Handles and Handle Bias

[Michael Massey]

While at a recent contest, a discussion about handles came up.  I showed the style of handle that I have been using for awhile now.  I initially received a similar handle as a gift and made several others.  My handle is a hard point, with the grip having a “built in bias” of about 10 degrees from being exactly perpendicular to the ground.  See picture 1.  As a result of the built in handle grip bias, the bias adjustments I have to make with the adjustable eyebolts are very minimal.  (I try to make both lines of each set of lines exactly the same length as well as my plane lead outs so all handles require minimal adjustment and all nearly “neutral” in its adjustment.)

One of the other flyers had the following “comment” about the built in bias.  His claim is essentially that if someone or some thing pulls on the lines very hard while the handle is being held by the “flyer,” the “flyer” will pull against the force in a straight rather than a biased grip.  He gave the example of a persons grip while hanging from a set of bars such as playground “monkey” bars.  The person’s grip, he argues, will be parallel with the bar and without bias.  Thus his conclusion is that the handle should be straight and not biased.  He went on to say that the biased “pistol grip” position of the handle is not applicable to the flying handle since the pistol grip is designed as an anti-recoil position from force and not for a pulling force such as our planes (usually) exert.

In the “chaotic” surroundings of the contest I nodded to his arguments and decided to give his arguments some more thought. After getting home, I pulled out some older more conventional non-biased handles that I have used previously.  What was immediately obvious is that each of the handle to control line attachments had been adjusted so that then when the handle was held in the control neutral position, my hand had the same bias as what I am now building into the handles.  (See picture 2.)  Picture 3 is the grip orientation as they would be if connected to my lines on my airplanes.

So my question, how do you adjust your handles and why? 

[Michael Massey]

Here is pix 2 and 3.

[Chris Wilson]

He gave the example of a persons grip while hanging from a set of bars such as playground “monkey” bars.  The person’s grip, he argues, will be parallel with the bar and without bias.  Thus his conclusion is that the handle should be straight and not biased.  He went on to say that the biased “pistol grip” position of the handle is not applicable to the flying handle since the pistol grip is designed as an anti-recoil position from force and not for a pulling force such as our planes (usually) exert.

The monkey bar example is a poor analogy as it takes a fixed horizontal bar and hangs a weight from it - little wonder it just happens to hang perpendicularly!

The much loved and angled pistol grip is a reflection of the natural physiology of the human body, your hand will be angled in a relaxed unforced position (here the monkey bars force the issue into an unnatural state.)

So its considered that the natural and relaxed state of the human hand is far better for motor control, you respond to input far quicker, you tire less easily and you are more accurate because of the former two reasons. But this only holds 'if' the handle is tailored to suit the individual, and we all differ slightly.

Cheers.

[David M Johnson]

I have used both and prefer the angled handle. But remember handles are like well opinions every one has one, or two, or three. lol. Now if you can explain the reasoning for the difference in Combat vs Racing vs Stunt I'm all ears.
David Johnson

[Brett Buck]

My buddies and I have gone on at length on this, the short of it is that you should *never* use any significant handle bias and if you are currently using it, you should retrain yourself to work with it straight up and down. As far as I can tell it *is not* a matter of the individual wrist geometry, aside from a tiny range around neutral. There are extremely extensive discussions on the topic in the archives here and on SSW, not more that can be said about it.

     Brett

   

[Joseph Lijoi]

Don't let anyone get into your head about handle bias, especially at contests.

The biased handle is not politically correct.  I hear the same comments when I fly with a biased handle. 

In reality no one picks up an unbiased handle without some bias.  That is why you may have some bias adjusted into your handle.  I have seen pictures of Jim Casale holding his unbiased handle with a lot of bias, probably more than 10 degrees.

The bar and recoil analogies are bad analogies.  Maybe if you are pulling on one line.  Most of the time the plane is pulling me.  The question isn't about force as much as ergonomics and repeatability.  The Luger handle is biased not so much about the recoil but about the second shot, which frequently occurs after the first.  The wrist wants to go where it wants to go and you want it to return to a point which is easiest to find. 

I would think that if the pattern was seven hours long instead of seven minutes no one would be flying with an unbiased handle.  Diagrams that I have seen on the subject treat the wrist like a robot wrist.

In this discussion I never hear someone say "I prefer the Hot Rock handle because I've been using it since 1955 when I was six and I burn a gallon of fuel every flying session five times a week".  It always comes down to some science.

A lot of great patterns have been flown with unbiased and biased handles.  The unifying factor seems to be sweat equity. 

[Steve Helmick]

If you fly with your arm straight out (relying on tendons), you will like the biased handle. If you pull your hand up (elbow bent) in front of your chest, you will like the straight-up handle. Fly a .60 model for 8 minutes with your elbow straight, your shoulder will be hurting after 4 flights. With your elbow bent, your bicep will be pumped up, and you know that the girls like that. Straight handles = more luck with the girls!!!  Steve

[peabody]

I'm with Brett on this....
My flying sucks, but I can coach people in a not-bad manner....all have improved noticeably.
When Brett mentions "his buddies", they comprise a group that are multiple National and World champions....hardly a bunch to question something like this...
Get rid of the bias!

Have fun!

[Bruce Shipp]

Last night I flew my first flights with a Fancher hard point (FHP) handle.  I have used the same cable handle on my PAMPA airplanes for 31 years.  I built my handle in 1980 and other than new cables over the years I have not changed a thing. It has a slider bar on long screws to adjust the offset.  I started with a fair amount of bias and gradually reduced it over the years but it still has a slight amount.  I set the FHP up as close to zero bias as I could.  It is square with the lines with the controls neutral.  I was not sure what to expect and was surprised that level flight was right where I wanted it to be.  

I noticed two differences with the FHP.  First, airplane was much more responsive, especially in those places in the pattern where tension was not too light, but reduced as a result of a normal pattern - top of the hour glass, the top loops of the clover, etc.  I credit this to the elimination of the cable.  I like that part.  I matched the line spacing as close as I could to the cable handle and ended up closing the lines up one hole after the 3rd flight.  I may try even closer.

The result of the no bias was noticeable as well.  The plane has a nice solid outside corner but it took a lot of wrist movement to get it.  I always felt like I had to hit the outsides harder than the inside (by harder I mean more exaggerated wrist deflection).  The inside corner was also good but I had a tendency to over control it.   If I was careless the inside loops would get smaller and the bottoms would rise. The outsides always seemed more consistent.  With the FHP, both insides and outsides felt more alike.  I was still sloppy on both as it will take a few flights to get used to the new handle, but I like what I have seen so far.  I think a neutral bias benefit the overall pattern.  Getting used to a new neutral point for level flight will take some practice but I bet after a gallon or two of fuel it will be just like old times.  

I am a member of the bent elbow school so any bias between my forearm and the lines is done at the wrist, not the handle.  

A pilot can develop a good pattern with either handle style with enough practice, but from what I have saw last night, I think there are advantages to the no bias set up.  Another few gallons and I'll know for sure.

I'm sold....

[RandySmith]

Hi Michael

I have coached and had discussions with many many people over the years about why to NOT use a very biased handle , I have seen quite a few airplanes crashed because of this
You may want to read this thread

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=13812.0

Regards
Randy

[Joseph Lijoi]

I'm with Brett on this....
My flying sucks, but I can coach people in a not-bad manner....all have improved noticeably.
When Brett mentions "his buddies", they comprise a group that are multiple National and World champions....hardly a bunch to question something like this...
Get rid of the bias!

Have fun!

Are you sure it wasn't your coaching that improved those flyers?  Don't sell yourself short.  Thanks to you they probably learned how to practice correctly and that is very important.

I guess it is not only to the handle but how you hold it.  Brett and his buddies burn a lot of fuel, hang out and talk stunt, and contribute to the event.  They have been flying forever.

These guys are like musicians.  They know how to achieve an outcome, based on the experience of achieveing the outcome in practice and competition, and have the muscle memory to achive this outcome repeatedly and while under stress.

How are you supposed to hold the unbiased handle?  With no bias?  Look at a picture of Jim Casale.  He burns a lot of fuel.  So if we accept that the way he holds the handle is incorrectly then he has overcome his bad habits and developed his own style through sweat and self discovery.....serious practice!  Like the musician he has overcome the absolutes, and absolutes are problematic when it comes to human interface.  We are not machines.

What Brett has to say is very important because he has paid his dues. More importantly he practices and knows how to practice.  Take his advice, but keep in mind that his achievement has less to do with the bias of his handle and more to do with his level of commitment and human spirit.

[Joseph Lijoi]

Actually I just went through and read some of the handle threads so next time I go out to fly I will use a Hot Rock.  Sure seems like a safe bet.  All the heavy hitters seem to prefer them so I will take their advice.

So I retract everything except the statements regarding practice and commitment.  Thanks.

[Steve Helmick]

Actually using a Hot Rock or the large EZ-Just could cost you a plane. The cables are old and can break. Ask Howard about that. The "TED Handle" is an EZ-Just without the cables, with adjustable line spacing, and adjustable overhang. Borrow one and try that, instead!  Steve

[Bill Little]

In reality no one picks up an unbiased handle without some bias.

The one major point I have seen regarding bias versus non-biased handles is the manner of which you hold your arm.

The much loved and angled pistol grip is a reflection of the natural physiology of the human body, your hand will be angled in a relaxed unforced position (here the monkey bars force the issue into an unnatural state.)

So its considered that the natural and relaxed state of the human hand is far better for motor control, you respond to input far quicker, you tire less easily and you are more accurate because of the former two reasons. But this only holds 'if' the handle is tailored to suit the individual, and we all differ slightly.

Lots of people say it's like shooting a pistol (BUT, we are NOT shooting a pistol), so you need the bias.  Of course when you shoot a pistol for accuracy, your arm is straight.  This causes a bias in the hand.  Do you hold your arm perfectly straight while flying maneuvers?

Like Steve posted, if you bend your elbow, the hand is no longer biased or "slanted forward".  Try it, your hand will become vertical.  You will have to physically "slant" your hand to get "bias".  I cannot see flying the pattern with a "straight arm".  Maybe in level flight the arm straightens a bit, but most all I can remember seeing have a bend in the elbow.

All the teaching manuals say to fly with a straight arm, and move the arm up and down ( to reduce control inputs since most beginners will over control the model).  That will mean that you probably will need to have a biased handle.  But, as I said, I don't remember seeing anyone doing it this way (could have missed someone, I'm sure).  In flying a pattern you use your wrist of course (plus finer muscles in the fingers), to control the flight path while "flying" the model through the maneuvers.

All the years of Anatomy, Physiology, Kinesiology (that was an awesome subject!),  and Exercise Physiology, up through getting my Masters weren't for nothing..........

Learn to relax the arm and use a non biased handle, it makes things easier!

Big Bear

[PJ Rowland]

One of the easier ways to visualize what is going on with a biased handel is the following :

If your required to bias the handle and you naturally hold alot of down - there is very little movement left in the hand to apply the given force.

For example, if your flying with you hand on full down, its virtually impossible for the hand to move any further, so you in turn start using more reverse arm motion. Your trying to be able to reproduce a clean, accurate ,repeatable handle motion.

Take your hand, give up, down, up down, then try to find the middle ground of those 2 extreme's this should represent your neutral handle position. - As brett rightly suggested, if you cannot acheive this - retrain yourself.

[Sean McEntee]

    I have always used biased handles.  Then I borrowed an airplane from my dad for the WKSI contest and it had an unbiast Brodak hardpoint handle on it.  I didnt do well because it was so unusual to me, but I think there is something to it.  I have always felt like I never had allot of down control...especially in the first dive of the outside squares.  I didnt have that paniced feeling with the hardpoint handle.

[Bill Little]

One of the easier ways to visualize what is going on with a biased handel is the following :

If your required to bias the handle and you naturally hold alot of down - there is very little movement left in the hand to apply the given force.

For example, if your flying with you hand on full down, its virtually impossible for the hand to move any further, so you in turn start using more reverse arm motion. Your trying to be able to reproduce a clean, accurate ,repeatable handle motion.

Take your hand, give up, down, up down, then try to find the middle ground of those 2 extreme's this should represent your neutral handle position. - As brett rightly suggested, if you cannot acheive this - retrain yourself.

A curious question, PJ: Do you fly with your arm fully extended or a relaxed elbow position?

Thanks
Bill

[Howard Rush]

The Stewart brothers of Phoenix have handles with the controller at right angles to the grip.  Down is toward the palm; up is away from it.  They are pretty good at flying combat with them.

[Chris Wilson]

I see a lot of explanations of a purely mechanical nature here but not much on the biological side.

I have done martial arts for about 30 years and fully believe that reaction times are the lowest when you in a natural position, and my nature tells me that when fully relaxed the top of my hand angles forward - and that is how I would like to fly. And perhaps I am built a bit differently, but I seem to have well over double the angle from my neutral point to full down as I do from neutral to full up.

Interesting topic .

[Bill Little]

I see a lot of explanations of a purely mechanical nature here but not much on the biological side.

I have done martial arts for about 30 years and fully believe that reaction times are the lowest when you in a natural position, and my nature tells me that when fully relaxed the top of my hand angles forward - and that is how I would like to fly. And perhaps I am built a bit differently, but I seem to have well over double the angle from my neutral point to full down as I do from neutral to full up.

Interesting topic .

HI Chris, 

I did give an opinion from a "Biological (actually a Physiological, and  Kinesiology) aspect.  Reaction times are quickest when the muscles are relaxed.  Tensed muscles move slower.   In boxing the old "catch a fly on the face" when throwing a jab comes to mind, it causes a "snap" at the moment of impact.  The hand is relaxed until that point.

Try bending you elbow, bringing it closer to your body, about chest high and see how vertical the hand is.  If you fly with a straight arm, the hand naturally falls forward.  If you bring the hand closer to the body, the hand becomes vertical.  The "bias" between the hand and arm is still there (forward tilt in regards to the fore arm, but the axis of the hand has now moved to a vertical plane since the forearm in in a downward tilt.  If I stretch out my arm I can basically get my knuckles horizontal to the ground giving far more "down control" potential.  But if I move my hand in closer, about a 45* bend in the elbow, that same movement gives me about the equivalent of full down control and an even amount of up.  That is simply physiology of the human hand/arm structure and how it moves. (closer to a Kinesiology/ Exercise Physiology description)

Big Bear

[Michael Massey]

Thanks all for your inputs.  Great points of view.

I will probably try the "hand in the center of the chest" method, but not just before or during a contest.  I seems to be a very awkward position to me.  I like to follow the airplane with my arm, something like "following through" on an action.  But I'll give it a shot to see what happens.

"Keep those cards and letters coming."  This is very interesting.

Thanks again to all,

Mike

[Chris Wilson]

HI Chris,  


Try bending you elbow, bringing it closer to your body, about chest high and see how vertical the hand is.  

Big Bear

Hi Bill,
         I did not mean to miss your post (its more that I post from work and had to rush reading all of this, and the linked thread as well).

I fully understand your description mate, but what if I have a wristy, straight arm (well about 5 degrees off straight) flying style that points directly at the model all of the time?

Thanks.

[PJ Rowland]

Bill : I fly with my arm straight out - However I like Paul Walkers approach - the handle slightly tilted.. Look at the last 2 photos for the reference

I have included some other photo's of notable fliers. - Just to see how World Champions look.. Where the handle position is.


Obviously excuse me from the list...... - My photo is only there to answer the question about my style..


Billy Werwage

Dave Fitz

Han Xing Ping

Bob Hunt

Orestes

Richard Kornmeier

Paul Walker


P.J Rowland ( yes I understand how out of place my photo is here... )


Paul Walker Again.. - Note the handle angled slightly.

[Howard Rush]

Good pictures, PJ.  I suspect Mr. Walker is doing an outside loop in that last picture.  His neutral is generally straight up and down, although he has varied a little. 

[PJ Rowland]

Im not so sure about that Howard...

It certainly looks like a level flight setup to me.. If it was a manouver the posture would be different, with more brace.
Plus the fact these photo's were taken on the same flight, and its fairly obvious where the manouvers are being flown.. I think its just level flight.



Example :

[Joseph Lijoi]

Looks like these guys are all flying with their arms straight out and some holding ubiased handles with some bias.  Also looks like everyones hand is in the natural slightly down position.

To be fair they are still "flying" in level flight so there would be some control input.

Best thing would be to find out what exact handle that they are using.

[Chuck Feldman]

One day I found myself in trouble doing and outside loops. I changed to a straight handle and found it best.

Chuck Feldman

[Derek Barry]

I use Kaz handles both hard point and cable. They are the best money can buy!

Derek

oh yea, NO BIAS

[EddyR]

The only way to really tell the angle of the handle in pictures is to take them from 90 degrees to the flyer. In the pictures above the long lens forshortens the angle and is very deceptive. At the upcoming Huntersville contest  I will try and take as many pictures of flyer's hand position as I can from the 90 degree angle while they are in level flight. I will take everone at the same focal length. I think better flyer's fly with there hand at the chest position and go to the relaxed position during level flight. I think chest height is incorrect,neck or top of the shoulder height would better explain where there hand is.
Ed

[PerttiMe]

If you fly with a straight arm, the hand naturally falls forward.  If you bring the hand closer to the body, the hand becomes vertical.

I just had to make an experiment here sitting in front of the computer.

I grabbed my left thumb with my right hand and looked at what happens when I extend my arm. When I push the hand forward, it stays vertical very far. The thumb and forefinger don't tilt forward until during the last inch, two at most, when my elbow and shoulder are becoming "locked".

So, for me, pulling the hand back very little changes the angle of my hand significantly, compared with having my arm fully extended. When a limb is fully extended (locked), it is good for remaining in one position but not that good when you need to do precise or quick movements.

[Joseph Lijoi]

The only way to really tell the angle of the handle in pictures is to take them from 90 degrees to the flyer. In the pictures above the long lens forshortens the angle and is very deceptive. At the upcoming Huntersville contest  I will try and take as many pictures of flyer's hand position as I can from the 90 degree angle while they are in level flight. I will take everone at the same focal length. I think better flyer's fly with there hand at the chest position and go to the relaxed position during level flight. I think chest height is incorrect,neck or top of the shoulder height would better explain where there hand is.
Ed

Thanks Ed.  That will be interesting to see.

[PJ Rowland]

The photo's supplied were not specific in relation to handle bias.

It was in reference to a previous question about If I fly with straight arm or bent.

[Jim Morris]

Kaz handle type A all the way,my personal opinion, easy to adjust and very light. No bar. I just set level flight to where my hand is relaxed and the plane grooves without any force up or down to hold it level, then adjust spacing and or overhang for turning. Also need to get a handle that fits your hand.If its too big,your hand position in the handle can affect the planes turn either way.I guess I might fly level with a slight foward bias, but not much.

[Peter Nevai]

Some of this stuff makes my giggle. I'd like to see someone hold their arm at the center of their chest while doing the overhead 8 or at the top of a wingover. During those manuevers the whole arm position vs Bias thing goes right out the window. Pretty much would have to be a chinese acrobat to pull that one off.

Any who I've been using my own custom made handle since I stopped using the Hot Rocks. The abandonment of said handle expedited by the reciept of numeous 18.563 kilovolt shocks transmitted by that little metal adjuster thingy on the back of every hot rocks handle.

I don't recall who's handle I based it on but I've been using it ever since (Round 1975) I should probably make a new one as the old one is getting a bit rough around the edges. Anway since I do not have it here to take a photo of I did a quick and dirty 3D model of the handle to show and tell.

It's fully adjustable for Neutral, Bias, Overhang, and line spacing. Neutral, Overhang and Bias can be adjusted in flight. Nothing beats in flight adjustability, just dial it until you get it the way you like for any condition and any plane line combo. The handle I carved out of Maple for a very comfortable fit to my hand. The only draback it is heavier than your hot rocks based handle.

I would lay up a carbon fiber version if I had the ability to do so.

[Bill Little]

Thanks all for your inputs.  Great points of view.

I will probably try the "hand in the center of the chest" method, but not just before or during a contest.  I seems to be a very awkward position to me.  I like to follow the airplane with my arm, something like "following through" on an action.  But I'll give it a shot to see what happens.

"Keep those cards and letters coming."  This is very interesting.

Thanks again to all,

Mike

Hi Mike,

With the bent elbow you still follow the model with your hand, just a relaxed elbow.

Big Bear

[Peter Nevai]

Hi Mike,

With the bent elbow you still follow the model with your hand, just a relaxed elbow.

Big Bear

Hmmm. I've not flown many 60 sized planes but I did fly a couple. Relaxed elbow is hardly how I would describe it. More like shoulder dislocating 2 handed grip in certain conditions. But marginal line tension conditions flying a 60 sized beast scares the crap out of me anyway. 

[Bill Little]

Hi Bill,
         I did not mean to miss your post (its more that I post from work and had to rush reading all of this, and the linked thread as well).

I fully understand your description mate, but what if I have a wristy, straight arm (well about 5 degrees off straight) flying style that points directly at the model all of the time?

Thanks.

Hi Chris,

A straight arm approach would seem to require a "biased handle angle".  If your arm ever bends, then that bias is no longer affecting your ability to maneuver the same way inside and out.  I, too, can get a LOT of wrist movement (so far, who knows as I get older! LOL!!) and I flew for decades using a biased forward handle axis, and the old E-Z Just large size handle, but they always had to be adjusted for "neutral" by feeding OUT more of the down
line.  After I came extremely close to losing an ARES during a contest because it just wouldn't turn outsides in the conditions, I tried the vertical axis handle.  Never went back.  Mind you, I will never strike fear in the NATS Open fliers (or local experts), that period of life is long gone.  But I do keep up with everything going on in the event with zeal.

There is no question that practice, and staring at the bottom of a LOT of empty fuel cans can reverse any of this.  Just like in any "sport".

Maybe you should try a hard point handle and set it at a "vertical plane" and relax the elbow just for giggles.  I did and found that after a short adjustment period flying was much easier.  I still follow the model with my hand through maneuvers (maybe I should say "lead" the model) and things are more equivalent inside and outside with less trimming for it.

Either way, have fun!
Big Bear

[Bill Little]

Hmmm. I've not flown many 60 sized planes but I did fly a couple. Relaxed elbow is hardly how I would describe it. More like shoulder dislocating 2 handed grip in certain conditions. But marginal line tension conditions flying a 60 sized beast scares the crap out of me anyway. 

HI Peter,

From that description I would suspect that those were fairly nose heavy beasts! LOL!!  My son flies more nose heavy that I do but he is learning to move the C/G further back making every thing easier, especially in the wind.

I trim out as much line tension as I can (and I was a successful 220-242 Lb. class power lifter and state champion shot putter).  It is truly amazing just how far back the C/G can go and the plane just flies better.  Ask Mr. Hunt about this and his meeting with Mr. Werwage back in the late '70S.

Big Bear

[Ted Fancher]

Actually I just went through and read some of the handle threads so next time I go out to fly I will use a Hot Rock.  Sure seems like a safe bet.  All the heavy hitters seem to prefer them so I will take their advice.

So I retract everything except the statements regarding practice and commitment.  Thanks.

Hi Joe,

I've enjoyed your comments...although we, of course, have a slightly different take on the subject.  One area, however, I think could stand a little elaboration from my point of view.  Gallons of fuel and practice.

I am an absolute nut case on adapting a stunt ship (and all of its paraphernalia, especially the handle--the interface between the pilot and the machine) to the desires of the pilot.  I believe that flying thousands of flights on a poorly refined airplane system so that you can predict the required inputs to get a good output is an inferior way of becoming a winning stunt pilot.  Yes, it can be done the other way around and Jimmy was pretty much the poster boy for doing so.  He flew thousands of flights on numerous ships in less than state of the art set-ups and trim and competed with the very best.  Jimmy felt...and was probably correct...that flying those many gallons of gas were necessary to be competitive.  I would also note that he was quite open about having to build something like thirteen airplanes over the space of only a couple of years because they "broke" on a regular basis.

Those that espouse adapting the system to the pilot can remain competitive with very little practice for the simple reason that, when they system is properly refined, flying competitive patterns isn't much more difficult than drawing the shapes on a piece of paper.  Modest and repeatable inputs result in the airplane going where it needs to go without any "adaptation" by the pilot.  He/she can merely point the pointy end where it needs to go and the system will do the rest.  This remains largely so even in bad air...calm to windy and turbulent.

Brett is probably the poster boy for such success (although Bob Hunt's stuff allows him to always be competitive whether or not he's burned many gallons of fuel as well).  Ask anyone who has flown one of Brett's airplanes and you will get universal raves about its "point and shoot" nature.  Brett burns very little fuel.  He had almost no practice time prior to the Team Trials because of work, yet finished a fraction of a point out of the first alternate position.

One step beyond that, last weekend we had the Meat and Meet contest in Woodland.  Brett was there after the trials and I was there with my "built in 1991 Trivial Pursuit" that I hadn't flown at all since last October except at the Northwest Regionals in May.  At both of those contests I failed to put in an official flight because my heretofore wonderful RoJett .61 simply wouldn't run the same way for more than about five seconds in a row.  So there hadn't been a complete "pattern" on the airplane in at least a year.

Long story short, a few days before the Meat and Meet I pulled an old .46 VF off the shelf (the ship was originally built for a .40VF), rebuilt it because the  bearings were shot and stuck it in the T.P.  I put one flight on it the morning of the contest, found the engine up to the task and then flew it against Brett and got beat...by seven points.  My practice flight on it was one of the best flights I've ever flown.  The official flights in much warmer air were a bit inferior because the needle setting (part of the "system") wasn't yet "programmed".

The day before I had been helping a good friend get his new KA10 ready for the contest.  I watched him fly several "OK" patterns with it but he wasn't happy with its performance and asked if I would fly it.  I did so and simply stopped doing tricks after a few attempts because I didn't want to risk the beautiful airplane.  The "system" was out of whack...both the airplane and the control system including the handle.  The owner was "adapting" to the system instead of adapting it to suit his needs.  Over the next several flights we turned the emphasis around by: changing the CG, the flap/elevator throw ratio and dialing in some up or down elevator (forget which...vice flap), added a tab to the outboard flap, tweaked the flap, added some tip weight, opened the spacing on his hard point handle about 1/4" at both ends and a handful of other things. 

I then flew the airplane again and, although not yet perfect, was perfectly comfortable flying it through a decent pattern.  The next day the young man finished a very competitive third...and had a big smile on his face because his difficult to fly airplane now flew patterns without scaring him periodically.

I know this sounds like a personal puff piece, but the point is to demonstrate how valuable it is to set up the system properly so you don't have to flying thousands of flights to remain competitive.  Among the most important parts of the system is that interface between the pilot and the rest of the system...the handle.  A stunt pilot limits himself if he doesn't at least investigate the merits/demerits of available alternatives

You are absolutely right, however, about the need to commit to being competitive and I would never suggest that guys like Brett haven't done so.  IMHO, however, their commitment to optimizing the system rather than committing to thousands of dedicated hours at the field adapting themselves to a flawed system is a superior approach to a happy stunt "career".

Glad to see you're going to give a shot at a Hot Rock style handle.  I look forward to your assessment...and won't be a bit offended if you decide we "upright, unbiased, hardpoint, vertical neutral" troglodytes are full of hot air.  Have fun.

Ted

p.s. the combination of an optimized system and burned fuel, however, is tough to beat.  Mssrs Walker, Werwage and Fitzgerald are the poster boys for total commitment!

[Igor Burger]

Im not so sure about that Howard...

It certainly looks like a level flight setup to me.. If it was a manouver the posture would be different, with more brace.
Plus the fact these photo's were taken on the same flight, and its fairly obvious where the manouvers are being flown.. I think its just level flight.



Example :

Actually PW is just flying vertical 8 ... guess how I know

[Alan Resinger]

As someone who has flown with Paul for about 30 years I can attest to the fact that he is in the middle of a manouver.  His stance proves it.  It is the bottom of something with up control being given.  Paul flies with his handle in a vertical position during level flight both upright and inverted.  Flying in the Pacific Northwest, you get to observe some of the best flyers around.  Most if not all the top flyers keep their hand pretty much vertical.  Ted gets a little sideways during inverted flight but Brett, and David could be listed as poster guys for the straight up and down handle position

[Igor Burger]

 

[PJ Rowland]

Ted :

I can attest to EVERYTHING you just said - I must confess I haven't had the opportunity to fly one of Brett's models, but I have heard from various sources they are point and shoot - I have always thought ( and advocated that ) You need to setup your model to be as easy to fly as possible.

I feel I am quite decent at being and to setup a model - Like we have spoken about before - Im not as good at trimming as others from the perspective of being able to say " That model required .6oz of tip weight " My approach is the gallons of fuel approach for practice, and subtile trim changes over a period of time and over countless flights.

MY approach leaves no stone un turned, so I always feel I get the most out the planes, and have them setup to be as good as possible. I feel they are " point and shoot " I generally dont practice every week, I could go 6 months without flying and just build.

The point of this is that - I have had the opportunity to fly Bob Hunts Crossfire and I can attest to what you said Ted about it " (although Bob Hunt's stuff allows him to always be competitive whether or not he's burned many gallons of fuel as well) " I had 2 flights of it back to back - 1st flight was a feeler just to get my head around its performance and so forth. Second flight was full pattern - I felt it was pretty damn close to how my models are setup, very stable, very point and shoot, handle position was almost spot on - made me realize how close I actually am with the setups in general. I felt 10 flights with it and I could be competitve at most major contests.

There would be a handful of other setups I'd love to fly to see how they compare :

Anything of Pauls..
Dave's ThunderGazer 1
Bretts Infinity
Ted's 1991 TP
Matt Newmans pa75 Stuka
Bruce's Jester

[Ted Fancher]

As someone who has flown with Paul for about 30 years I can attest to the fact that he is in the middle of a manouver.  His stance proves it.  It is the bottom of something with up control being given.  Paul flies with his handle in a vertical position during level flight both upright and inverted.  Flying in the Pacific Northwest, you get to observe some of the best flyers around.  Most if not all the top flyers keep their hand pretty much vertical.  Ted gets a little sideways during inverted flight but Brett, and David could be listed as poster guys for the straight up and down handle position

Alan,

Ya caught me out, didn't ya!  Yeah, I've laid my hand sideways (palm up) flying inverted for pretty much my entire "stunt life".  I'm absolutely convinced that trying to rotate it 90 degrees to vertical while flying inverted would increase the cost of balsa by a measurable amount!I must insist, however, that it is only in inverted flight.  I believe it is safe to say that outside maneuvers are done with the handle vertical.  Just for fun, try to "simulate" flying the top of an hourglass with your hand horizontal and palm up!  Pretty much doesn't bend that way!

How's the golf game?  I just played my first round in six months or so, shot 86 and thought I'd won the Masters!  Prior to that I was begging to stay below 100 for a couple of years...of course, I'm only playing about four rounds a year or so.  Kinda like flying stunt except I was never much good at golf and find it a lot harder to "tune" by body system than a stunt ship.

Ted

[Ted Fancher]

Ted :

I can attest to EVERYTHING you just said - I must confess I haven't had the opportunity to fly one of Brett's models, but I have heard from various sources they are point and shoot - I have always thought ( and advocated that ) You need to setup your model to be as easy to fly as possible.

I feel I am quite decent at being and to setup a model - Like we have spoken about before - Im not as good at trimming as others from the perspective of being able to say " That model required .6oz of tip weight " My approach is the gallons of fuel approach for practice, and subtile trim changes over a period of time and over countless flights.

MY approach leaves no stone un turned, so I always feel I get the most out the planes, and have them setup to be as good as possible. I feel they are " point and shoot " I generally dont practice every week, I could go 6 months without flying and just build.

The point of this is that - I have had the opportunity to fly Bob Hunts Crossfire and I can attest to what you said Ted about it " (although Bob Hunt's stuff allows him to always be competitive whether or not he's burned many gallons of fuel as well) " I had 2 flights of it back to back - 1st flight was a feeler just to get my head around its performance and so forth. Second flight was full pattern - I felt it was pretty damn close to how my models are setup, very stable, very point and shoot, handle position was almost spot on - made me realize how close I actually am with the setups in general. I felt 10 flights with it and I could be competitve at most major contests.

There would be a handful of other setups I'd love to fly to see how they compare :

Anything of Pauls..
Dave's ThunderGazer 1
Bretts Infinity
Ted's 1991 TP
Matt Newmans pa75 Stuka
Bruce's Jester

P.J.

Back in 1995 I had the pleasure of flying Bob's Saturn right after the Walker Flyoff.  I had just won the event with my "Great Expectations" and was feeling pretty good about myself.  After about three laps with the Saturn I began to wonder just how I could have beat anybody as good as Bobby flying an airplane as good as the piped OPS powered Saturn.  Everything about the airplane felt just like my own...only just a little better.  That was one of my "aha" moments when I dedicated myself to making my airplanes as easy to fly as Bob's.  I felt real good several years later when Bob flew my "Final Edition" (actually the Great Expectations refinished in "purple pond scum" colors) and declared that it flew very much like his "Saturn"!

Again, a handful of flights to fine tune the handle settings and we could each have replicated our performance of the prior week with the outcome equally in doubt.

I've since flown two airplanes I felt were the equal of the Saturn.  One of Brett's Infinities and David's WC Thundergeazer (although his new ship "looks" to be better yet from a judge's perspective).

Ted

[PJ Rowland]

Im very envious Ted ! You have the chance to fly with a very select group of brilliant guys. Id say in the History of Stunt, very before have we seen the cailbre of Guys near that Napa sight that are so good and feed off eachother.

Id have to say when I flew Bobs - it was fantastic, It wasnt an " Ahaha " moment - I was pleased that my development and trimming ability was very close to what Bob was putting out. Obviously I can say with Huge amounts of confidence I dont build as good as Bob Hunt ! However for all my shortcomings Im pleased it wasnt too far off the mark. Im sure if the roles were reversed ( hopefully in 2013 when I return to the US nats ) I will have a model that is full sized spec and isnt warped and I can return the favor and let other top fliers fly it and give me their opinion.


In 2013 I will be around the San Fran area ( Along with Joe ) - Hopefully I will get a chance to come over and see your shop ( maybe get you out on the golf course and check out your swing! If you give me some trimming tips or flight tips I can return the favor and give you some golf tips.. I played a few days ago and went round in a lazy 71..  ( Handicap of 4... )

[Heman Lee]

Guilty, Mike and I had this discussion at this years "Meet N Meat" contest because I notice his handle had a huge bias.  The "Monkey bar" analogy was made only to point out the the force is it the opposite direction of a pistol.  I was just trying to convince him to turn from the dark-side.

I fly a lot of 1/2a models, so I primarily hold the handle only using the very end of my fingers.  I do not really grip the handle so there is very little bias in my grip.

Larry Wong showed me a 1/2a handle that you just wear on you fingers like a ring.  I just had 2 or 3 holes for your fingers.  I forgot the name of the company that sold it.  I think it came from a pickle barrel.  Maybe Larry can chime in and tell us more.

[Michael Massey]

Heman, I was ready to take that secret to the grave...well almost.  As it turned out, however, it was a great discussion and a lot of significant detail came from it.  I certainly learned a lot.

When I was a kid, my grandmother had a couple of small apartment rentals.  She rented to a somewhat "backward" country boy and his brand new wife.  Just after renting to them, she saw the husband and asked him how married life was going.  In a thick country accent and "speak" he replied, "There's more to it than I thought there was."

'nough said.

[Michael Massey]

I don't want to beat this thing to death but after reading...and rereading the "bumped" earlier forum about biasing I decided that there were more advantages to flying with the unbiased, un-overhung, etc., etc., handle (I'll just call it straight) than other variations.  So I gave it a try Saturday and today (Sunday). 

I will have to admit I had some concern about relearning and needing, as someone put it, a gallon of gas to get back to where I currently am with the "angled" handle.  For those of you who might have the same concern and would really like to try the straight handle, go ahead.  I was very pleasantly surprised to find that it took just a few flights to make the change and be comfortable.  The first couple of flights I really concentrated on holding my arm bent, not dramatically, but just pulled my hand back towards my chest 5 or 6 inches.  As it turned out, just a few inches worked equally as well.  More surprising, during some maneuvers, my arm gets fairly straight and that seems to have no adverse consequence.

I would like to tell you it really has improved my flying but maybe that is just wishful thinking.  On the other hand, It feels just fine and I have just made the switch so maybe...

[Joseph Lijoi]

Hi Joe,

I've enjoyed your comments...although we, of course, have a slightly different take on the subject.  One area, however, I think could stand a little elaboration from my point of view.  Gallons of fuel and practice.

I am an absolute nut case on adapting a stunt ship (and all of its paraphernalia, especially the handle--the interface between the pilot and the machine) to the desires of the pilot.  I believe that flying thousands of flights on a poorly refined airplane system so that you can predict the required inputs to get a good output is an inferior way of becoming a winning stunt pilot.  Yes, it can be done the other way around and Jimmy was pretty much the poster boy for doing so.  He flew thousands of flights on numerous ships in less than state of the art set-ups and trim and competed with the very best.  Jimmy felt...and was probably correct...that flying those many gallons of gas were necessary to be competitive.  I would also note that he was quite open about having to build something like thirteen airplanes over the space of only a couple of years because they "broke" on a regular basis.

Those that espouse adapting the system to the pilot can remain competitive with very little practice for the simple reason that, when they system is properly refined, flying competitive patterns isn't much more difficult than drawing the shapes on a piece of paper.  Modest and repeatable inputs result in the airplane going where it needs to go without any "adaptation" by the pilot.  He/she can merely point the pointy end where it needs to go and the system will do the rest.  This remains largely so even in bad air...calm to windy and turbulent.

Brett is probably the poster boy for such success (although Bob Hunt's stuff allows him to always be competitive whether or not he's burned many gallons of fuel as well).  Ask anyone who has flown one of Brett's airplanes and you will get universal raves about its "point and shoot" nature.  Brett burns very little fuel.  He had almost no practice time prior to the Team Trials because of work, yet finished a fraction of a point out of the first alternate position.

One step beyond that, last weekend we had the Meat and Meet contest in Woodland.  Brett was there after the trials and I was there with my "built in 1991 Trivial Pursuit" that I hadn't flown at all since last October except at the Northwest Regionals in May.  At both of those contests I failed to put in an official flight because my heretofore wonderful RoJett .61 simply wouldn't run the same way for more than about five seconds in a row.  So there hadn't been a complete "pattern" on the airplane in at least a year.

Long story short, a few days before the Meat and Meet I pulled an old .46 VF off the shelf (the ship was originally built for a .40VF), rebuilt it because the  bearings were shot and stuck it in the T.P.  I put one flight on it the morning of the contest, found the engine up to the task and then flew it against Brett and got beat...by seven points.  My practice flight on it was one of the best flights I've ever flown.  The official flights in much warmer air were a bit inferior because the needle setting (part of the "system") wasn't yet "programmed".

The day before I had been helping a good friend get his new KA10 ready for the contest.  I watched him fly several "OK" patterns with it but he wasn't happy with its performance and asked if I would fly it.  I did so and simply stopped doing tricks after a few attempts because I didn't want to risk the beautiful airplane.  The "system" was out of whack...both the airplane and the control system including the handle.  The owner was "adapting" to the system instead of adapting it to suit his needs.  Over the next several flights we turned the emphasis around by: changing the CG, the flap/elevator throw ratio and dialing in some up or down elevator (forget which...vice flap), added a tab to the outboard flap, tweaked the flap, added some tip weight, opened the spacing on his hard point handle about 1/4" at both ends and a handful of other things. 

I then flew the airplane again and, although not yet perfect, was perfectly comfortable flying it through a decent pattern.  The next day the young man finished a very competitive third...and had a big smile on his face because his difficult to fly airplane now flew patterns without scaring him periodically.

I know this sounds like a personal puff piece, but the point is to demonstrate how valuable it is to set up the system properly so you don't have to flying thousands of flights to remain competitive.  Among the most important parts of the system is that interface between the pilot and the rest of the system...the handle.  A stunt pilot limits himself if he doesn't at least investigate the merits/demerits of available alternatives

You are absolutely right, however, about the need to commit to being competitive and I would never suggest that guys like Brett haven't done so.  IMHO, however, their commitment to optimizing the system rather than committing to thousands of dedicated hours at the field adapting themselves to a flawed system is a superior approach to a happy stunt "career".

Glad to see you're going to give a shot at a Hot Rock style handle.  I look forward to your assessment...and won't be a bit offended if you decide we "upright, unbiased, hardpoint, vertical neutral" troglodytes are full of hot air.  Have fun.

Ted

p.s. the combination of an optimized system and burned fuel, however, is tough to beat.  Mssrs Walker, Werwage and Fitzgerald are the poster boys for total commitment!

Ted

I love that word troglodyte.  In essence the word means a person characterized by reclusive habits or outmoded or reactionary attitudes.  Powerful stuff.

I loved that column in MA and everything else that you write because it not only provides useful information but was also really fun to read.  I am honored that you have chosen to respond to my post.

Sometimes the troglodyte is on to something.  What frequently appears to be outmoded is really the most elegant solution to the problem at hand (no pun intended).  If there is a consensus amongst a large contingent of individuals who have achieved a level of performance at a given task, then the wise student of that task is required to listen. 
I may have been dismissive by stating something to the effect of “they are used to it” or “they burn a lot of fuel” when in reality the concept that they espouse is actually preferred because it works.
 
Practice with equipment that is less than optimal is bad practice.  This is true in music as well.  Equipment may be limited by economics or other factors, and the individual may overcome the shortcomings because he has to, but as you and others have stated, this will ultimately lead to bad habits that have to be relearned.  A wall will be hit and progress will stop.  Maybe Jim Casale learned to play on a lousy saxophone and decided to approach Stunt with the same hard assed concept.  This is not to negate his level of achievement, but I am of the opinion that an individual who insists on this approach is doing it for reasons other than perfecting the craft.  Without trying to sound like some Buddhist monk or something the path of least resistance is the wise path.  And sometimes that path requires theft.

But it all requires practice.  Your experience with the KA10 shows that through practice, you have the knowledge to be able to trim the plane.  More importantly, you know what you it is supposed to feel like.  Knowing what you want requires practice, which is time.  Practice requires learning how to practice.

There is a philosophy to practice and I hear very little about it.  This discussion has been fun!
 
Based on your post I am surprised that you aren’t flying electric.  It would certainly eliminate another variable.  I haven’t tried it yet because I find the noise and the smell offensive.

You see, us troglodytes wear many suits.

Take care.