Handles and Handle Bias

[Peter Nevai]

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!

Ted

Same here, The amount of compostable balsa scrap would certinly increase should I attempt to rotate it 90 degrees. Funny how your brain gets wired like that. I imagine even just entertaining the thought of flying inverted with the hand upright would immediately result in the plane, earth bonding experience. I also only hold the hand that way only when flying inverted laps. The wirst position changing dynamically when following through or initiating Out side manuevers and such. I guess it depends how you first learned to fly inverted. I suppose those who learned by extending lazy 8's larger and larger till they were staying inverted find the verticle handle more natural, while those of us who just went for it from the beginning most likely do it palms up.

Any way that is how I was taught. The fellow said this to me. "Start a loop and as you go over the top point the handle in the direction the plane is going, if you think you are getting into trouble don't do anything just stand still and stop turning with the airplane, or even move your hand in the opposite dierction that the plane is flying. The model will always go UP if you do this. And it works like a charm every time. No need to remember Up is down and down is up, all you need to remember is move your hand opposite the direction the plane is flying.

For newbies learning to fly inverted, When the plane is flying inverted (Clockwise) and you hold your hand palms up. The Down line is the one always furthest from the plane. If you stop spinning with the plane and hold your arm straight palms up the down line will automatically get more and more input the further the plane travels around the circle this will force the plane higher and higher into the air, rather than downwards toward the dreaded ground. The same is achieved by moving your hand opposite the direction the plane is flying, so long as the hand is palms up.

Some out there would have you believe that this is absolutely not the way to learn to fly inverted. IMHO I think that stance has no merit, historically there have been and still are plenty of CLPA flyers that are top pilots, who fly inverted palms up.

[Dick Pacini]

This got me thinking.  Admittedly, it has been many times around the sun since I have flown, but I recall flying palms up inverted.  However, strangely enough, I recall that I did the reverse wingover with palm down.  It just seemed easier that once you were overhead, as your arm came down, the natural flow was to just roll your hand palm down.  This only works for the half lap inverted for the maneuver.

Years ago, Jack Sheeks gave me a tip for the wingover.  He told me to take a stance with my right foot upwind and left foot downwind.  The idea was to start the wingover when the wind hit your face, follow the plane directly overhead, aiming for where your left foot was pointing.  That would split the circle.  Then, at the appropriate time (prior to stuffing it in) go inverted, with a slight bend at the waist, leaving your feet planted and twisting your upper torso as the plane travels the half circle.  Then, hit the down elevator and follow through overhead back to level flight.  Resume normal foot and leg action.  Gee, it really is easier to do than write down how to do it.

[Steve Helmick]

"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."

  Steve

[Ted Fancher]

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

Hi Joe,
Shucks, I've been accused of lots worst than being merely "reactionary"!  Lived through 'em all.

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.

Thank you for writing something of interest.

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.

"I'm obviously of the opinion that I fit into the latter comment.  Others, equally obviously, might not share that opinion  .
 
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.

This is a great paragraph (especially the part about theft...to which I plead guilty but for which I try to regularly confess with appropriate approbation); I would only make a minor adjustment.  There is quite a big difference between obtaining sound equipment as a musician (assuming, as a musician, you purchase a fundamentally sound device with which to hone your skills...which, for the most part, are the only devices which pass competitive muster in the marketplace) and obtaining a sound stunt ship that qualifies to win the Walker Trophy at the US Nats.  (W.C.s obviously allow the same opportunities to the fliers as the budding musician in that the Yatsenkos produce high quality off the shelf stuff...should a "modeler" be interested in pursuing that course of...er, hum...expertise).  Jimmy's amazing talent was in committing himself to apply the same hard work at square eights he applied to learning scales and riffs on his instruments.  Talent and commitment can pay great dividends.  The difference is that he either chose the same path for both endeavors or wasn't aware of the alternate path available to him to hone the performance of his beautiful airplanes (at least one of which was a concours winner).

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.

While I'm not in total disagreement with this, I would qualify the sources of my "knowledge".  I've been blessed in that regard by a lifetime immersed in aviation...literally from my first memories of flying--at age five or so in the back seat of my father's PT-26.  I love anything that flies and was fascinated by learning why and how they did so.  Bluntly put, I've had my hands on hundreds of airplanes in thousands if not millions of operations and know intuitively from that experience what "good flying things 'feel' like".  I know how "easy" a task can be if done right and how hard it can become when the tools at the pilot's disposal ...trim, power and energy...aren't used correctly.

That "life" experience was multiplied many times over by virtue of the modelers and other aviation professionals with whom I've been associated throughout my life starting with Boeing engineers like Bob Emmett (my earliest mentor) and capped off by my associations with expert observers of objects in motion like Brett Buck...who at one time I mentored in modeling and who now mentors me when I go astray with my blathering on-line or at the field.  Throw in close associations with guys like David Fitz and his late father, Bill (a highly respected and decorated aviation safety professional and pilot), Paul Walker and "sometimes Crotchety" Howard Rush and there is a wealth of knowledge base that feeds off one another on a regular basis.  Shoot, even my sometimes rancorous exchanges with Al Rabe (whose talent, innovation and career I applaud despite the occasional head knocking that appears to characterize us in public) has had a positive impact on my investigation of our toys--an investigation that occurred far from the flying field...if, for no other reason, to poke back at him!

The bottom line of all that above is that, after working hard to win my first Nats back in 1992 (ooops, 1982!  My how time flies when you're having a good time), I've pretty much coasted and probably haven't burned a gallon of gas for every 20 plus by guys against whom I can still fly close enough to not embarrass myself too badly...utilizing the benefits of the background and associations mentioned.  By the way, I don't pretend to take "credit" for remotely all of that.  It was serendipity and propinquity that allowed it to happen...plus a desire to understand this stuff.


There is a philosophy to practice and I hear very little about it.  This discussion has been fun!

I couldn't agree more.
 
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.

Aha!  You seem to have missed the point, Joe.  My aim has never been to "eliminate" obstacles.  To strike the bulls eye one must "overcome" them!  As my previous post illuminated, every Achilles has his heel and I appear to have met mine--motor runs...but I shall not retreat!  Internal  combustion must prevail if, for no other reason, the love of the smell of synthetic oil in the morning.

You see, us troglodytes wear many suits.

Indeed.

Take care.

Care is for sissies!  

Thanks for the exchange,

Ted

[Ted Fancher]

Same here, The amount of compostable balsa scrap would certinly increase should I attempt to rotate it 90 degrees. Funny how your brain gets wired like that. I imagine even just entertaining the though of flying inverted with the hand upright would immediately result in the plane, earth bonding experience. I also only hold the hand that way only when flying inverted laps. The wirst position changing dynamically when following throug or initiating Out side manuevers and such. I guess it depends how you first learned to fly inverted. I suppose those who learned by extending lazy 8's larger and larger thill they were staying inverted fins the verticle handle more natural, while thos of us who just went for it from the beginning most likely do it palms up.

Any way that is how I was taught. The fellow said this to me. "Start a loop and as you go over the top point the handle in the direction the plane is going, if you think you are getting into trouble don't do anything just stand still and stop turning with the airplane, or even move your hand in the opposite dierction that the plane is flying. The model will always go UP if you do this. And it works like a charm every time. No need to remember Up is down and down is up, all you need to remember is move your hand opposite the direction the plane is flying.

For newbies learning to fly inverted When the plane is flying inverted (Clockwise) and you hold your hand palms up. The Down line is the one always furthest from the plane. If you stop spinning with the plane and hold your arm straight palms up the down line will automatically gat more and more input the further the plane travels around the circle this will force the plane higher into the air, rather than downwards toward the dreaded ground. The same is achieved by moving your hand opposite the direction the plane is flying, so long as the hand is palms up.

Some out there would have you believe that this is absolutely not the way to learn to fly inverted. IMHO I think that stance has no merit, historically there have been and still are plenty of CLPA flyers that are top pilots, who fly inverted palms up.

"Thanks, Peter.  I needed that!  "

Ted

[Peter Nevai]

Of course using the palms up method does not eliminate the occasional brain fart which inevitably happes to all of us, which brigns me to the second epifiny I had....... Those two level laps are a god send. Most brain farts are caused by attempting too many different manuevers one right after the other. I suspect that pattern scores would decline drastically if you were to remove those two intermediary laps. I remember that often much of my sport flying was doing just that, tossing one thing in right after the other, then inevitably changing my mind midway through............instant brain fart.....................balsa scrap.

Now there is a new CLPA event for you, do the entire pattern non stop, no intermediary laps and to top it the order of the maneuvers selected at random for each entrant. I gather it would introduce a whole new level of difficulty as well as contribute greatly to the scrap balsa reserves. Call it Iron Man Stunt.

[PJ Rowland]

"  after working hard to win my first Nats back in 1992  "

HAHAHA even though you corrected it.. I dont think any amount of hard work was going to win a Nats in 1992..


Sounds to me like your on the way to getting a comp spec model and joining everyone at the Nats !

I dont buy the retired routine.. 

[Brett Buck]

Now there is a new CLPA event for you, do the entire pattern non stop, no intermediary laps

  This part I do on demonstration flights with the Skyray/20FP. Roll for takeoff, break ground, go straight over the top into the reverse wingover, then do all the stunts with no breaks. Even did it with a brand-new engine once.

   I don't think that the random part would be a huge challenge, assuming you could *remember* it, or have a caller that is up to speed. If you had to memorize it, then there might be some entertaining carnage.

   Brett

[Mike Ferguson]

Hey Ted,

Thanks, as always, for the insights. Always good stuff. 

I just wanted to add a little to something you mentioned earlier:

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.

I just wanted to address this because it sounds here like "Jimmy didn't know how to trim an airplane".  He did ... he was just trimming them in a way that most of the East Coast guys were trimming planes in the Eighties. Namely, make the plane nose heavy, so it'll "groove" and get a harder corner - that was the philosophy being espoused by a lot of top fliers in the area then. Jimmy wasn't the only guy then doing this either - Glen Meador trimmed this way, I believe, and so did Lou Dudka, and Bill Simons, and a whole lot of other talented fliers. Windy was the only top flier back then I can remember at contests in New Jersey who had tail heavy airplanes. Even Bob Hunt mentions this in the "Saturn" article as this was how he trimmed ships for a long time, until he began flying more with Billy Werwage and adjusted how he trimmed airplanes. I think this is why many of the designs from that era from those guys had big flaps, and big tails.

You can argue that this is the "wrong" way to trim an airplane - or, at least, it's certainly a more inefficient way of trimming. But it's how it was done back then, at least in parts of the East Coast.

Also ... well, to be perfectly honest, even if Jimmy was flying Brett's Infinity, and it was in perfect trim, he still would've flown a bajillion practice flights with it. That was more an aspect of his personality, rather than a need to better trim the airplane (although sometimes it worked out that way). I remember watching him lots of times at the Nats with his coach Keith (my dad) and we thought the airplane was perfectly fine as it was ... or at least it was as good as it was going to get. But Jimmy was always convinced that with a couple of more practice flights, it'd be even better.

The few times he decided he didn't need more practice, he'd get antsy, and decide to put up "one more practice flight" anyway. Were these flights always helpful? Probably not, at least in terms of the plane flying better ... but he always felt way more confident with a ton of practice flights under his belt, and I do think that translated to better scores.

I do find it kind of interesting to see how the electric planes are trimming out more nose heavy than their IC counterparts. If Jimmy ever came back to stunt, I think he'd do really well with one.

[PJ Rowland]

" we thought the airplane was perfectly fine as it was ... or at least it was as good as it was going to get. But Jimmy was always convinced that with a couple of more practice flights, it'd be even better.

The few times he decided he didn't need more practice, he'd get antsy, and decide to put up "one more practice flight" anyway. Were these flights always helpful? Probably not, at least in terms of the plane flying better ... but he always felt way more confident with a ton of practice flights under his belt, and I do think that translated to better scores."


Thats the first time i've heard another flier articulate what I feel most days in my comp mindset.

[Joseph Lijoi]

Ted

I finally did get out to fly today and in short, the troglodytes rule the day.

I didn't have a Hot Rock.  But I took an Baron type handle with no bias that I had.  I set it up with no bias and the aluminum upright bar right on top of my knuckles, trying to get as close to the Hot Rock as I could.  I have a Hot Rock but it is old so I used it as template.

The outsides were much easier and pretty much eveything that was said in previous threads about handle bias was true.  I tried keeping my hand vertical and by the sixth flight everything was much better.  While it was not comfortable for me at first, the airplane seemed more comfortable. 

I apparently decieved myself into believing that I had a better way.  I forgot that the handle was meant to fly the plane and I ended up wasting a lot of time.

My flying buddies has one of your handles and while I intially dismissed it, it is a good fit for may hand and the contact with the first and fourth fingers will enable me to use my fingers a bit, which seems to help me make minor corrections in the flight path.  This is something that I do with all the handles that I have used.  I did not use your handle but I will call Carl Shoup today.

If you or Mr. Buck feels that I should not be using any finger action then please let me know!  I am prepared to put levels on my house plants!

I think your concept is valid and I suggest to anyone that they should try it for themselves and if it works, they should steal it!

My hats off to you and the other Buckian west coast philosophers.

[Ted Fancher]

Ted

I finally did get out to fly today and in short, the troglodytes rule the day.

I didn't have a Hot Rock.  But I took an Baron type handle with no bias that I had.  I set it up with no bias and the aluminum upright bar right on top of my knuckles, trying to get as close to the Hot Rock as I could.  I have a Hot Rock but it is old so I used it as template.

The outsides were much easier and pretty much eveything that was said in previous threads about handle bias was true.  I tried keeping my hand vertical and by the sixth flight everything was much better.  While it was not comfortable for me at first, the airplane seemed more comfortable.  

I apparently decieved myself into believing that I had a better way.  I forgot that the handle was meant to fly the plane and I ended up wasting a lot of time.

My flying buddies has one of your handles and while I intially dismissed it, it is a good fit for may hand and the contact with the first and fourth fingers will enable me to use my fingers a bit, which seems to help me make minor corrections in the flight path.  This is something that I do with all the handles that I have used.  I did not use your handle but I will call Carl Shoup today.

If you or Mr. Buck feels that I should not be using any finger action then please let me know!  I am prepared to put levels on my house plants!

I think your concept is valid and I suggest to anyone that they should try it for themselves and if it works, they should steal it!

My hats off to you and the other Buckian west coast philosophers.

Hey Joe!

Glad you tried out the concept and even happier that you found it of benefit.  I particularly liked your comment about forgetting the handle is meant to fly the airplane.  That's exactly right and is the reason I've often said a flier would never mount his bellcrank 10 or 15 degrees from square, why would he want to do so with the handle which is nothing other than a part of the control system.

I.e. use of fingers.  I'm a huge advocate of doing so and have often related my initial experiences with the Baron handles which I found myself initially very dissatisfied with because all of my angles were awful and bottoms weren't much better.  I got frustrated and put my Hot Rock back on the airplane and everything fell right back into place.  What was different, however, was I was all of a sudden aware of the pressures I was putting on the arms of the handle with my index and little fingers to "refine" turns, bottoms, etc.  I went straight home and modified my Baron handle (one of Gene Martine's versions that he sold for a number of years) by adding "Hot Rock copy cat" arms on the top and bottom.  I used that handle successfully for many years including a couple of Nats wins. (By the way, a good flying buddy I've known for many years like that modified Baron so much that he made a number of them as gifts for friends who had helped him out over the years...including me.  Thank you, Paul Pomposo!) 

My next (last) epiphany was checking out Paul Walker's hard point handle at the Shanghai WCs in 1994 and deciding if that was good enough for Paul it was something I should try.  Made a "tiny" improvement by adding a bit of neutral adjustability and made the original Fancher Handle by drawing around the shape of a Hot Rock and then building it up just like the one's Carl sells now.  Used it once and, quite literally, have flown nothing seriously since with anything other than one or another of the several I built over the years.  I still fly the original Trivial Pursuit with that original handle and it works just fine, thank you.  

I'm always pleased to see these handle threads take on a life like this one has.  The handle is a very important part of flying well and for many years there simply wasn't any serious discussion about what was good and what not so good about the "functional" aspects in terms of flying the airplane well.  Lots of fancy paint jobs and innovative inflight adjustable stuff...all of which is neat...but much of what is being discussed in terms of function and the best method of employing the critters was pretty much never a part of the discussion.


Joe, I'll look forward to your comments after you try the hard point and vertical neutral combination.  I think you'll agree with a lot of others that find it well worth their time to give it a test drive.

Ted

[Bill Little]

HI Brother Ted,

I tool your suggestion to heart the first time I heard you talk about it. Of course I ain't no great flier, but I do know when something is better!

I found the vertical neutral to be better than sliced bread.  Aaron converted to it instantly, also, after flying my plane with the vertical (no bias) handle.  His flying became much better because of it. 

I am just a tiny bit scared of using the hard point exclusively due to all the years of monkeying around with cable handles, I really like Kaz's handles........... but the first time I used one of "your" handles, I saw a difference.  I just have to find the time to fly more and get used to it.

Bill

[Ted Fancher]

HI Brother Ted,

I tool your suggestion to heart the first time I heard you talk about it. Of course I ain't no great flier, but I do know when something is better!

I found the vertical neutral to be better than sliced bread.  Aaron converted to it instantly, also, after flying my plane with the vertical (no bias) handle.  His flying became much better because of it. 

I am just a tiny bit scared of using the hard point exclusively due to all the years of monkeying around with cable handles, I really like Kaz's handles........... but the first time I used one of "your" handles, I saw a difference.  I just have to find the time to fly more and get used to it.

Bill

Hi Bill,

Glad the neutral adjustment proved helpful to the two of you.  Joe's comments about improvement in outsides is the most consistent positive I hear from guys that decide to convert, so your experience doesn't come as a big surprise.

I'm pretty certain you'll feel a difference when you go to the hard point.  There've been a handful of guys that haven't cared for it or didn't like it on particular airplanes but, for the most part, the acceptance rate has been pretty high.  Hope this finds you feeling well, holidays are just around the corner.

Ted

[Bill Little]

Hi Bill,

Glad the neutral adjustment proved helpful to the two of you.  Joe's comments about improvement in outsides is the most consistent positive I hear from guys that decide to convert, so your experience doesn't come as a big surprise.

I'm pretty certain you'll feel a difference when you go to the hard point.  There've been a handful of guys that haven't cared for it or didn't like it on particular airplanes but, for the most part, the acceptance rate has been pretty high.  Hope this finds you feeling well, holidays are just around the corner.

Ted

Hi Ted,

I have a 4 pack of your handles I got from Carl Shoup and have used them, but like I said, no flying time to speak of leaves a bit of trepidation in switching! LOL!!  I am pretty sure Aaron will be making the complete switch over very soon. And that I will too, pretty soon.  On one of the handles I substituted Mesquite wood for the 1/8" outer layers, looks great!

Thanks for the well wishes, it seems I will still be undergoing chemo therapy until March so the Holidays will be an experience this year.  But the first round has shown almost no side effects.  I did end up with a mouth that feels like one huge fever blister inside...... the cure is Magic Mouthwash (that's the actual trade name! LOL!! )  

I trust that you, Shareen, and your family, will have a great Holiday Season!

All the best
Bill

[john e. holliday]

Only way to make the switch is to put all the old handles on the bay and go exclusively with the Fancher Handles.

[Joseph Lijoi]

Is Carl Shoup still making these?  I emailed him and called with the contact info on Aeromaniacs.  Its been a few days.  He may be busy.

How does the small Brodak handle compare to the Fancher handle (BH 363)?  I would prefer the Fancher handle because I've seen it and it seems to fit my hand well.

The handle for the Hangar 9 PT-19 is very close to, if not, a Hot Rock clone (HAN0109).  It is wood, pretty light, but is not a hardpoint and has a thinner cable. 

[PerttiMe]

Nobody has mentioned Tom Morris handles yet. They seem to come either biased or non.

http://www.clcentral.com/products.asp?cat=26

[RandySmith]

Only way to make the switch is to put all the old handles on the bay and go exclusively with the Fancher Handles.

uhh  NO that is not the only way, The MNT handles have been around for a long time and are made in hard point, and cable,  and have been in use for years

Randy

[Bill Little]

Is Carl Shoup still making these?  (snip)

Hi Joseph,

AFAIK Carl still makes the "Fancher Hard Point Handle", but it seems he is working a LOT at his "day job".

BTW: the handle comes in two sizes, similar to the old Hot Rock and standard E-Z Just.

Big Bear

[Howard Rush]

...I'll look forward to your comments after you try the hard point and vertical neutral combination. 

It sure works for me.  So does the Hot Rock shape. 

[Joseph Lijoi]

Hi Joseph,

AFAIK Carl still makes the "Fancher Hard Point Handle", but it seems he is working a LOT at his "day job".

BTW: the handle comes in two sizes, similar to the old Hot Rock and standard E-Z Just.

Big Bear

Thanks Bill

Carl hasn't responded so I figured he was busy.  Day jobs are like that.   I ordered the small Brodak hardpoint plastic handle.  It looks a lot like the Hot Rock.  It may not be as fat as the one Carl makes but I was hoping to get something together with a hardpoint before the weather gets unreasonable around here, just to try the concept.   The handle my buddy had was from Carl and it was fat and seemed to fit my hand well.  Hopefully I will get the Brodak handle and can try it out.  Over the winter if Carl gets freed up I will order from him.

I dismissed the Hot Rock as something that people were used to but have come to believe that it helps me fly the plane better.  Really it is not "ergonomic" and biased handles seem to be more "comfortable" but I am using this think to fly a model airplane so I am sticking with it.  Based on reasonable thinking the hard point should offer a better "road feel" and perhaps more leverage, based on the connections being more direct.  This would appear to be an advatage mostly with small control inputs.  But this is thoretical and my theories have frequently bit me in the ass.  The hardpoint certainly can't hurt things.

Thanks.

[Paul Walker]

" we thought the airplane was perfectly fine as it was ... or at least it was as good as it was going to get. But Jimmy was always convinced that with a couple of more practice flights, it'd be even better.

The few times he decided he didn't need more practice, he'd get antsy, and decide to put up "one more practice flight" anyway. Were these flights always helpful? Probably not, at least in terms of the plane flying better ... but he always felt way more confident with a ton of practice flights under his belt, and I do think that translated to better scores."








This is part of the reason that Jimmy and myself didn't get along so well on our WC trips. When I was ready and confident, I didn't practice any more. Totally opposite!

In 1992 when I won the WC's, I didn't take ANY warm up flights for the finals. I felt so good that I considered additional practice to only have a negative risk associated with it. I wasn't going to get any better and there was always the risk of damaging the plane in the process.



Isn't interesting the differences people take to this event. Makes it more interesting!