Old stunters vs. new ones

[Frank Sheridan]

Since I wasn't around to see how they flew in competition, how do some of the older stunters, like a Chief or a Smoothie compare to the latest greatest designs as far as capabilities of the airframes in maneuvering? Are the new planes much better flyers, or just differently styled and constructed? If a flier were to install a modern powerplant on an old design, could it be a competitive ship?

[FLOYD CARTER]

Frank.  Depends on what sort of "competition" you mean.  The Chief and Smoothie both do very well these days in Old Time Stunt, although they suffer by losing the "no flap" bonus points.  Both these planes, in the hands of an experienced flyer, could do very well in the modern PAMPA event.

Floyd in OR

[Frank Sheridan]

Floyd, I guess my comparison would be in the modern pattern arena, with the current herd of flapped stunt ships. I have noticed that a lot of experienced flyers seem to keep an "Oldie" around to play with from time to time. My planes have never lived long enough to get "old".

[john e. holliday]

I flunked again.  Now to the question.  The older kits that came about the start of the current pattern I beleive would be just as competitive as the newer designs.  A lot of it is in the power plants we now have a choice of.  The second thing it the control systems we can now use.  I think a Chief, Thunderbird and a Smoothie would be very competitive if all the other planes were about the same size.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

[Mark Scarborough]

Power plants make a huge difference, no denying it. Howeever, there are other design elements that have changed, larger tail surfaces, longer moments and airfoils that make modern designs at least to some degree superior IMHO

[Randy Powell]

Most competitive designs from the late 60s (a few from the early 60s) are still competitive today. With the addition of a modern power plant, controls and construction, most planes from that era can do very well today.

[RandySmith]

Power plants make a huge difference, no denying it. Howeever, there are other design elements that have changed, larger tail surfaces, longer moments and airfoils that make modern designs at least to some degree superior IMHO

Mark
IMO  you are absolutly correct

Regards
Randy

[Will Hinton]

I know my Ruffy is a handfull to try and fly smooth compared to my TP based Crosswinds or my own Ephesian.

[John Miller]

I'm of the opinion that many of the old designs can perform up to standards that would put them in contention for at least Advanced class, and a few right on up into Expert.

I believe that many of the better designs, from the Nobler onwards have this capability.

Modern power makes a huge difference. Modern control systems contribute as well. Modern trimming methods, and equipment, like adjustable leadouts, tip weight boxes, adjustable horns, and getting the incidences correct, will bring the design's capabilities into the moderrn age.

I would bet that a Ruffy built to take good advantage of all these modern helps, would really suprize us.

I would put my All American Eagle up agianst almost any ones plane. Now, if the pilot was as capable.

[RandySmith]

""I would bet that a Ruffy built to take good advantage of all these modern helps, would really suprize us. """

Ted Fancher  would be a perfect one to ask that question

R

[Leo Mehl]

I think some of the sixty's stunters would have a chance to be competitive in the right hands. We now build different and are are permited some opions we diodn' have then. The power plants are the big adjustment. We used to make our controls a LOT FASTER THAN WE DO NOW. we have trimming adjustments and hinges that are better and we build those planes a little heavier tha we used to so they fly better in the wind. After building my Rebel again with all these advantages I think it flies a lot better. The original was 39 ounces and the new one is 48 ounces and it flies a  little better in the wind and still has the same turn that the original had. I think the advent of the LA 46 as a power plant sandwiched into this plane was the biggest improvement. I think also I have better tools and nowledge to build the same plane better. I have seen some planes that fly very well but they are not in the hands of a Paul Walker or David fitzgerald so it is hard to tell if they would have a chance as a world beater or just is always going to be a classic plane. They are a lot more fun to fly than they used to be I don't think a modern day judge would even concider a classic as a winner in the modern stunt circle. Just my opion of course. Just take a look at ice skating and what is now and what used to be.

[Matt Colan]

I think planes from the 60s and 70s in the right hands can compete at the highest levels.  I think even an Ares could be competitive at the highest levels, just look at Bill Werwage's VSC wins with a 59 and 62 Ares.  Yeah, all of the top flyers aren't there, but quite a few of them are, Bob Hunt, Gordan Delaney etc.



This is a video of Bill Werwage flying at VSC 14.  He's flying a 62 Ares with an Aerotiger 36, so modern power has something to do with old stunters versus new ones today.

Edit because Youtube didn't come up, so I just left a link.

[RandySmith]

I think planes from the 60s and 70s in the right hands can compete at the highest levels.  I think even an Ares could be competitive at the highest levels, just look at Bill Werwage's VSC wins with a 59 and 62 Ares.  Yeah, all of the top flyers aren't there, but quite a few of them are, Bob Hunt, Gordan Delaney etc.



This is a video of Bill Werwage flying at VSC 14.  He's flying a 62 Ares with an Aerotiger 36, so modern power has something to do with old stunters versus new ones today.

Edit because Youtube didn't come up, so I just left a link.

And when I asked this very same question to Billy many years ago, he said  NO these older designs are great with modern power but, I would never want to take them to compete (go to war) against planes at the NATs and TTs
He also stated his new designs were much better flying ships
Randy

[Matt Colan]

And when I asked this very same question to Billy many years ago, he said  NO these older designs are great with modern power but, I would never want to take them to compete (go to war) against planes at the NATs and TTs
He also stated his new designs were much better flying ships
Randy

Well if his new planes fly great, I'd love to build one, since now I'm a big fan of his designs, after flying my Ares that is a complete joy to fly and a very smooth turning aircraft.  there was a thread a while ago on SSW about what classic plane a top pilot would fly at the Nats, very interesting read.  Here is the link:

http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=300154&mesg_id=300154&listing_type=search

[Ted Fancher]

""I would bet that a Ruffy built to take good advantage of all these modern helps, would really suprize us. """

Ted Fancher  would be a perfect one to ask that question

R

Randy,

While I'm a big Lew McFarland fan (especially the awesome Shark), I'm less enamored of the Ruffy.  My decision to build the one I flew once or twice at VSC was based largely on nostalgia.  I had flown one at my very first Nats in 1959 as a Junior.  It was a very cool thing for a young man to do (traveled by train with my brother Gary from Seattle down to the "Smog City" (LA) , met tons of new friends and witnessed many of my teen age heroes in the "Wonderland Park" atmosphere of the work hangar at Los Alimitos  (Palmer, a young Werwage, Riley Wooten, Duke Fox and on and on).  It was sort of a competitive nightmare (finished sixth after blowing up the Fox practicing the night before the Junior Finals [yes, they had qualifying and finals for Jr. and Sr. back then]) that had enough highlights to obscure any sense of disappointment.

Sorry, at my age you tend to ramble ...

The Ruffy is sort of a  poster child for a number of things that proved to not be ideal for a competitive stunt ship.  Primarily these are subtle differences that make more modern designs (and a handful of the Ruffy's contemporaries) stand out when faced with less than ideal conditions.  Boiled down to their basics, the shortcomings amount to: too small a tail in relation to the wing area and a much too low aspect ratio.

Ostensibly "similar" to the Nobler of roughly the same vintage, IMHO the Ruffy suffers in comparison.  I built and flew an "original" Nobler from the Brodak kit with what would appear today to be an inferior (read skinny) airfoil that was short lived (a recreation of its demise is viewable on YouTube) but was among the best flying airplanes I've ever built and flown.  After it was squashed I (at the urging of Don McClave) picked up one of Eric Rules terrific laser cut Ruffy kits and put it together for the next VSC.

The comparison over a short period of time was quite dramatic.  Both airplanes were roughly the same wing area (550 or so) and weighed in the very low 40 oz range.  The Nobler is right around a five to one aspect ratio while the Ruffy was closer to four to one (I'd have to go measure it again but that's pretty close) Both airplanes used the identical power train, a Rustler .40 starting out with a Tornado 10 X 4 three blade prop and 10% nitro fuel.   Neither has the now common 25% or so tail volume although the Nobler was significantly larger proportionately and didn't have to be as big because of the higher aspect ratio wing. The Ruffy tail is, frankly, tiny.

About the only trim issue that was necessary (other than minor CG adjustments) to the Nobler was a tab on the end outboard flap to compensate for the overly asymmetrical wing that was ubiquitous in that era.  Other than that the airplane flew as though on rails and loved the four pitch prop.  It flew for the first time a day or two before official flying at VSC that year and came in a very competitive 2nd or 3rd.  It was delightfully balanced and "never" did anything unexpected.  There wasn't much "air" at the event as I recall and it didn't live long enough to gain further exposure so I can only state that it "felt" as though it would handle bad air very effectively.

The Ruffy, by comparison, had numerous trim issues that needed to be resolved to make it fly competitively although it did finish somewhere in the top five at its first VSC.  Two things jumped out right away.  First, it wasn't going to turn corners with one to one flap/elevator ratios.  That was totally expected but the plan was to start out with the ship set up like its contemporary and see how it had to be changed. 

Second, the same powertrain setup that worked so well on the Nobler was totally overwhelmed by the Ruffy. In the hot air of Tucson I ended up flying the ship on roughly 20% nitro and, initially with a 10 X 6 Tornado but finally with a 10.5 X 5.5 Eather courtesy of Keith Trostle.  The reason for this disparity is clearly the low aspect ratio wing which produces more drag for a given amount of lift.  Even reducing the flap throw significantly plus adding tail weight the drag was simply too much for the powertrain that performed so well on the Nobler. It would slow down in maneuvers and never had enough torque to accelerate again until it was back in level flight.

There is no doubt in my mind that an Aero Tiger .36 would improve this situation remarkably. 

With the reduced flap deflection and the "turbo-ed" Rustler the Ruffy flew "OK" in the competition but required much more attention to do the tricks well.  The reduced flap travel made the ship twitchy in corners and difficult to stop at the desired angle. Pull outs at five feet were generally a matter of luck.  It would pull out at six or seven feet the first square and trying to finesse the second would bring it out at two feet the second time 'round.  The next flight those differences might be reversed.

The tiny tail combined with the low aspect ratio wing made the ship very sensitive to CG changes. As a result it would be sort of sluggish in response at the start of the flight and twitchy at the end of the flight.  Again, it was generally difficult to fly well, especially when compared to the smooth predictable response of the Nobler.

Although it's been repeated so often as to sound like a mantra, I've got to repeat that there is a reason the Nobler is considered the Grandaddy of most everything that flies stunt well 60 years later.  We've made modest progress in refining George's original genius but under very good to modestly bad conditions the Nobler is still a worthy work horse.

I can't quite say the same thing for the Ruffy ... despite all the fond memories of my first one.

Ted

[Frank Sheridan]

Ted, I also have fond memories of the Ruffy. My affection for models started when I found an old Kodak slide picture of me in diapers sitting in the grass next to a Ruffy that my father built around 1960 - 61. That picture still exists somewhere, and when I complete the Ruffy that I am now building I will take a picture of me sitting next to it, although I don't think I will be wearing a diaper this time.

[Dennis Adamisin]

Ted has written about the Ruffy before, I am mesmerized by Ted's experiences trimming (wrestling!) the Ruffy into competitive trim.  These are the chronicles of one of the masters of our craft using every tool at his disposal.  Thanks again Ted!

Now, step into the time machine, imagine building a Ruffy from a Sterling kit, powering it with a Fox 35, then fitting it with a 10x6 (Top Flite, Power Prop or maybe a Tornado?) and then go fly. No leadout or tip weight adjustments, maybe add a slug of noseweight and that is about it...

I think that is another huge factor in evaluating old designs - in their day - versus modern.  Trimmable features as well as a broader knowledge base of what to do - in addition to insane power-up options make it a different game today.

Because the pattern has not changed it begs the questions of comparisons.  I think then as now, there are some better designs than others. Like John M mentioned the AAE is still a great design.  Ditto the Formula S, the Mirage, the Sting Ray and many others.  I think it is sad that many people think ANY new design will outperform EVERY Classic design - it just ain't so.

...and threads like this keep this place interesting!

[Brett Buck]

I think that is another huge factor in evaluating old designs - in their day - versus modern.  Trimmable features as well as a broader knowledge base of what to do - in addition to insane power-up options make it a different game today.

Because the pattern has not changed it begs the questions of comparisons.  I think then as now, there are some better designs than others. Like John M mentioned the AAE is still a great design.  Ditto the Formula S, the Mirage, the Sting Ray and many others.  I think it is sad that many people think ANY new design will outperform EVERY Classic design - it just ain't so.

     Some are certainly close enough that the trim can swing the balance. For the most part, almost every difference that people attribute to the design are in fact trim differences or tuny details that are different.

   But the big difference is *the power*. It has completely transformed the event, and if you get decent power in just about any airplane, it will be OK.

    Brett

[Larry Cunningham]

I agree completely that the power systems make all the difference on our modern stunters. And because they work so well, modern stunter designs can utilize features which would bog down the older power plants. For example, consider the thicker, blunter airfoils and the drag they generate. Of course, modern control systems are superior, and trim features like adjustable leadouts, tip weight boxes, and removable tanks are de rigueur now. These and other techniques have been taught to us by the masters, most of whom were flying those old technology stunters.

I also suspect that the modern stunter flown in competition is generally built more precisely. Certainly many of the original kits had poor material, "die crunched". Although I've seen a few absolutely gorgeous finishes on old ships (e.g. Bill Melton's) I believe it was atypical for the majority of "average" competitors.

Communication of information and techniques was very poor compared to today, in spite of better coverage of Stunt in the magazines.  Stunt News was a prime mover for Stunt in this regard. Of course, factor in the internet - I remember well Iskandar Taib's bulletin board as a gold mine of information, and of course Leonard Neumann's SSW, and more recently the Robert Storick's Stunt Hanger (you're here, aren't you?!) and various derivatives.  Information flow sped the evolution of modern Stunt and sparked interest.

We can never go home again. But we can have a lot of fun trying. Drop into VSC (and other "classic" contests) if you want to see just how competitive the old Stunt technology can be.

L.

"How far we all come. How far we all come away from ourselves. You can never go home again." -James Agee, from A Death in the Family

[RandySmith]

"I think it is sad that many people think ANY new design will outperform EVERY Classic design - it just ain't so."
"

Hi Denny
I think for the most part most people do not believe that.
 That is the problem with blanket statements, although I will never  go back to old designs for competing at the NATs in open,and TTs, with modern ,laser cutting,cf parts,new control system, modern power plants, the Classic and Old Time planes fly better than ever.
I have flown some really good flying Classic and old time ships. But by the same token you have people saying..we have not made any gains in designs and you can take any one of the planes from the 60s and be just as competitive on a NATs level...I would not agree with that one either.

Regards
Randy

[Matt Colan]

But by the same token you have people saying..we have not made any gains in designs and you can take any one of the planes from the 60s and be just as competitive on a NATs level...I would not agree with that one either.

Regards
Randy

I definitely think we've made gains, although I've never seen the old ships fly back in the day, but the airfoils have changed from the long thin wing, to the big fat airfoil today (3 inches on a Patternmaster).

[Ted Fancher]

"I think it is sad that many people think ANY new design will outperform EVERY Classic design - it just ain't so."
"

Hi Denny
I think for the most part most people do not believe that.
 That is the problem with blanket statements, although I will never  go back to old designs for competing at the NATs in open,and TTs, with modern ,laser cutting,cf parts,new control system, modern power plants, the Classic and Old Time planes fly better than ever.
I have flown some really good flying Classic and old time ships. But by the same token you have people saying..we have not made any gains in designs and you can take any one of the planes from the 60s and be just as competitive on a NATs level...I would not agree with that one either.

Regards
Randy

Here's what I think about "yesterday's versus today's" designs.  I think that -- since the Nobler totally reinvented the fundamentals of stunt design -- the limit on how well the pattern could be flown under ideal conditions was the pilot's ability.  Throw in the advantage of today's power trains and under such conditions I think it is unquestionably true that a top pilot flying a Nobler or a Chizler or a T-Bird (or some of the other obviously sound classic era designs) would be 100% competitive with any current state of the art design.

Under ideal conditions such stunters were/are capable of flying as well as the pilot is capable of flying.  I've flown patterns with my old Chief, my Chizler and the short lived Nobler that were as good as any I've flown with any of my state of the art ships over the years.  The fact that this is so is a testament to fundamental soundness of those designs and the trimming skills of the pilots that fly them.

Where those same airplanes will falter versus equally well prepared modern equipment is when the conditions get rough.  High winds, turbulence, dead air (to a certain degree) etc.

The modern, big tailed, aft CG "Mack truck" powered ships are much better aerodynamically in terms of mitigating the flight trim induced differences in flyability under such conditions.  If you can get a properly trimmed "modern" stunter in the air with a decent engine run (dead easy, nowadays) you can fly the pattern with only modest changes in the demands on the pilot.  The control inputs required to do the tricks are compromised to a much lesser degree than their smaller tailed, forward CG ancestors.  The airplane won't try to "open up" the rounds or run out of elevator in the corners the way the earlier designs do. They don't wind up in consecutive maneuvers to nearly the same degree ... partly the result of modern powertrains ... but also because the aerodynamic layout doesn't produce a kite that multiplies the tendency of the wind to accelerate the airplane as it goes round and round.  This is, again, because the CG is located pretty much where the lifting force that supports it is located. As a result, the added Gs from flying the same radius loop/corner as the airplane goes faster and faster don't try to open up that radius.

David Fitz' WC airplane is pretty much the poster boy for such concepts. A comparatively tiny airplane with a monster, well controlled power delivery system in an airplane that doesn't shoot itself in the foot aerodynamically in bad air conditions.

David's airplane could be trimmed to fly just as well under most conditions more nose heavy than it is.  As long as the air stayed the same as what the airplane was trimmed for he could likely win all the same contests he's winning today.  If, however, the wind started to blow that same airplane would now become more difficult to fly and require significant changes at the handle to make it fly well.  As good as David is, it is most unlikely that he would fly the airplane in that state of trim in bad air as well as he has been able to do with the airplane "properly" trimmed.

Ted

[RandySmith]

Randy,

While I'm a big Lew McFarland fan (especially the awesome Shark), I'm less enamored of the Ruffy.  My decision to build the one I flew once or twice at VSC was based largely on nostalgia.  I had flown one at my very first Nats in 1959 as a Junior.  It was a very cool thing for a young man to do (traveled by train with my brother Gary from Seattle down to the "Smog City" (LA) , met tons of new friends and witnessed many of my teen age heroes in the "Wonderland Park" atmosphere of the work hangar at Los Alimitos  (Palmer, a young Werwage, Riley Wooten, Duke Fox and on and on).  It was sort of a competitive nightmare (finished sixth after blowing up the Fox practicing the night before the Junior Finals [yes, they had qualifying and finals for Jr. and Sr. back then]) that had enough highlights to obscure any sense of disappointment.

Sorry, at my age you tend to ramble ...

The Ruffy is sort of a  poster child for a number of things that proved to not be ideal for a competitive stunt ship.  Primarily these are subtle differences that make more modern designs (and a handful of the Ruffy's contemporaries) stand out when faced with less than ideal conditions.  Boiled down to their basics, the shortcomings amount to: too small a tail in relation to the wing area and a much too low aspect ratio.

Ostensibly "similar" to the Nobler of roughly the same vintage, IMHO the Ruffy suffers in comparison.  I built and flew an "original" Nobler from the Brodak kit with what would appear today to be an inferior (read skinny) airfoil that was short lived (a recreation of its demise is viewable on YouTube) but was among the best flying airplanes I've ever built and flown.  After it was squashed I (at the urging of Don McClave) picked up one of Eric Rules terrific laser cut Ruffy kits and put it together for the next VSC.

The comparison over a short period of time was quite dramatic.  Both airplanes were roughly the same wing area (550 or so) and weighed in the very low 40 oz range.  The Nobler is right around a five to one aspect ratio while the Ruffy was closer to four to one (I'd have to go measure it again but that's pretty close) Both airplanes used the identical power train, a Rustler .40 starting out with a Tornado 10 X 4 three blade prop and 10% nitro fuel.   Neither has the now common 25% or so tail volume although the Nobler was significantly larger proportionately and didn't have to be as big because of the higher aspect ratio wing. The Ruffy tail is, frankly, tiny.

About the only trim issue that was necessary (other than minor CG adjustments) to the Nobler was a tab on the end outboard flap to compensate for the overly asymmetrical wing that was ubiquitous in that era.  Other than that the airplane flew as though on rails and loved the four pitch prop.  It flew for the first time a day or two before official flying at VSC that year and came in a very competitive 2nd or 3rd.  It was delightfully balanced and "never" did anything unexpected.  There wasn't much "air" at the event as I recall and it didn't live long enough to gain further exposure so I can only state that it "felt" as though it would handle bad air very effectively.

The Ruffy, by comparison, had numerous trim issues that needed to be resolved to make it fly competitively although it did finish somewhere in the top five at its first VSC.  Two things jumped out right away.  First, it wasn't going to turn corners with one to one flap/elevator ratios.  That was totally expected but the plan was to start out with the ship set up like its contemporary and see how it had to be changed. 

Second, the same powertrain setup that worked so well on the Nobler was totally overwhelmed by the Ruffy. In the hot air of Tucson I ended up flying the ship on roughly 20% nitro and, initially with a 10 X 6 Tornado but finally with a 10.5 X 5.5 Eather courtesy of Keith Trostle.  The reason for this disparity is clearly the low aspect ratio wing which produces more drag for a given amount of lift.  Even reducing the flap throw significantly plus adding tail weight the drag was simply too much for the powertrain that performed so well on the Nobler. It would slow down in maneuvers and never had enough torque to accelerate again until it was back in level flight.

There is no doubt in my mind that an Aero Tiger .36 would improve this situation remarkably. 

With the reduced flap deflection and the "turbo-ed" Rustler the Ruffy flew "OK" in the competition but required much more attention to do the tricks well.  The reduced flap travel made the ship twitchy in corners and difficult to stop at the desired angle. Pull outs at five feet were generally a matter of luck.  It would pull out at six or seven feet the first square and trying to finesse the second would bring it out at two feet the second time 'round.  The next flight those differences might be reversed.

The tiny tail combined with the low aspect ratio wing made the ship very sensitive to CG changes. As a result it would be sort of sluggish in response at the start of the flight and twitchy at the end of the flight.  Again, it was generally difficult to fly well, especially when compared to the smooth predictable response of the Nobler.

Although it's been repeated so often as to sound like a mantra, I've got to repeat that there is a reason the Nobler is considered the Grandaddy of most everything that flies stunt well 60 years later.  We've made modest progress in refining George's original genius but under very good to modestly bad conditions the Nobler is still a worthy work horse.

I can't quite say the same thing for the Ruffy ... despite all the fond memories of my first one.

Ted

Hi Ted

Thanks for your input, I have seen much the same with a few classic ships, and knew you had a Ruffy from my visit to VSC a couple years back.
Stunt heaven air makes for a nice time with most ships, its when the conditions vary a lot that this really shows up.
The larger bellcranks and HD horn with a slower control ratios coupled with a farther aft CG helps a lot with some Classic ships.

I would really be curious to build my Nobler(Gieseke Nobler) based Ships from the early 70s, and see just how well it would do in all conditions, it had a 2 inch longer span, and a slightly larger elev-stab

Regards
Randy

[Matt Colan]

Hi Ted

Thanks for your input, I have seen much the same with a few classic ships, and knew you had a Ruffy from my visit to VSC a couple years back.
Stunt heaven air makes for a nice time with most ships, its when the conditions vary a lot that this really shows up.
The larger bellcranks and HD horn with a slower control ratios coupled with a farther aft CG helps a lot with some Classic ships.

I would really be curious to build my Nobler(Gieseke Nobler) based ship from the early 70s,I flew one at the 75 lake Charles NATs, and see just how well it would do in all conditions, it had a 2 inch longer span, and a slightly larger elev-stab

Regards
Randy

And that plane is now Nostalgia 30 legal Randy

[Ted Fancher]

Hi Ted

Thanks for your input, I have seen much the same with a few classic ships, and knew you had a Ruffy from my visit to VSC a couple years back.
Stunt heaven air makes for a nice time with most ships, its when the conditions vary a lot that this really shows up.
The larger bellcranks and HD horn with a slower control ratios coupled with a farther aft CG helps a lot with some Classic ships.

Absolutely!  Good catch, Randy. The larger, slower control systems might well be the primary mechanical improvement in stunt design since the classic era ... powertrains excluded.

These systems have a huge impact (ooops) and, for that matter, are absolutely essential to the "modern" aft CG/big tail approach.  They provide the muscle and the refinement of control input that is necessary for large surfaces and a trim configuration (aft CG/big tail) that allows "normal" handle movement to result in the appropriately small (and lower drag producing) amounts of control surface deflection required for finite control of the airplanes pitch changes.  Like sealed hingelines, there is "NO" downside to such systems save a couple of grams of weight mostly right near the CG.  The classic era was dominated by three inch Veco bellcranks and 1/2" throw control horns.  Today there is no reason to handicap your airplane with such devices.

Those features are equally at home with the smaller classic ships even if the tail size doesn't permit a CG as far aft as we might consider ideal.  A control system that is trigger quick (like we tried to set up or Ringmasters for "instant" corners when I was 15 years old) is a sure fire recipe for inconsistent maneuvering and should always be avoided.

Ted

I would really be curious to build my Nobler(Gieseke Nobler) based Ships from the early 70s, and see just how well it would do in all conditions, it had a 2 inch longer span, and a slightly larger elev-stab

Regards
Randy

[Frank Sheridan]

Since reading Ted Fancher's comments about the Ruffy, I wonder if increasing the tail area and reducing the chord of the flaps would make much of a difference?

[john e. holliday]

Then you are redesigning the plane, which makes it illegal for Classic.  Okay for all other flying tho.  I never got to fly my Ruffy at VSC because of the wind.  DOC Holliday

[Ted Fancher]

Since reading Ted Fancher's comments about the Ruffy, I wonder if increasing the tail area and reducing the chord of the flaps would make much of a difference?

Frank,

FWIW, enlarging the tail would be a very good first step. The flaps aren't excessively large but they aren't really the problem with regard to the drag issue and the power required to haul it through corners.  It's the shape of the wing ... the average chord relative to the span that makes it different from (and, IMHO, inferior to) wings with more conventional AR ... i.e. five to 5.5 or so to one).

Low aspect ratios (we're talking in "relative" terms here ... the Nobler certainly isn't a "high" AR and the Ruffy only approaches what might clearly be called "low" AR) produce "more" drag for a given degree of lift and require a higher angle of attack to achieve it.  For a good example google some pictures of the Concorde on landing approach or at lift off.  It's a super low aspect ratio and at low speeds requires tons of angle of attack and lots of thrust to produce the required lift and to overcome the drag produced by developing that lift.  Build a Concorde with a 30 to 1 AR sailplane wing of the same area and at the same weights and speeds the angles of attack required will be tiny fractions of the Delta wing on the real animal  (also worth realizing that the necessary lift would be produced at much slower airspeeds!).  Of course, cruising supersonic would be sorta out of the question!  A wing's aspect ratio is one of the primary determinants of the mission to which it best suited, primarily with respect to its needs with regard to lift versus drag.

ASPECT RATIO IS A "VERY" BIG DEAL IN TERMS OF A WING'S PERFORMANCE.  MUCH, MUCH MORE INFLUENTIAL IN ALMOST ANY MISSION THAN IS THE AIRFOIL.  AIRFOILS ARE DETAILS, ASPECT RATIO IS THE "BIG" PICTURE.

As I tried to point out (the use of too many words always a stumbling block in my posts) this significant difference between the Nobler and the Ruffy was amplified by the use of the identical power train in both models.  The same powertrain that was a lovely match to the Nobler just wouldn't cut it with the Ruffy ... especially in the higher density altitude at Tucson.

The nice thing about merely making the tail larger would be the ability to move the CG aft and still retain the stability necessary while reducing the amount of control input necessary for a given rate of pitch change (turn, in stunt lingo).  With the tiny tail the CG must be well forward of the center of lift of the wing, which requires that the tail produce even more leverage to overcome the negative pitching moment that results (i.e., the  forward CG, when multiplied by the higher G loads in maneuvers tries to open up the turn ... sort of like a teeter totter with more kids jumping on one end). 

IOW, the larger tail on the stock wing would be of benefit.  In this case reducing the movement on the flaps with the CG moved aft a bit would also help to compensate for the inherent problems of the low aspect ratio of the wing.

It's important to point out, by the way, that all my harping about the Ruffy doesn't mean it is a "bad" airplane.  It ultimately flew pretty well and certainly Lew did just fine with his although it was a short lived affair once the Shark thing happened!  It is simply more demanding to make fly well than the more refined (in my opinion) magic that George gave us in the green box.

Ted Fancher

[Ted Fancher]

Then you are redesigning the plane, which makes it illegal for Classic.  Okay for all other flying tho.   DOC Holliday

Actually, Doc, that's a common misconception based on the old OTS rules that disallow modified designs.

The still existing PAMPA rules for classic  don't disqualify "anything".  Distortions of the original designs were to be dinged by reductions in the fidelity points.  The reality is that because VSC  chose not to utilize the fidelity concept prettymuch nobody has done so.  Notwithstanding that reality, the rules have never been changed.  Unless the rule is changed there is no penalty for modifications.  Not a good situation but, IMHO, neither is the lack of a rolling cutoff date.

The intent of the lack of disqulaification and the inclusion of the fidelity points was to maximize participation and reduce the demands on the administrators for nitpicking complaints.  That didn't work out because the fidelity point concept was never implemented (anywhere, to the best of my knowledge).

Ted

p.s., if the rules have been modified during my home remodel induced absence from the event, forget where you heard this.  To the best of my knowledge, however, there is still no "disqualification" clause regarding fidelity to the original design.

[Bradley Walker]

And when I asked this very same question to Billy many years ago, he said  NO these older designs are great with modern power but, I would never want to take them to compete (go to war) against planes at the NATs and TTs
He also stated his new designs were much better flying ships
Randy

I find that very interesting because I never saw him fly better than with his Vulcan.  His P-47 flights could not touch his flights with the little plane, and I am not the only person I know who said similar things about Werwage.  Even his WC winning flight with his P-47 paled in comparison to his 1996 Classic Nats flights (all under similar conditions).

I think Bob G flew much better with the small Nobler also, even though he would swear he flew better with the big ships.  I think if you ask Bob's friends who watched him go from the little plane to big planes they might say the same thing (in fact they have).  The better engines may have opened the envelope over the Fox 35, but as for hitting 5-45-90 with laser flat bottoms Bob was the King with the little Nobler.  He never won again after going to the "big planes" (at what he felt was pressure from the stunt community---be it real or imagined).

I would also like to remind everyone that Kenny Stevens won advanced *going away* with a Cavalier and a Fox 35 in 2002.  He has not really improved on that performance since.  At that Nats he told me he did not feel nearly as comfortable with the large plane.

No, I will be the dissenter the discussion, in that I do think there is a bias against the smaller, classic style planes is *serious* competitions.  I have had judges tell me flat to my face that the little planes cannot compete and cannot be expected to win.

Bill Wilson competes very closely with all of the best fliers in Texas... the best pattern I ever saw him fly in the wind him fly was with his Panther and Johnson 35 running 20% nitro in a dead solid 4 cycle with a 4 pitch prop.

[Scott Hartford]

That plane is a flyer isn't it! He has had comments made to him also about his choice of hardware and engine sounds that judges (if they're any good) just shouldn't say. But if you just judge the pattern, and forget that he isn't flying a "me too" airplane, that Panther is sweet!

[Dennis Moritz]

Relative NATS placement year to year might not be the best gauge of best plane design philosophy, since the best fliers often win with different iterations of planes. Their win as much a testament to their flying ability, including their ability to adjust from one flying envelope to another. Aren't all stunt war wagons a compromise. Kenny Stevens happend to finish #8 this year, I believe, very near the top. If the piped plane bothered him, or downwardly effected his ability to perform, well, who's to make that conclusion, on the basis of his excellent finish. Last year Dan Banjok finished 7th. Dan's Saito 72 Vista is far outside the norm, almost any norm. Flying with a huge wing and way fat airfoil (26 or 28 percent). The 72 needs to run hard in order to hall this huge bird. I'm sure his ability to adjust to the flight characteristics of the Vista was a major factor in his performance. If Dan had garnered a few more points (even appearance points) the discussion about ideal stunt plane dynamics, could tilt far outside the design parameters debated on this this thread. Conclusions about relative aerodynamics are just that, relative. How about Orestes' plane. Not much talk about that. A very different approach to stunt. A baffle engine at that, with a break. In an airplane entirely unlike the piped USA derivatives.

[Bradley Walker]

How about Orestes' plane. Not much talk about that. A very different approach to stunt. A baffle engine at that, with a break. In an airplane entirely unlike the piped USA derivatives.

...because it can't work.  Orestes only wins because he overcomes the shortcomings of his equipment by being a great flier.

[Dennis Moritz]

Are you being funny. What about all those FAI Champs. I doubt Orestes would share your opinion about his choice of airplane and engine.

[Bradley Walker]

Are you being funny. What about all those FAI Champs. I doubt Orestes would share your opinion about his choice of airplane and engine.

Yes.  I love the Russian stuff.  The two Yatsenko brothers flew the entire 2004 WCs, in dead calm to 20 MPH winds and never changed anything except maybe the neddle setting.  The whole contest, on FAI fuel, and one prop.

I was simply paraphrasing what is said about Orestes every time the fact that his baffle engined, non piped, low RPM, high pitched prop conventional stunter with a little stab, skinny wing, and a forward CG keeps beating the others...

[Dennis Moritz]

YES!

[RandySmith]

I find that very interesting because I never saw him fly better than with his Vulcan. His P-47 flights could not touch his flights with the little plane, and I am not the only person I know who said similar things about Werwage.  Even his WC winning flight with his P-47 paled in comparison to his 1996 Classic Nats flights (all under similar conditions).

I think Bob G flew much better with the small Nobler also, even though he would swear he flew better with the big ships.  I think if you ask Bob's friends who watched him go from the little plane to big planes they might say the same thing (in fact they have).  The better engines may have opened the envelope over the Fox 35, but as for hitting 5-45-90 with laser flat bottoms Bob was the King with the little Nobler.  He never won again after going to the "big planes" (at what he felt was pressure from the stunt community---be it real or imagined).

I would also like to remind everyone that Kenny Stevens won advanced *going away* with a Cavalier and a Fox 35 in 2002.  He has not really improved on that performance since.  At that Nats he told me he did not feel nearly as comfortable with the large plane.

No, I will be the dissenter the discussion, in that I do think there is a bias against the smaller, classic style planes is *serious* competitions.  I have had judges tell me flat to my face that the little planes cannot compete and cannot be expected to win.

Bill Wilson competes very closely with all of the best fliers in Texas... the best pattern I ever saw him fly in the wind him fly was with his Panther and Johnson 35 running 20% nitro in a dead solid 4 cycle with a 4 pitch prop.

Hi Brad

That was Billy's statement, I will accept his assessment of his planes. Mine has been stated before.
I believe that i would never choose to fly the NATs Worlds or TTs with a Classic ship either. Some people think we have made zero gains and that the older Classic ships are/were just as good as some today, It's not true, we have made gains and there are some very good world class ships flying today.

I am not bashing Classic airplanes, I have stated before that if you take an older Classic plane add modern power, a good cf prop, modern large 4 to 4.5 inch HD bellcranks and control systems, all the new trim, ultra lite spinners, ultra lite wheels..etc, You can wind up with an airplane that will compete and fly at any contest held anywhere in the world, however this is not all Classic ships.
 The Shark 45  ,USA-1, Super Ares, Gieseke Nobler, Chizler, and others are capable ...with help from modern technology to be absolutely great airplanes, Other Classic planes will never be as good as the top ones in broad contest conditions

All modern ships are not as good as all Classic ships.
Every Classic ship will never be as good as some modern ships.

As far as your assessment of Bill's flying, I know your opinion and we will agree to disagree, I have seen Bill Fly many ships and P-47s throughout many decades, I have seen him fly his new modern ships as good as it gets, The problem comes with the little Vulcan when you add in very bad conditions and  human judges.
The Vulcan really benefitted from modern technology, by the way it was a ST 46, at first,the since the Aero Tiger it blew the ST out of all of Bill's smaller planes.
In Bill's words the Aero Tiger gave more power, lighter weight, a broader setting, less fuel-weight ,much much smoother, and made the planes fly better in bad conditions, it allowed the plane to turn easier and fly easier, and it didn't beat/pound the plane and control system to death.
The Aero Tiger is also much smaller than the ST 40-46  and will run all 4, 4-2, wet 2, low pitch props, high pitch props, it just works with a huge variety of setups. It is even pulling a 700 sq in modern ship in Ca with ease.
Larger planes leave a bigger impression on many judges, alway have as I have seen, maybe always will, not only my observation, some say it ain't so but I think you know where I would put my money.

As  far as Kenny goes, I have watched him fly very very closely for many years now, He is flying his 22 at another level from where he was flying the Fox 35 plane in Advance, Kenny has not stopped or went backwards he is an improved flyer from his advance  win. I can attest that Kenny flew very well this year also, and made gains from even last year.

Bottom line is  bring whatever you are happy with, fly it have fun, If a Cougar and a K&B 35 is what you want to use and you think it as good as it gets ,
I have no problem seeing you bring it out and compete at any level. I think any arguement about this is silly anyway, Everyone has opinions, I just hope they remember this is a hobby and is about having fun and enjoying themselves.

Regards
Randy

[Dennis Moritz]

Randy, would you comment on the Yatsenko approach. How would you compare and contrast it with the piped engined Impacts and comparable USA configurations? (Duck.) Would you consider making a baffle engine. Why and why not? (Duck, duck, quack, quack, quack...)

[Bob Whitely]

Lots of good stuff here. What appears to be missing from all the comments is that it takes a total modeller to get where these guys are.  All the guys mentioned are very capable and accomplished designers, builders, flyers and engine men.  They can do it all. Seems that everyone else thinks just having a killer engine will get the job done. Won't happen.  You need to be really good at everything if you expect to make it to the top.  Until you all wake up and learn how to do it all really well all the time then you can expect to stay in the back of the pack.  For those that are Sunday fun fliers that is just fine, I reckon.  The rest of us that like to be winners at whatever we do will do what it takes to get there.  Someone once said (Billy) "Stunt is hard!"  I agree.  Anyone can do it but to do it well takes a lot more effort.  Looks like there are many out there that lack the intestinal fortitude to get the job done and just want the easy way out.  Good engine runs are just one of the required items,  you still have to fly better than the other guy to win.  RJ

[Dave Adamisin]

Godd stuff Bob. To steal a line from League of Their Own, "of course it's hard, it's the hard that makes it good"

[Trostle]

(Clip)

The still existing PAMPA rules for classic  don't disqualify "anything".  Distortions of the original designs were to be dinged by reductions in the fidelity points.  The reality is that because VSC  chose not to utilize the fidelity concept prettymuch nobody has done so. 

(

clip)

The intent of the lack of disqulaification and the inclusion of the fidelity points was to maximize participation and reduce the demands on the administrators for nitpicking complaints.  That didn't work out because the fidelity point concept was never implemented (anywhere, to the best of my knowledge).

Ted

(Clip)

Ted,  You and I have discussed this before.  I think most Will agree that the idea of fidelity points is a good idea.

However, I do not think you should "blame" VSC for the reason nobody uses fidelity points.  I think the reality is that regardless of the good intentions for implementing fidelity points, doing so has proven to awkward at best.

I know the first time I was an Event Director for a Classic event, we encountered a problem with how to award fidelity points to the score sheet.  The basic question is what are the criteria to use award these points.  Unless there is some reference, like scalable drawings and/or photos or whatever can be presented to verify fidelity to the original design, there can be no fair and equitable way to give any fidelity points.  There is no way that any judge can be intimately familiar with any classic design to determine the accuracy of airfoil shapes, tail and nose moments, aspect ratios, construction details that are apparent on the completed/finished model, landing gear position, and on and on with the multitude of details that should/could be considered for the award of fidelity points.

Whenever I bring this matter up, I am met with the response that to require such documentation really detracts from one of the purposes of the event which is to make the event enjoyable.  To me, providing such documentation, particularly on some of the more obscure designs (OTS and Classic), is one of the things I enjoy about these events.

I think you have some idea on how you intended these fidelity points to be determined when you helped write the Classic rules.  I do not think your ideas got translated into the rules.

I guess what I am trying to say here is that fidelity points in Classic is a good idea, but in order for fidelity points to be legitimately awarded in any circumstances, there really needs to be some documentation requirements to got with the model during its appearance judging.

[Ted Fancher]

Ted,  You and I have discussed this before.  I think most Will agree that the idea of fidelity points is a good idea.

However, I do not think you should "blame" VSC for the reason nobody uses fidelity points.  I think the reality is that regardless of the good intentions for implementing fidelity points, doing so has proven to awkward at best.

I know the first time I was an Event Director for a Classic event, we encountered a problem with how to award fidelity points to the score sheet.  The basic question is what are the criteria to use award these points.  Unless there is some reference, like scalable drawings and/or photos or whatever can be presented to verify fidelity to the original design, there can be no fair and equitable way to give any fidelity points.  There is no way that any judge can be intimately familiar with any classic design to determine the accuracy of airfoil shapes, tail and nose moments, aspect ratios, construction details that are apparent on the completed/finished model, landing gear position, and on and on with the multitude of details that should/could be considered for the award of fidelity points.

Whenever I bring this matter up, I am met with the response that to require such documentation really detracts from one of the purposes of the event which is to make the event enjoyable.  To me, providing such documentation, particularly on some of the more obscure designs (OTS and Classic), is one of the things I enjoy about these events.

I think you have some idea on how you intended these fidelity points to be determined when you helped write the Classic rules.  I do not think your ideas got translated into the rules.

I guess what I am trying to say here is that fidelity points in Classic is a good idea, but in order for fidelity points to be legitimately awarded in any circumstances, there really needs to be some documentation requirements to got with the model during its appearance judging.

Hi Keith!

I don't think "blame" is the appropriate word.  Like it or not, VSC is the World Championships of Vintage Stunt and it has great influence on other (dare I say lesser) events.  When the WC of Nostalgia chose not to use the rules that were voted and approved by PAMPA it was pretty predictable that the Fidelity points idea was toast.

Yes, I did pretty much write all the rules for the original Nostalgia Stunt event.  Those rules were intended to be very simple and to allow the greatest possible participation.  The rules included words specifically stating that that was the intent. It was the intent of the rules to minimize the need for nitpicking administrative attention.  The rules clearly stated that the awarding of appearance and fidelity points was the responsibility of the event directors and "was not" subject to debate.  The fidelity point concept was never intended to be a matter of volumes of documentation and measurement with dial calipers hermetically sealed in Mayonaise jars.  It was intended that people could enter anything they brung and claim it was "legal".  The fidelity points was merely a means to address foam winged Ares and/or an Impact with Nobler painted on the wing.

One of the sore points of OTS was the constant haranguing about whether or not an airplane was "legal".  You and I have both personally witnessed examples of unnecessarily image damaging episodes regarding OTS airplanes that were "illegal" and whose builders/fliers were subject to some degree of  ridicule for competing with them. My approach was simply to aver:  who gives a darn, let him fly and find a way to deal with any entries that are gross distortions of the "real deal" so as to handicap them but not throw them out.  No fingers would need to be pointed and no feelings would have to be hurt and more people could fly and enjoy themselves.

Thus, a Nobler with a Fox .35, a pilot in the cockpit, cloth hinges, a paper and dope finish etc. would be awarded a greater number of fidelity points than an "Ares" with a foam wing, a tuned pipe PA, a painted on canopy and a monokote finish.  Both pilots get to fly and the "pretty and fidelity" points awarded are no more divisive than "just" appearance points are before the nats.

The intent was nothing more than allowing the ED to use whatever skills/knowledge he/she had to assess the degree to which airplanes entered reflected the era in which they were originally designed and flown.  The sentence stating that the director's decision was "final" and not subject  to dispute was included to make it clear that you entered the competition knowing that your airplane would be subject to such an assessment and that the decision of the director was final.  Go fly your airplane!  You vill haf fun!

I must repeat that the rules were written the way they were precisely to eliminate the kind of nit-picking, finger pointing that will always accompany a rule that says "if you don't comply with such and such a list of  "half baked and endlessly non-comprehensive criteria" -- which can never be fully and completely defined -- you can't fly.

I recognize and accept that a handful of special stunters such as yourself, take great delight in documenting your modeling efforts.  I think such documentation has its place in scale events where the whole concept of the competition deals with fidelity to the original.  I don't think that is or should be the basis on which participation in Nostalgia stunt events should be regulated.  It is unfair to both the larger percentage of competitors and most especially to those volunteers who do the work to make the events happen.

It appears that a substantial percentage of fliers disagree with that idea, however; ergo we have zero contests (to my knowledge) that employ the Fidelity rule and we have lots of discussion about "illegal" Classic ships.  Pretty much exactly what the original rules had hoped to avoid.

I've pretty much accepted the changes that have been democratically voted on.  I'm not a rules change kind of guy ... pretty much leaving that to others who find it valuable to refine such things.  In my personal opinion failing to utilize the fidelity concept hasn't been a positive refinement.  It is, however, how the event has evolved.  I'm perfectly willing to debate the pros and cons.  I much less willing to write rules change proposals.  I've found that such proposals aren't always in the best interest of the event we both loved.

The event is hugely popular whether it meets my personal criteria or not.  That's not a bad thing.

Ted

[john e. holliday]

Do you think we would have the number of participants if we would have stayed with the fidelity points?   Some period type engines are going for collectors prices now.  The original kits are the same way.  Also how many of us event directors have the knowledge of the airplanes to be able to tell if they were legal or not. 

I think it is great that we still get to fly even if the plane was built by someone else or is electric powered as well as the ones with high zoot rear exhaust set ups.  It doesn't neccessarily mean they are going to win, but, they are flying and hopefully having fun.  DOC Holliday

[Bradley Walker]

Lots of good stuff here. What appears to be missing from all the comments is that it takes a total modeller to get where these guys are.  All the guys mentioned are very capable and accomplished designers, builders, flyers and engine men.  They can do it all. Seems that everyone else thinks just having a killer engine will get the job done. Won't happen.  You need to be really good at everything if you expect to make it to the top.  Until you all wake up and learn how to do it all really well all the time then you can expect to stay in the back of the pack.  For those that are Sunday fun fliers that is just fine, I reckon.  The rest of us that like to be winners at whatever we do will do what it takes to get there.  Someone once said (Billy) "Stunt is hard!"  I agree.  Anyone can do it but to do it well takes a lot more effort.  Looks like there are many out there that lack the intestinal fortitude to get the job done and just want the easy way out.  Good engine runs are just one of the required items,  you still have to fly better than the other guy to win.  RJ

Personally, I am not really sure how the obligatory "real champions vs whiners, wannabees, and lazy losers looking for a short cut" speech is germane to the conversation of old designs VS new designs. 

I guess RJ just needed to get that in there... being that it is obligatory and all.  Kind of his "thing"...

[Bradley Walker]

The basic question is what are the criteria to use award these points.  Unless there is some reference, like scalable drawings and/or photos or whatever can be presented to verify fidelity to the original design, there can be no fair and equitable way to give any fidelity points. 

You could certainly do the very obvious:

classic engine
classic prop
classic fuel tank?
classic finish?
etc etc

I have a buddy who flies at VSC and that is one of his complaints.  He is flying a Johnson 35, and the top guys are all flying Aerotigers, Metomorphs, Stalkers, etc with carbon props, and they are not getting knocked on fidelity points.

[RandySmith]

"Yes, I did pretty much write all the rules for the original Nostalgia Stunt event.  Those rules were intended to be very simple and to allow the greatest possible participation.  The rules included words specifically stating that that was the intent. It was the intent of the rules to minimize the need for nitpicking administrative attention.  The rules clearly stated that the awarding of appearance and fidelity points was the responsibility of the event directors and "was not" subject to debate.  The fidelity point concept was never intended to be a matter of volumes of documentation and measurement with dial calipers hermetically sealed in Mayonaise jars.  It was intended that people could enter anything they brung and claim it was "legal".  The fidelity points was merely a means to address foam winged Ares and/or an Impact with Nobler painted on the wing."

Ted, the rules as you set them up originally ,were very clear ,for me at least the point was to be inclusive, not exclusive, keep it simple without the need for stacks of documents and layers, and they were written very well to accomplish the task.
We did use the fidelity points at the US NATs in Classic for years, people who showed up there got extra points for such things as being true to the time frame of the event by using, old veco and other wheels, older spinners, engines, things like 60s era muflers, people that used foam wings and such took a small hit on points.

Regards
Randy

[RandySmith]

You could certainly do the very obvious:

classic engine
classic prop
classic fuel tank?
classic finish?
etc etc

I have a buddy who flies at VSC and that is one of his complaints.  He is flying a Johnson 35, and the top guys are all flying Aerotigers, Metomorphs, Stalkers, etc with carbon props, and they are not getting knocked on fidelity points.

Brad
Exactly! this, as I stated above was done at the NATs Classic event for years. My belief is that it should be encouraged to continue ,and encourage others not doing this to think about trying it.
People who use  classic engine
classic prop
classic fuel tank?
classic finish?
etc etc

Should get the benefit of an extra few points.

Randy

[Trostle]

Brad
Exactly! this, as I stated above was done at the NATs Classic event for years. My belief is that it should be encouraged to continue ,and encourage others not doing this to think about trying it.
People who use  classic engine
classic prop
classic fuel tank?
classic finish?
etc etc

Should get the benefit of an extra few points.

Randy

This is really in response to Randy as well as Ted and Brad and any others who subscribe to the idea that fidelity points can be based on things like

classic engine
classic prop
classic tank
classic finish
etc etc etc

AND
classic wheels
classic
color scheme
duplication of color scheme
classic spinner
correct aspect ratio
correct nose moment
correct tail moment
correct size/shape of flaps
correct LG position
correct cowl shape
correct canopy
correct cockpit detail
correct tail/elevator shape/areas
correct tip shape and construction
etc etc etc

First, before I get flamed on this, I basically understand the case that Ted explained above as well as what Randy discussed.  And I agree that the event is meant to be kept simple and fun and enjoyable and if providing documentation is not in the lexicon of a particular individual's fun things to do, then even the simplest of documentation should be avoided.

HOWEVER, even if the list of eligibility points is limited to period engines, tanks, props, finishes, etc etc etc, what are the judges to use as a reference to delineate between those models presented where one has just a "period engine" compared to one which has the exact same make and size of engine for that given design that the original used?  How is a judge to know unless there is some sort of presentation/documentation to be able to delineate between one really nicely done replica and another?  Or is there just a blanket award of 20 points for those models that "appear" to have a few of these "period" things and those that do not have a Froom spinner gets none?  I know that fidelity points could be and should be probably just like appearance points where the scores awarded are essentially a relative matter between the models actually being compared rather than a rigid scale based on what is or what is not represented on each and every model.

What I am trying to say and not doing a very good job at it is that in order for points to be equitably awarded while comparing those model entered in competition, there needs to be some basis for the judges to use other that some vague recollection, if any personal knowledge is had at all by any judge of the "period" equipment and/or designs.  That information could be in the form of listings, drawings, photographs, written explanation etc etc etc.

I do know that at some Classic contests where appearance points are awarded and no fidelity points are give, that appearance points have been reduced for those models which have obvious deviations from the original design regarding airfoils, or areas, or etc etc etc.

Keith

[RandySmith]

"As to original engines, it never amazes me how some say they are so readlily available, when in fact they are not.   I'll bet those saying this say so because they have the engines in question. I don't and know very few that do. If you find one on ebay, it is way too expensive after all the bidding and or it is junk.  Been there, gone through that. Very seldom have I recieved a good one. "


Great Point TY , and one I have said for years, there are those that would like to limit what engines you can use, the fact is just as you stated, Period engines are hard to come by and get reallly good ones for all.

Randy

[RandySmith]

Do you think we would have the number of participants if we would have stayed with the fidelity points?   Some period type engines are going for collectors prices now.  The original kits are the same way.  Also how many of us event directors have the knowledge of the airplanes to be able to tell if they were legal or not. 

I think it is great that we still get to fly even if the plane was built by someone else or is electric powered as well as the ones with high zoot rear exhaust set ups.  It doesn't neccessarily mean they are going to win, but, they are flying and hopefully having fun.  DOC Holliday

Hi Doc

Good points made, however the engine is just 1 small part of fidelity, there are many many more parts that can be invovled.
Also I have to add there is no differance what part of the case a Hi Zoot motor exhaust from, be it front,rear,right or left side.
The engine is just a small part of dozens of fidelity to the ERA. And I don't think it would make much of a difference in the nu,ber of people flying

Regards
Randy