So, who has inherited his mantle?

[Scott Richlen]

Speaking of Jack Sheeks, considering the present day, who has inherited his mantle?  Who would you say (of those still alive and active) produces the widest array (widest diversity of designs) and most numerous designs for CLPA?

Sort of hard to judge since there is no magazine that publishes CLPA designs regularly.

I can think maybe Pat Johnston.  Anyone else?

[Ken Culbertson]

I have to agree on Pat.  The sport just doesn't lend itself to much in the way of design innovation anymore, so everything is either a WWII fighter or tinkering with an SV type takeoff.  I really miss the wild diversity of the 60's and 70's.  I might add that the current top designs are producing planes that more than handle the current pattern, so design innovation is not really high on most flier's minds.  I might also add that a lot of those wild published designs from that era really didn't fly all that well.

Ken

[Scott Richlen]

   the current top designs are producing planes that more than handle the current pattern, so design innovation is not really high on most flier's minds.  I might also add that a lot of those wild published designs from that era really didn't fly all that well.

Thinking about this a little and I'm concluding that maybe we are focusing on the competition aspect a little too much and the fun aspect a little too little.  It's to the point that some of us feel like it is no fun unless we win.  And that's not good.  We should be having fun whether we are winniing or losing.  After all, there really are only about 5 people nation-wide who can be considered realistically to have a shot at winning the Walker-Cup.  With respect to that, all the rest of us angst ourselves needlessly thinking about how we'll go to the Nats (if we even go to the Nats) and win.  I think most of us understand that deep down inside.  So, why not let your inner Jack Sheeks out? 

[L0U CRANE]

Somewhere between total dominance-seeking competition and the "sheer joy" unserious flier may lie the best answer... or appproach to an answer.

First: ask why we fly control line? Once competent with simple takeoffs and landings, what do we want, beyond boring holes in near-ground flight? (Sometimes VERY boring holes in the sky...)

Speed?
Measured speed? OK, clear enough. What do we compare our flight speeds with, and why that  aspect? Comparisons are possible with speeds listed in records or recent competitions. But those require accepting some conditions, e.g., engine type and size, line length, mono- or two- line, likely more factor details...

Scale?
How "faithful" to the original 1-to-1 aircraft? What 'compromises' from that inspiration are tolerable to us (and others??)  Whose responses matter?

Innovation?
Unless you really like to invest the ime, money, materials and effort in something never before done (or tried?) what will you get out of the effort. And if you DO all that takes, and it works, will you enjoy in doing it again and again (see  'boring  holes', above...)

If you merely(?) enjoy construction, fine, but why construct an object which has a purpose, by definition, flight? Non-flying scale projects can be challenging and fulfilling, too. Their purpose is display, and the challenge is doing a good job.

The CLPA patteern is a challenge that cannot be met perfectly - a mountain that cannot be 'mastered'. Improvements earned are personally rewarding -whether or not in contests. Don't even think about judges...

The cost and use of the field equipment is significant. So are the costs of  'good' items involved, and their maintenance...

If you find your level of intensity gratifying, go for it. Some challenge MUST remain, or it's not worth doing. CL ultimately urges good bonding among fliers - launches, for example, and so much else. We share, to some degree, the fascination and rewards of this, and the good folks we do it with!

[Matt Colan]

Thinking about this a little and I'm concluding that maybe we are focusing on the competition aspect a little too much and the fun aspect a little too little.  It's to the point that some of us feel like it is no fun unless we win.  And that's not good.  We should be having fun whether we are winniing or losing.  After all, there really are only about 5 people nation-wide who can be considered realistically to have a shot at winning the Walker-Cup.  With respect to that, all the rest of us angst ourselves needlessly thinking about how we'll go to the Nats (if we even go to the Nats) and win.  I think most of us understand that deep down inside.  So, why not let your inner Jack Sheeks out?

Competition is fun and winning is even fun-ner! 

[Ken Culbertson]

So, why not let your inner Jack Sheeks out? 

I am all for that and I agree with most of what you are saying.  Personally, I find competition the most fun that you can have with your clothes on whether I place or not.  I find just flying to be a close second.  I also find tinkering with new ideas building a lot of fun as well.  I think Jack was one of a kind.  His planes were always different, not just slapping a new fuselage on a proven set of numbers and airfoils.  There is a reason the top fliers build the same design over and over. Now I have to move on to the part of this hobby that I just hate - trimming.

Ken

[Jim Kraft]

    I flew control line for fun in the 50's and 60's. I started flying R/C Pattern competition in the early 70's. My last Pattern contest was in 94. I had started flying control line again in about 92. My thought for control line was to just build and fly whatever I wanted. But, birds of a feather flock together and I started flying competition for the fellowship.

Old time became my favorite event along with ignition. Probably from my early exposer to control line in the middle 40's. Those times of watching the guys cranking on old spark engines is etched in my memory bank. I have probably had more fun the last 30 years in modeling than I have my entire modeling life.

I have kept flying a little R/C mostly with old time free flights and ignition engines, or one of the many biplanes I have with 4 strokers. I have aways been more of a fun flyer but love the comradery. I have a room full of trophy's that are just icing on the cake from having fun.  I am not exactly what you would call an over achiever. LOL.

[Ty Marcucci]

Way back when, it was Bob Palmer. He had three at once in three different mags..Present day, don't forget Bob Hunt, he has put out several designs, Al Rabe, Ted Fancher to name a few that had three or five designs published and or kitted.  Paul Walker is another. In his day Windy Urtnowski had several as well.

But for sheer prolific production, you are right, no one has beat Jack Sheeks.

[Brett Buck]

The sport just doesn't lend itself to much in the way of design innovation anymore, so everything is either a WWII fighter or tinkering with an SV type takeoff.

    Goodness, please get out more, like, come to the NATs. Look at Chris Cox's airplane, and Paul Walkers, or David's, or mine for that matter. Cris might have a WW-II fighter, and none of the others are remotely "SV takeoffs". Then look at Chris or Paul's on the *inside*. There's a lot of design innovation, but you aren't around when it is happening.

     Brett

[Brett Buck]

   By the way, Pat J. might be the closest equivalent, but (and without disparaging Mr. Sheeks in any way) I think  you are selling him a bit short. Pat is not trying to crank out a plane a week, starting with a Nobler kit and a tube of Ambroid on Friday afternoon and test flying his new original design on Sunday. Bobby's story tells you how it was done. Pat's airplanes are always, as far as I can tell, very sound and good-flying designs. And, while I may haven't seen Jack at his best, Pat certainly flies a lot better.

  No one is doing, or likely to ever do, what Jack was doing - it's just a different era.

     Brett

[Scott Richlen]

Pat's airplanes are always, as far as I can tell, very sound and good-flying designs. 

I've seen the list of his plans and bought both plans and a kit from him.  And built his P-51B profile design (the one he designed for Tom Dixon.  A really good stunt ship, by the way.)  But there's a big difference between looking at a list of plans versus reading an article about a new design with pictures and build commentary ala Jack Sheeks in Flying Models.  That's something I dearly miss.  Am I the only one?  For instance, wouldn't it be neat to see each of Pat's designs featured in a continuing series of individual "build articles" in, say, Stunt News?

[Bruce Shipp]

The late Allen Brickhaus stands out to me as one of the few who rivaled Jack as a prolific and well published designer.  Can anyone provide the number of construction articles each had published in FM?

[Bruce Shipp]

A quick search through Flying Models web site resulted in the following construction articles totals:

Sheets: 44 (with 6-8 of those being RC designs)
Brickhaus:  22

[Dan McEntee]

A quick search through Flying Models web site resulted in the following construction articles totals:

Sheets: 44 (with 6-8 of those being RC designs)
Brickhaus:  22

  Hi Bruce ;

     i would agree to Allen being one of the most prolific designers and authors. In addition to his articles in Flying Models, not counting the regular monthly column he did for years, he also published articles in M.A.N. and overseas. Here is is Stunthanger H.O.F. bio with a list of about 50 all together:     https://stunthanger.com/smf/stunt-hangar-hall-of-fame/autobiography-of
 
       This is a different era. I would say that we have been sort of 'stuck" in design and fewer people designing them. Sort of natural with the decline in new participants in the hobby. It takes imagination and inspiration to come up with hew designs and innovations and like the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention! I think it wouldn't be too far of a stretch or exaggeration to say that most everything has been done or tried!! You have to really ponder the thought, what's next out there?

  Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee
   

[Brent Williams]

. 

[Mike Palko]

Dick Sarpolus was not well know for control line stunt but did publish several (maybe more than I am aware of) control line designs. Include the RC designs he published and I would bet he contributed as many as anyone else.

Mike

[Scott Richlen]

   I think it wouldn't be too far of a stretch or exaggeration to say that most everything has been done or tried!! 

Oh-oh Dan.  That's a bit like the quote from Charles H. Duell, the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. Mr. Deull's most famous attributed utterance is that "everything that can be invented has been invented."

Of course, it's apocryphal.  See here: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/01/tracing-the-quote-everything-that-can-be-invented-has-been-invented.html

 

[Dan McEntee]

Oh-oh Dan.  That's a bit like the quote from Charles H. Duell, the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. Mr. Deull's most famous attributed utterance is that "everything that can be invented has been invented."

Of course, it's apocryphal.  See here: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/01/tracing-the-quote-everything-that-can-be-invented-has-been-invented.html

 

    I meant that kind of tongue in cheek. Lets modify that to say that most anything that is within the interest or reach of the common modeler and is economically viable to put into the current market!!

  Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee

[Scott Richlen]

  Lets modify that to say that most anything that is within the interest or reach of the common modeler and is economically viable to put into the current market!!

Are you sure you didn't just stick your tongue into your other cheek?   

[Scott Richlen]

Another prolific designer before Jack's time was Walt Musciano.  He didn't design too many stunt ships, but his Stunt Rocket is quite something for Old Time Stunt.

By the way, has anyone ever put together a list of all the control line plans that were in Popular Mechanics?

[Frank Imbriaco]

Let's not forget Scarinzi . He really cranked them out in the 50s and 60s.
 I also don't know of anyone who, since the new millennium, has designed more stunt ships than Bob Hunt. That group hasn't been published, but there are many that can be seen at competitions. Singles and twins. Of course, let's not forget Bob's designs from the mid 60s through the nineties; many of which were published.

[Jim Carter]

I should probably keep out of this discussion but has everyone forgotten Mr. Ken Willard?  Granted while they weren't all CLPA, when speaking about variation, when I was a kid and even today, it brightened my day to see the myriad of neat and innovative designs published. 

[Scott Richlen]

Granted while they weren't all CLPA, 

I searched under Ken Willard on Outerzone.  80 plans!!  However, they were all RC with a few FF.   

[Mike Griffin]

Thinking about this a little and I'm concluding that maybe we are focusing on the competition aspect a little too much and the fun aspect a little too little.  It's to the point that some of us feel like it is no fun unless we win.  And that's not good.  We should be having fun whether we are winniing or losing.  After all, there really are only about 5 people nation-wide who can be considered realistically to have a shot at winning the Walker-Cup.  With respect to that, all the rest of us angst ourselves needlessly thinking about how we'll go to the Nats (if we even go to the Nats) and win.  I think most of us understand that deep down inside.  So, why not let your inner Jack Sheeks out?

Scott, to me, this is an excellent point.  I never competed that much in contests because my real career was super competitive and the last thing I wanted to do was add more pressure on top of something that I did for fun.  I was never very good anyway at doing the pattern so I looked at building and flying as a relaxing therapy.  I did enjoy producing kits when I did that and considered that my contribution to the hobby.  That is just the way I always looked at the hobby.  Just pure fun.  No pressure.

Mike

[Pat Johnston]

Pat here. I am really humbled by what nice things have been said about my designs. My plans list is a bit over 250 at this point with many of those in both IC and Electric. My goal is to provide designs that we all want to build and fly. I have as much fun doing designs as I can tolerate. Sometimes a buddy just mentions a thought about a plane and it inspires me to get back on the ACAD program. This is how the whole “502” series started by my flying partner Scott Danner mentioning how a 500” plane would be cool. Now there are over 30 designs in this group (IC and electric).  Part of the reason for the 502 series is that the electric setup is grossly efficient for this size of plane.
Anyway, I could go on and on. Thanks again.
Pat Johnston
Idaho Skunk Works

[Bob Hunt]

Well, if it's the most published designs of any kind in modeling magazines, it's Dick Sarpolus for sure. He has published both RC and CL designs, and his work has appeared in all the major modeling publications. He's had RC pattern, sport, racing, jet, scale (a lot of scale), soaring, and giant sport designs in print, along with a plethora of 1/2A CL profile models and some larger CL designs, including a canard (he also published at least two RC canards). I'd bet a bunch that no one has had as many designs published as has Dick Sarpolus. The number of published designs by Dick has to be approaching 70 or more.

And, to go along with Scott's thoughts about competition versus fun, Dick was all about fun. 

Bob Hunt

[Scott Richlen]

  I never competed that much in contests because my real career was super competitive and the last thing I wanted to do was add more pressure on top of something that I did for fun.  I was never very good anyway at doing the pattern so I looked at building and flying as a relaxing therapy.

Mike: that is sort of getting at my point which is to have fun in all aspects of this hobby.  It is a real shame that people don't enter a competition "because I probably won't win anyway."  We put the pressure on ourselves!  We need to re-focus and re-frame!  Entering a contest can be about a lot more than just winning!  It can be a great learning experience - the top guys at the contest are usually the ones that have their engines sorted out, their starting techniques down, and their planes in trim.  And between flights they are happy to "talk shop".  Entering a contest is a great way to force yourself to prepare.  It gives you a hard dead-line to get the last coats of clear on the new ship, figure out your best starting technique, seriously practice that one maneuver you just can't get right.  And it can get you to ask yourself a very important question:"Why am I getting so anxious over a contest flying toy airplanes?"   If you think about where this hobby sits on your "fun spectrum" shouldn't it be more fun the better you do it, the more often you do it, and the more focused you do it?  See?  We just have to set ourselves down and give ourselves a rah! rah! talk once in a while - look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself "doggone it!  Quit sniveling and go out and have yourself some fun!  Lots of it!!!"   

[Dan Berry]

My brother Clayton told me about meeting Jack Sheeks at a Brodak meet.
Clayton told Mr Sheeks that he was seriously impressed by how many and often there was a design of his in the magazine.
He said Sheeks just chuckled and " I had a family to feed".

[Dave_Trible]

My brother Clayton told me about meeting Jack Sheeks at a Brodak meet.
Clayton told Mr Sheeks that he was seriously impressed by how many and often there was a design of his in the magazine.
He said Sheeks just chuckled and " I had a family to feed".

Therein lies one past motivator for so many designs and articles by many.  The publications had a big subscriber lists and cash to pay for content.  As time has gone by that has all changed as well as kit makers not shopping for new products, so a great deal of motivation is gone for the time and material investment in creating many new designs. For the competitor it's 'safer' to stay pretty close to what they know works well for them and not waste too much time or money (quite a bit these days) on unusual projects that may not end up as desired.  When a new idea comes along it can be adapted to the existing creations.  Sort of like keeping the B52 fleet in service for 80 to 100 years....

Dave

[Scott Richlen]

Sort of like keeping the B52 fleet in service for 80 to 100 years....

It's one thing to fly the Ringmaster your Grandpa flew....

Quite another if it's the same B-52 he flew!

[Dan McEntee]

It's one thing to fly the Ringmaster your Grandpa flew....

Quite another if it's the same B-52 he flew!

  I think that may have already been done!!

   Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee

[phil c]

Competition is fun and winning is even fun-ner! 

Right on Matt!  Most PA flyers are still having fun.  If you have fun flying make sure you get through all the maneuvers and complete the flight with at least 2 laps from level flight and land.  Hurray!!  That makes you a SUCCESS!  The rest of the flight is window dressing for people who like to practice for 10 flights at least twice a week.

Phil C.

ps. Since I got out of the hospital every day is great for me.