.

Hard to disagree with that either...