Old stunters vs. new ones

[Bradley Walker]

Certainly not everyone, but my guess is that there are probably a lot more World and National Champions who shared my approach than the "fly beaters until you're ready to win" approach.

I never made an ugly plane that I know of....  Even when I was building $3 Dick Mathis combat planes.  So, I understand your point. 

However, I could argue I might have learned more if I built 30 pretty Ringmasters and flew the crap out of them than if I built three or four super modern 19 point stunt wonders.

Just FYI, "minimalism" has nothing to do with "beaters" per say...  but Phil's point is generally correct.  In my opinion.

[Doug Moon]

I never made an ugly plane that I know of....  Even when I was building $3 Dick Mathis combat planes.  So, I understand your point.  

However, I could argue I might have learned more if I built 30 pretty Ringmasters and flew the crap out of them than if I built three or four super modern 19 point stunt wonders.

Just FYI, "minimalism" has nothing to do with "beaters" per say...  but Phil's point is generally correct.  In my opinion.

I never built an ugly plane either.  My Chrome monocoated twister was just about as awesome as a plane can get.  Even though I broke the fuse in half 3 times learning the pattern I still thought it looked awesome.  

We have all seen it.  An intermediate flier with far more exceptional building skills than flying skills.  There is no doubt in my mind this slows the process of getting better at flying, if that is truly the stated goal.  For some that may not be the goal.  

I find the flier should be able to outfly the plane before moving onto to bigger and badder setup.  I have been told this as well by one of the all time greats.  When asking to build his design many many years ago he didnt feel I was ready for that complicated build and or its capability.  Another season went by and then I wrestled it away from him  

My twister proved to be such a great stepping stone to my next more advanced profile.  Then another advanced profile.  My flying was way outrunning my building.  I was able to take, what was my best plane at the time but a junker by most, and really learn to "fly" and learn to "feel" of flying.  Learning to let it go and let it fly.  Then later when my building came along getting onto the upgraded rigs only spurred it that much further.  But I had to thrash around with what I could construct and it wasnt great in the beginning.  Whew!  

One thing was for sure.  I was a freaking crashing machine in the early days.  When a kit saw me coming down the aisle it did everything in its power to get to the bottom of the stack.  We all crash, we all have to learn the "feel", we all have to get the wind wrong and get crushed when learning this stuff.  It is always best to learn that on easy and fast to build profiles that you know are probably going to get crunched and time or two or ten.  It teaches you so much more about boundaries limitations and that all important feel.  BUT that doesnt mean you dont take pride in what you build and learn building techniques and finishing tips and tricks along the way.  It all translates.

My Black and yellow Skyray was just a work of art.  I knew about half the pattern and was all hopped to learn the whole thing with this one.  I put that thing on the flight line and smiled and how cool the colors matched and it was shiny too.  2nd flight things are going good completed a few loops and then the Tiger 35 powered Bumble Bee felt the effects of a bell crank ripping out! (dont forget to use glue when you install your bell crank) Nothing left, not even the motor.  All totaled.  You think I havent over built double checked every bell crank installation since?  Think again.  If that had happened on a 6 month build with 2 months in the finish that early in my flying career it could really have set me back.  It would have been too devestating.  I was very sad the Skyray saw its death so early on but it took about an hour to get past it.  I had 2 weeks in it tops.

If you are still at the entry to mid level learning stage and you got a stunter that took 8 months to build and has 400 in the motor alone your pushing the boundaries and learning will be severely limited.  I know this for a fact as I have seen it many times myself.  

It is all well and good to take the time to build the one great one, and it should be encouraged, but along the way the profiles and easy level full body stunters serve the purpose of teaching boundaries, trim work, and "feel"  

I was so hooked on flying I would put up my twister with a fox 35 in almost any wind we had.  I just wanted to fly.  If I had the high end rigs I have today back then I would never have attempted that stuff and I would not have learned about wind flying.  I would be severely hampered in the winds.  

[Bradley Walker]

If you are still at the entry to mid level learning stage and you got a stunter that took 8 months to build and has 400 in the motor alone your pushing the boundaries and learning will be severely limited.  I know this for a fact as I have seen it many times myself.  

It is all well and good to take the time to build the one great one, and it should be encouraged, but along the way the profiles and easy level full body stunters serve the purpose of teaching boundaries, trim work, and "feel"  

I was so hooked on flying I would put up my twister with a fox 35 in almost any wind we had.  I just wanted to fly.  If I had the high end rigs I have today back then I would never have attempted that stuff and I would not have learned about wind flying.  I would be severely hampered in the winds.  

Perfectly stated.

[Gary Anderson]

Hi guys,

All my plane are ugly but to me I love them. I do the best I can and no matter how hard I try they always seem to come out a mess. Most that I've made fly well but I'm just don't have the talent. I'm stuck on the old silkspan and dope. I watch Windy's tape on his Nobler, which has taught me a lot. Read a lot of Ted's articles, which has helped a lot and these forum have been great for all. Sometimes a lot of different thoughts but It's been great. Maybe someday I'll make or build a plane that someone else may want, ha ha, probably not. I haven't given up, I still like to build and finish my planes. I'm so stupid I even build them from scratch, cause I don't have a clue what I'm doing. I copy most designs but then I put different parts from different plane together and make a junker. Thanks for all the help, Gary

[Frank Sheridan]

I  personally have crashed every plane that I have built. While crashed airframes typically do not fly as well, I tend to fly them better than before because they have been "pre - disastered" and I am no longer confined by the fear of an accident. This is also why I possess no "Old stunters" - they all happily reside in various landfills across this great country in which we live.(I've traveled a lot over the years chasing jobs).

[Alan Hahn]

I  personally have crashed every plane that I have built. While crashed airframes typically do not fly as well, I tend to fly them better than before because they have been "pre - disastered" and I am no longer confined by the fear of an accident. This is also why I possess no "Old stunters" - they all happily reside in various landfills across this great country in which we live.(I've traveled a lot over the years chasing jobs).

How's that old saying go--- "....................., but there are no old bold pilots.

[Ted Fancher]

Brad and Doug,

I don't disagree with your premise regarding the advantages of less than concours, state of the art airplanes in terms of learning to fly quickly.  As long as they are well trimmed and powered properly that's almost a no brainer.

My differing point of view is that for a great many stunt fliers (especially the guys who get stuck on the event for a lifetime) that is not the force that drives them to participate.  I think that misunderstanding of the motivation of such fliers is at the heart of the BOM and Appearance Point brouhahas that have been part and parcel of the event since I've been around.
 
Let's face the factual reality of the number of guys that have won the Walker Cup in recent decades.  Since 1982 Paul Walker has won 10 or 11 times, David Fitz five or six times, Jimmy Casale four or five times, Ted Fancher four times,  Orestes twice and once each for Bob Baron and Brett Buck.

Notwithstanding that nearly  three decade dominance by a handful of fliers, the event has prospered (I know, prosper is a relative term and open to debate, but compare it no the rest of control line!).  If winning (the "Big" ones) was the primary motivating force it could logically be argued that stunt would have died out almost entirely by now.

I think a large part of the reason can be attributed to my point of view about what attracts people to the event and why they don't particularly care if using the beautifully built and state of the art equipment they love actually retards their competitive progress.  That just isn't the point for many of them.

Just my opinion.

Ted

[Doug Moon]

Brad and Doug,

I don't disagree with your premise regarding the advantages of less than concours, state of the art airplanes in terms of learning to fly quickly.  As long as they are well trimmed and powered properly that's almost a no brainer.

My differing point of view is that for a great many stunt fliers (especially the guys who get stuck on the event for a lifetime) that is not the force that drives them to participate.  I think that misunderstanding of the motivation of such fliers is at the heart of the BOM and Appearance Point brouhahas that have been part and parcel of the event since I've been around.
 
Let's face the factual reality of the number of guys that have won the Walker Cup in recent decades.  Since 1982 Paul Walker has won 10 or 11 times, David Fitz five or six times, Jimmy Casale four or five times, Ted Fancher four times,  Orestes twice and once each for Bob Baron and Brett Buck.

Notwithstanding that nearly  three decade dominance by a handful of fliers, the event has prospered (I know, prosper is a relative term and open to debate, but compare it no the rest of control line!).  If winning (the "Big" ones) was the primary motivating force it could logically be argued that stunt would have died out almost entirely by now.

I think a large part of the reason can be attributed to my point of view about what attracts people to the event and why they don't particularly care if using the beautifully built and state of the art equipment they love actually retards their competitive progress.  That just isn't the point for many of them.

Just my opinion.

Ted

Ted,

You are not talking about the same thing.  We are talking about getting better and striving to the best you can be in stunt, and early stage setups that will help or hamper it.  That was all that was being talked about.

You are talking about a completely different subject.  BUT on that note just because only a handful of guys have won over the past 10 years doesnt mean most that attend meets arent out there working their rears off to trying and win or "catch" the next guy they have been behind for quite some time.  I simply dont buy that the rest out of the top 8 are just playing with planes for fun in the sun with no real goal of striving to get better and better and better.  Stunt is full of personalities types that always want to get better.  Whatever it is that we stunt heads would be involved in it would mean working to get to the highest level.  "Settling" is really not in the cards until one is more or less out for friendship and conversation and just happens to fly some as well.  When that is goal then yes what you are referring to is very real and it is in many cases all over the place.  But I think the goal of flying/building (together) to the best of one's abilities is still the main reason most are out here at this time.  There are certain things that can hamper that. 

If I wanted to be a road racer I wouldnt start in an F1 car.  I would start in a go kart.  If I wanted to race on oval tracks I wouldnt start in a NASCAR Sprint Cup car.  I would start with a street stock on the local dirt tracks.  It is the same thing in stunt.  Get into the higher level equipment before you are ready and it will hamper your progress. 
   

[Ted Fancher]

Ted,

You are not talking about the same thing.  We are talking about getting better and striving to the best you can be in stunt, and early stage setups that will help or hamper it.  That was all that was being talked about.

Doug, 

Can't quite agree 100% with your comment above in purple.  I was simply reacting to Phil's comments: "I'd bet a buck that there isn't a national or world champion that didn't start out flying clunkers, crashing and fixing until they learned how to fly, before they went on to the pretty stuff.  Dan and Mike certainly have put in a lot of time with less than perfect planes to prove the point." Having said that, I also willingly agree that there are a lot of very good fliers that are working their butts off to beat David and Paul and Orestes and that is what drives them to hang in there for the long term.  No question about it.

Beyond that I was doing nothing more than providing an alternative point of view about why many fliers choose to use state of the art equipment that may or may not yet be to their advantage.  The key word being "alternative".  I'm simply of the opinion that a large percentage of those who fly stunt do so for reasons other than winning the "Big Ones" and that their choice of equipment is entirely appropriate for their goals. Try suggesting to guys like Jim Tichy or Roy DeCamara that they should shelve their magnificent, state of the art, works of art in favor of Twisters and McCoy .40s.  Ain't gonna happen 

As someone else pointed out.  I'm fully engage with the minimalism concept and have been since  I designed the Imitation back in 1978 and later the Doctor and Fancherized Twister.  Your premise is on the mark.  My only difference of opinion is that I don't agree that everyone should eschew state of the art equipment for that reason if doing so diminishes their enjoyment of the event.

Ted

[Doug Moon]

Hmmm,

Phil,

I don't know about any other National Champions but from my very first airplane (a Veco Tomahawk with a McCoy Sportsman .29 on it) I've done my very best to make each and every plane I've built as attractive as I was capable of doing at the time (this included combat ships as a kid until it became obvious it was an exercise in frustration ... at which time I quit flying combat rather than take time building strictly utilitarian equipment).  

Once again, I think it is too often not recognized that the reason a great many stunt fliers got into the event was because of the airplanes and the artistry involved in doing the stunt thing well ... not simply the drive to excel flying.  I think the excellent flying follows naturally because the pattern itself is a form of physical artistry as well which appeals to the same instincts.

Certainly not everyone, but my guess is that there are probably a lot more World and National Champions who shared my approach than the "fly beaters until you're ready to win" approach.

It is an interesting point of view,, however, and I hope some other guys that have been lucky enough to win a Walker Cup or two will respond as well.

Ted

So you are saying when you first started out in stunt you werent revved to get in the air as fast as humanly possible and get after it?  You were of the exact mindset you are today about how this is an art and should be savored and contemplated and the approach should be that of an artist and so on? Or have you come to that thought process over a long period of time as you have progressed in stunt and learned to have an appreciation for the "event" and the models built and flown within it as an art form.

I have an art degree myself.  A BFA from Stephen F Austin and have a sense of art, and these planes we build and fly are nothing less than that.  Pure art.  Functional and usable but none the less ART!  I was working towards my degree in ART when I started flying, age 21, I certainly didnt view my first few years of building as art.  But they were in their own right.  My commitment to build and complete those models then was no less, maybe more, than what I have today.

I know my mindset today is miles apart from where I was when I started.  In the beginning I was in awe and wonder of the full fledged stunter and simply didnt know "how they did it"  I loved looking over those large birds.  But now having learned to build them myself I appreciate them so much more as I know the total commitment needed to build one and fly it.

  

[Ted Fancher]

So you are saying when you first started out in stunt you werent revved to get in the air as fast as humanly possible and get after it?  You were of the exact mindset you are today about how this is an art and should be savored and contemplated and the approach should be that of an artist and so on? Or have you come to that thought process over a long period of time as you have progressed in stunt and learned to have an appreciation for the "event" and the models built and flown within it as an art form.

I have an art degree myself.  A BFA from Stephen F Austin and have a sense of art, and these planes we build and fly are nothing less than that.  Pure art.  Functional and usable but none the less ART!  I was working towards my degree in ART when I started flying, age 21, I certainly didnt view my first few years of building as art.  But they were in their own right.  My commitment to build and complete those models then was no less, maybe more, than what I have today.

I know my mindset today is miles apart from where I was when I started.  In the beginning I was in awe and wonder of the full fledged stunter and simply didnt know "how they did it"  I loved looking over those large birds.  But now having learned to build them myself I appreciate them so much more as I know the total commitment needed to build one and fly it.

  

So you are saying when you first started out in stunt you werent revved to get in the air as fast as humanly possible and get after it?  You were of the exact mindset you are today about how this is an art and should be savored and contemplated and the approach should be that of an artist and so on? Or have you come to that thought process over a long period of time as you have progressed in stunt and learned to have an appreciation for the "event" and the models built and flown within it as an art form.

The first sentence is absolutely on the money.  That Tomahawk I mentioned never actually flew but did hang in the local hobby shop for many years.  My "affair" with stunt was born when a young man named Bob Emmett moved from Massachusetts to the Seattle area as an engineer for the Boeing Aircraft Company.  A terrific stunt flyer, Bob showed up at our local rec center hosted model club which was hosted by a couple of other Boeing engineers.  Bob brought along a Black Tiger Stunter and a brand new upright engine T-Bird.  Both of which were about as pretty as anything I'd ever seen (hadn't quite gotten into girls yet).  I was hooked on stunt that same evening, even though I didn't yet know what "stunt" or a "stunt pattern" really were. I really wanted to build something as beautiful as that T-Bird.

My first contest was a year or two later and in it I flew a black Chief with sky blue trim that was probably a 13 to 15 pointer in today's world. 

I wouldn't go so far as to say I had the same mindset at the time because I was a young teen ager and, like most, only knew what I like to do and was fortunate enough that my parents supported a child actually having something to say about how they spent their spare time.  All I can say is that it was the airplanes and not the flying that made it important for me to be involved.  That I had a certain amount of talent for flying didn't really cross my radar screen until much later.  Not surprisingly, it was Bob Emmett (who by that time had become one of my closest friends despite being 10 years older) who first made me think about flying capability when my brother and I decided to go to the Nats in 1959. 

Bob told me shortly before we left that I should be aware that I had a good chance to win Junior ... which was sort of a shock.  I flew pretty well locally but after reading all the modeling press I was all set to be awed by the guys that really knew how to do the shtick.  Bob was nearly prescient, had it not been for my Fox spitting the crankshaft out the night before finals I might very well have been competitive.  Even after rebuilding the airplane and the engine in a classic all night work hangar session I still came in in sixth place.  The guy that finished third was also from the Seattle area and this was the first and only time he finished ahead of me.

Another nice guy, Bill Rutherford, influenced me to finally try to be competitive at the national level after he attended a local contest that I happened to win.  Afterward, Bill was thoughtful enough to write me a very nice letter (that I've kept) saying very nice things about my flying and stating flat out he thought I had what it would take to be competitive at the National level. That drove me to strive very hard to be good at flying until I won my first Walker Cup in 1982.  That was pretty much my goal and my continued involvement in stunt has largely been to stay around something I truly love to do.  The occasional competitive successes that followed were welcome but generally not the result of intense effort on my part.

Bob's beautiful airplanes and patient tutoring and Bill's thoughtful letter sowed the seeds that kept me at this stuff for a lifetime.

More than you wanted to know, I expect.  I think the only real reason for going on at such length is to make it clear that I look at this alternative approach to stunt from a personal perspective.  It is quite frankly the reason I've done this for a lifetime.

Ted

p.s. We are in absolute agreement about stunt ships and art.  That symbiotic relationship isthe basis of my convictions about BOM and Appearance Points being the heart and soul of the event. (That's not an attempt to start up the same old arguments...merely a statement of how important I feel the "art" aspect of the event really is)

[Bradley Walker]

Ted:  "Try suggesting to guys like Jim Tichy or Roy DeCamara that they should shelve their magnificent, state of the art, works of art in favor of Twisters and McCoy .40s.  Ain't gonna happen"

Even though I do not know these gentlemen, I would not be surprised if they put their "works of art" in the car when the wind starts blowing 20+ MPH over the trees...  while the crazies with their Twister/McCoy 40 "beaters" (as you call them) would still be flying.  It happens a lot around here...  when it gets real bad a lot of the "real pretty planes" get put away (and the pilots start to pass) and out come the "beaters".  While the "state of the art" super stunters are parked in the car for fear of scraping the paint, the "old school" basic rigs get a workout.

Eventually the guys who fly their "beaters" in the hurricane force winds, start flying their "works of art" in the bad winds.  Exactly as Doug stated.

I might argue that often times the "works of art" do not fly better in the bad winds than the "beaters"... quite the contrary.

I seem to recall a picture of Baby Fitz flying a Twister for a Jr Nats win (I think it was a Twister)?  Would he have been better served with a 19 point super stunter?

[Dennis Leonhardi]

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.

I just ran across this topic and - realizing it's very old - have to add my "Amen!"

I'm not a stunt flyer, but have judged stunt many times and always enjoyed watching stunt flights at the several Nats I've attended.  I've also officiated (sports) at the National Championship and Olympic Trials level, and those who knew me in that capacity would acknowledge I'm a real "stickler" for the rules.

And I've often told others that Gieseke's flights at Nats in the '70s made it appear his Nobler was on rails ...  Based on the 5-45-90 criteria, I believe his flights were head and shoulders better than others.  Just plain impressive!

Dennis

[EddyR]

I also found this 9 year old thread very interesting. I did not comment on it at the time it was running 2009. I am going to make a couple of comments about the original question. I do disagree with the statements of anyone as there are there personal opinions. There was some very harsh opinions but I will leave that to history.
  I am one of the oldest flyers on here who flew in the late 1940's and a lot in the 1950-60's. I went to several 1950-60's nationals but did not fly stunt as I had other interest. I did meet most of the great flyers of that time. I agree Bob got everything out of his Noblers that was possible but there were other great designs from that ere that are better but Bob out flew them. I built many 1957 Noblers from kits and scratch built . Bobs Nobler is not a 1957 Nobler,it is much improved. I built Bob's version and it flew a lot different. Note not the kit. In the 1960's there were a lot of larger stunt models that were flown at the Nats. Most at that time were using the McCoy 40 red head. The KB45 and the ST/40 were also used by some.Most of the larger models were under powered by todays standard.
 One model from the late 1950's that is outstanding and is much better that a Nobler is the JD Falcon. I saw them fly in the early 1960" at north east contests and they were so under powered as to be useless in the wind with there screaming Fox 35s. I built the JD kit in 2003 and powered it with a Rustler/40 and it flew very good but not in the wind. Years later I put a ST/46 in it and it came up to modern standards. Why is this plane and many others like is so good with more power? It is a large plane in numbers. Moment arms are long. The same as a SV/11. The tail is larger than most vintage models also. My answer to  the the original question is NO. If you bring a old 1950's model up to new standards it is no longer a 1950's model. I built one USA/1 and powered it with a ST/46 and it was a wonderful flying model but it was very under powered. Back in 1969 Billy made it work well for him.
  There were some 1960'd model's that are almost like today's models and it you build one enjoy it. Most of us do not fly at the top level so why worry about having the best super model there is. Note a Classic model looks funny with a big tail on it.
EddyR   
   

[Skip Chernoff]

I'm enjoying this thread very much. I'm not an expert but wanted to weigh in. I do have quite a few flying models from the "Classic and OTS " eras .I've got an Ares,Thunderbird I,Skylark,Ringmaster,Nobler and scratch  built (not by me) 1949 Polywog Chief. The Chief weighs 34 ounces is powered by an OS 35s with 10x6 wooden prop. Truth be told ,on a calm day that Chief is a joy to fly. It turns on a dime and yet is rock solid when it needs to be on the "flats". If all contests were held on perfect days I would never need any other plane. Unfortunatly when the wind kicks up she's not the best arrow in my quiver. So, I have other planes to use. I guess my point is don't dismiss the older designs just because they are old. Properly trimmed, most fly pretty damned good. Cheers,Skip

[Dave_Trible]

I'm enjoying this thread very much. I'm not an expert but wanted to weigh in. I do have quite a few flying models from the "Classic and OTS " eras .I've got an Ares,Thunderbird I,Skylark,Ringmaster,Nobler and scratch  built (not by me) 1949 Polywog Chief. The Chief weighs 34 ounces is powered by an OS 35s with 10x6 wooden prop. Truth be told ,on a calm day that Chief is a joy to fly. It turns on a dime and yet is rock solid when it needs to be on the "flats". If all contests were held on perfect days I would never need any other plane. Unfortunatly when the wind kicks up she's not the best arrow in my quiver. So, I have other planes to use. I guess my point is don't dismiss the older designs just because they are old. Properly trimmed, most fly pretty damned good. Cheers,Skip

Actually it's pretty true that very many classic and N30 designs can easily fly as well or better that the builder/pilot is capable of so attempting to somehow modify these ships (and likely disqualifying them for competition) is rather pointless.Many of these ships can fly 500+ point patterns with modern power plants. That should do ya until you wish to fly seriously at the Nats level and if you are still learning then you'd really be way ahead worrying about flying the crate rather than modifying it.  Some are surely better than others so choosing a known good flying airplane helps and build it well.  Some of the better ones in my stable are the Skylark, Palmer Hurricane, Formula S.  I also plan a Shark 45 and Gieseke Nobler at some point.

[Skip Chernoff]

Dave I've got a Shark45 ready for paint,and can't wait to fly it..........Skip

[Dave_Trible]

Skip it should fly well for you.  The Shark isn't really too far off the modern designs and if you get some power up front will do an admirable job.  When the larger airplanes and Tigre .46 came to the fore,  the Shark basic aerodynamic platform was used in quite a few designs right up to the pipe age.  Lew McFarland proved to be on the leading edge before most.  The straight kit airplane was good if built light.  The actual 'Humbler' which was what Lew first called it had the stab chord 1" wider at the root which made it a bit more like todays stuff.  It's in the 700 square inch range so not small. Lew sort of warned about putting too heavy an engine in the nose since it's so long but something like an ST .51 to RO Jett or PA .61 should put it in a good place.  I think Charlie Reeves great Humbler had a RO Jett .51.  Whenever I build my kit I may use either a Veco .50 I have with no muffler or a RO Jett .61 with rear header muffler.

[Skip Chernoff]

Dave I've got an ST 60 for this Shark, Joe Adamusko gave it to me as a gift. It's Big Jim modified and low time according to Joe. I built a Windy style crutch for it and widened the fuse in the nose to accommodate it. The finished weight will be 65 to 67 0unces.....Skip

[Ted Fancher]

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

I would agree with that, Will, with respect to the Ruffy...one of which I've competed from time to time in recent years.  The Ruffy suffers designwise from many of its brethren of the era in that it has an unusually low aspect ratio wing (draggy lift production) and a quite small tail.  The combination of which makes it difficult to fly well and demands a very consistent powertrain to allow finessed inputs to produce consistent tricks.  Several other "era" compliant designs, a Chizler (Max .35S), an original Nobler (Rustler .40) and a Veco Chief (small Case Johnson "stunt") flew exceptionally well and, IMHO, could under proper conditions fly the tricks (same ones then as now) as well as modern designs. 

I believe modern power trains and a few prime modern aero changes (larger tails allowing more aft CGs near or at the wing's ~center of lift, smaller percentage[especially in chord] flaps and elevators to reduce negative pitching moments and hinge/handle loads, etc. allow the newer ones to fly notably better under difficult conditions since turn/corner performance doesn't deteriorate under acceleration in windy/gusty conditions the way that happens with older designs.

Ted

[Ted Fancher]

Holy Cow!  I had no idea how old this thread was until after posting the above.  Although embarrassing due to its length I was pleased to note that I said almost the same sort of things in a post nine or so years ago as I just did nine minutes ago.

It does remain a fascinating question given all of the intervening latest/greatest designs in the interim, doesn't it?

Ted

[EddyR]

 I remember going to a contest at Ithaca NY around 1959. This guy was wind flying on and on. I had never seen that before. He won the contest and I asked what he was flying. It was a Nobler wing and tail in a Ruffy body. The common thought was it was much quicker to build than a replacement Nobler body. Pretty much proves Ted's comments on the Ruffy. I built two Ruffy's back in the day but I do not think my flying was up to telling the difference.
Ed

[Andre Ming]

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.

If it takes you as long to getting around to building a plane as it does me, you MAY be in diapers again.

Andre

[Randy Cuberly]

I truly believe that a comparison between modern "tuned" (whether Piped IC or electric with all the bells and whistles, and the best of the "Classic era" stunt planes is purely based on the skill of the flier!
While it's true that most of the best of these older designs with modern control systems and tuning devices, such as adjustable control surfaces, adjustable leadouts etc.., can be competitive in the right hands, the simple fact remains that only the very best fliers can make them perform as well as the modern designs.  In other words...in my humble, but experienced opinion, the modern designs such as the Impact, Trivial Pursuit, and a number of others, of that "ILK" are simply much easier to fly well, especially under less than ideal conditions.

Having just finished and competed with a Colossus at this past VSC under less than "ideal conditions" I can testify to this "FACT"!
I find the older designs will, in the best conditions, and in the "BEST" hands, certainly fly an excellent pattern that will "stand" with anything.

My "New" Collosus gave a respectable performance at this VSC in less than "reasonable conditions" but was not easy to fly and was "exhausting" to keep up with.  Yes a lot of that was my recent return to competition, and less than stellar health, but I can tell you with conviction that it must be flown intently at all times!!!  I've found that to be pretty much true of any comparison between the older "smaller tail volume" more forward CG Classic designs and modern Stunt ships such as those mentioned above.

Of course, as mentioned by many above, modern power plants make all of them easier to deal with!

I suspect that the Colossus would be much more difficult to come to "grips" with, when using a K&B 45 or even a good ST46, like some of the originals.  In fact I can't imagine flying a "BIG" 65 oz  airplane like that without the RO Jett 61, or equivalent that's in it!

I would mention that the first flight on the airplane in competition was actually the 14th flight in it's existence and it will probably get better with more trimming and better concentration on the part of it's pilot!

I seriously doubt however, it will ever compare to my GeoXL for ease of flying the best patterns!   I'm no Ted Fancher, or Paul Walker, or David Fitzgerald and never will be so I need an airplane that is easier to fly.

Any one who does not agree that Skill is the key to making the older airplanes perform like modern ones, needs to witness Joe Gilbert flying a 600 point pattern with a "STINK'n RINGMASTER" with a .25 engine in conditions that border on "terrible" then go and try it!

I saw it and still can't believe it!!!  A Ringmaster won Classic in rotten wind at VSC!  IMPOSSIBLE!!!   Only in the hands of "Mr. Ringmaster"!  Unbelievable skill and determination, my friends.  Absolutely NOTHING ELSE!  It just about looked like a "combat plane" flying a near perfect pattern!

Unfortunately most of us are simply human and need a "real" Stunt plane!

Just my two cents!

Randy Cuberly

[EddyR]

You put it very well Randy. Right on.
EddyR

[phil c]

....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......

Hear! Hear!  We do fly model planes for fun.  Even the best rules are subject to interpretation, and the best interpreter is the Contest Director.  Requiring "fidelity scoring" to give "legal' planes higher points would lower the fun factor and raise the heart burn factor.  Then too, how do you deal with the fact that many of the classic old planes were one off's.  If they were published the plans often were reworked, not properly replicating the drawings, much less all the internal doodads that we use modern hardware for and improve the performance, documented above.  If they were kitted they were re-engineered to fit in a specific box, usually the one the company had lots of.  Plus, anyone building from a kit or plans thought nothing at the time of modifying the plane as they wanted to.  I built any number of kits, and never built one exactly as shown.

Nice post Ted.

Phil C

[Steve Holt]

I watched the same 600 pt flight by Joe Gilbert that Randy Cuberly addressed above.  I've been a friend of Joe's and a fan of Ringmasters for quite a few years now and I would have bet that what he did was not possible.  The wind was blustery and caused many flyers problems.  Joe's Ringmaster while nicely done was not in the same appearance class as the "top guys" in the Classic event.  Everyone who has flown a Ringmaster knows that a great landing on asphalt is near impossible.  Nobody told Joe! 
Let me be clear, this was not a "gimme" by inexperienced judges.  Joe's was the only 600 pointer in Classic for the entire contest. 

Can older designs compete with modern models?  Yes, but it requires an extraodinary amount of skill by the pilot.

[Ted Fancher]

I watched the same 600 pt flight by Joe Gilbert that Randy Cuberly addressed above.  I've been a friend of Joe's and a fan of Ringmasters for quite a few years now and I would have bet that what he did was not possible.  The wind was blustery and caused many flyers problems.  Joe's Ringmaster while nicely done was not in the same appearance class as the "top guys" in the Classic event.  Everyone who has flown a Ringmaster knows that a great landing on asphalt is near impossible.  Nobody told Joe! 
Let me be clear, this was not a "gimme" by inexperienced judges.  Joe's was the only 600 pointer in Classic for the entire contest. 

Can older designs compete with modern models?  Yes, but it requires an extraodinary amount of skill by the pilot.

After judging Joe at a couple of Nats a few years back I wrote in public somewhere that his name was going to be on the Walker Trophy/Cup one day.  Nothing I've read about him since changes my mind.  A truly grand flyer who, along with his permanently attached and attractive designated launcher, happen to be a truly grand couple as well.  I await his fulfilling of my prediction!

Ted

[Ken Culbertson]

IJust my opion of course. Just take a look at ice skating and what is now and what used to be.

You have hit on something but it is not quite a true comparison.  Figure skating changed because the "figures" were separated from freestyle.  This changed how skaters trained and how and when jumps were learned.  The artistic content went into the toilet until the scoring system was changed and some of the artistic quality is returning.  The comparison to CL Stunt is different.  We did not separate artistry from performance, we just reduced it and although there is some difference in how judges are trained to score a pattern, except for how we define corners,  there is no difference in the pattern.  Our change is from the equipment.  It is down right scary how much better today's planes fly and that is mostly because of engines, controls and trimming technique.  I was out of it for about 30 years and when I came back the difference amazed me but the winning scores were just about the same but the spread had narrowed.  This told me that today's ships make a good flyer better but only make a great flier more consistent.

A better comparison would have been tennis.  What would that game be like if a Roy Emmerson or a Pancho Gonzales had today's rackets.  Picture a 35 year old Bob Gieseke flying the Bear.

[Ken Culbertson]

I truly believe that a comparison between modern "tuned" (whether Piped IC or electric with all the bells and whistles, and the best of the "Classic era" stunt planes is purely based on the skill of the flier!
While it's true that most of the best of these older designs with modern control systems and tuning devices, such as adjustable control surfaces, adjustable leadouts etc.., can be competitive in the right hands, the simple fact remains that only the very best fliers can make them perform as well as the modern designs.  In other words...in my humble, but experienced opinion, the modern designs such as the Impact, Trivial Pursuit, and a number of others, of that "ILK" are simply much easier to fly well, especially under less than ideal conditions.

Having just finished and competed with a Colossus at this past VSC under less than "ideal conditions" I can testify to this "FACT"!
I find the older designs will, in the best conditions, and in the "BEST" hands, certainly fly an excellent pattern that will "stand" with anything.

My "New" Collosus gave a respectable performance at this VSC in less than "reasonable conditions" but was not easy to fly and was "exhausting" to keep up with.  Yes a lot of that was my recent return to competition, and less than stellar health, but I can tell you with conviction that it must be flown intently at all times!!!  I've found that to be pretty much true of any comparison between the older "smaller tail volume" more forward CG Classic designs and modern Stunt ships such as those mentioned above.

Of course, as mentioned by many above, modern power plants make all of them easier to deal with!

I suspect that the Colossus would be much more difficult to come to "grips" with, when using a K&B 45 or even a good ST46, like some of the originals.  In fact I can't imagine flying a "BIG" 65 oz  airplane like that without the RO Jett 61, or equivalent that's in it!

I would mention that the first flight on the airplane in competition was actually the 14th flight in it's existence and it will probably get better with more trimming and better concentration on the part of it's pilot!

I seriously doubt however, it will ever compare to my GeoXL for ease of flying the best patterns!   I'm no Ted Fancher, or Paul Walker, or David Fitzgerald and never will be so I need an airplane that is easier to fly.

Any one who does not agree that Skill is the key to making the older airplanes perform like modern ones, needs to witness Joe Gilbert flying a 600 point pattern with a "STINK'n RINGMASTER" with a .25 engine in conditions that border on "terrible" then go and try it!

I saw it and still can't believe it!!!  A Ringmaster won Classic in rotten wind at VSC!  IMPOSSIBLE!!!   Only in the hands of "Mr. Ringmaster"!  Unbelievable skill and determination, my friends.  Absolutely NOTHING ELSE!  It just about looked like a "combat plane" flying a near perfect pattern!

Unfortunately most of us are simply human and need a "real" Stunt plane!

Just my two cents!

Randy Cuberly

Right on!

[Will Hinton]

I find it interesting to compare all of the posts concerning this to see which direction they are coming from.  For instance; is the opinion stated from a competitor who started out wanting to fly the absolute best possible for him or her.  I think Doug is a great example here.  Top notch flying was/is his passion.  And he has succeeded!  (And remained a good guy in the process.)
The other direction is the one where, like myself, many modelers loved building more than flying and the flying was just a natural extension of that building.  That was me.  Consequently, my scores took years to creep (key word, "creep") up to a high advanced level.  When I quit practicing I was scoring in the 500's on most flights, but it took me years.  I was content with that, as long as I was flying nice airplanes.  That was my passion and interest.
So it all boils down to this; which part of the sport grabs you the hardest?  Each of us is different, and we need to recognize and accept that in each other and really have a blast doing our thing, together.
If I ever start back on the practice field and move up to expert, I will be a bottom feeder, but a happy one just allowing other expert fliers to not have to always score last, but I'll do it with nice airplanes, thank you.
This sport is one of the greatest ever because the top fliers are so open to helping the rest of the crowd and the rest of the crowd are happy to get to participate with those "upper echelon" dudes.  (Who all happen to be wonderful people as well as great fliers.)
FLY AND BUILD STUNT!!!

[PJ Rowland]

The classic planes have something but they are limited..

When will I see another Nobler with a
61 ?? 9

[john e. holliday]

I still wonder how in the world you got a 61 in the nose of a Nobler and kept it to size?   I have a hard time stuffing a Fox 35 Stunt in one.

[Randy Cuberly]

This has been a long and facinating subject and it comes up an almost every flying session.  I have, out of curiosity, modified some Classic era models, only to ruin their performance.  Then I learned what I did wrong.

 Now I have two Classics that I have made only one mod to , and that was to add 2 inches to the stab/elevators and of course use an Aero Tiger .36 for power. Now these two fly just great and I use them in Intermediate, not

Classic, so as to keep them true to the event. so to speak.  Back in the 50/60's era, it seemed every thing was a big secret, but now there is almost too much information and it can get confusing and at times actually

cause more problems than solve.  By applying modern parameters to older Classics, you  make it a better flying airplane, but no longer Classic, etc.  Nose length and tail volume seem to be the biggest changes, due to

mufflers being required along with the added nose weight and larger fuel tanks due to the extra lap now required. Those two items have been one of the biggest causes for the modern design, but this is only an

opinion based on limited observation.

So, if mufflers were not required and that extra lap were removed, would modern planes still be competitive without mods???  Would their moment arms be changed to adjust to the weight removal from the nose? 

Would the tail volume be the same.?? 

Ty,

Of course, I agree with a lot of what you said but am a bit confused about the "extra lap".  Are you referring to the addition of the triangles or an extra lap after take off or what?  The Triangles actually added three laps or more.

However most of the Classic airplanes were designed after that change!

Randy Cuberly

 

[FLOYD CARTER]

It's hard for me to look at any of my new builds and see "ugly".  They all look great to me, for a while, anyway.

I have somehow avoided ever building a "classic".  I seem to alternate between OTS and "modern".

But, really stuck on OTS, especially using spark ignition.  Perhaps it's a nostalgia trip, since in 1945, "Old Time" was all there was!  (Wasn't called OTS back then).

[PJ Rowland]

It fit because the 61 isnt overtly wide.

It was a VERY tight fit.. but ive managed to get it into 4 different designs of the 60s..

[Air Ministry .]

I still like to build and finish my planes. I'm so stupid I even build them from scratch, cause I don't have a clue what I'm doing. I copy most designs but then I put different parts from different plane together and make a junker. Thanks for all the help, Gary

I think its the best way to go , sometimes .

Maybe a few lines on a sheet of paper , but only necessary to have a few datums , and maybe a rib template or two .
Great way to deal with the Scrap Box too .  T L A R , wottle fit , thats cool , that looks good , etc .

Detroiter style is a gret way to make it up as you go , use what you already have , create something something like original ,
can even use the paint leftovers creatively .

Seeing some planes dont match the original plans , or V c V , saves being all exacting and pedantic , as lonng as its sraight square & true , can build a lot faster .

[Dave_Trible]

This has been a long and facinating subject and it comes up an almost every flying session.  I have, out of curiosity, modified some Classic era models, only to ruin their performance.  Then I learned what I did wrong.

 Now I have two Classics that I have made only one mod to , and that was to add 2 inches to the stab/elevators and of course use an Aero Tiger .36 for power. Now these two fly just great and I use them in Intermediate, not

Classic, so as to keep them true to the event. so to speak.  Back in the 50/60's era, it seemed every thing was a big secret, but now there is almost too much information and it can get confusing and at times actually

cause more problems than solve.  By applying modern parameters to older Classics, you  make it a better flying airplane, but no longer Classic, etc.  Nose length and tail volume seem to be the biggest changes, due to

mufflers being required along with the added nose weight and larger fuel tanks due to the extra lap now required. Those two items have been one of the biggest causes for the modern design, but this is only an

opinion based on limited observation.

So, if mufflers were not required and that extra lap were removed, would modern planes still be competitive without mods???  Would their moment arms be changed to adjust to the weight removal from the nose? 

Would the tail volume be the same.?? 

Ty my opinion only is that actually nearly all competitive IC powered planes use a pipe-not a muffler- and the pipe is integral to the operation of these modern engines so would't be eliminated.  Even if they were the weight of the pipe and header is distributed further aft and wouldn't matter that much.. A couple times I've had the pipe depart the airplane in the air and didn't notice that much pitch difference at the handle.  The bigger issue might be fuel weight, requiring less.  The increased tail volume is more about being able to fly with the CG farther aft which wouldn't change.  I think the only real change would be the mental recoup time between maneuvers and the judges frantically trying to apply and record a score between maneuvers. That's challenging enough with two laps sometimes.

Dave

[Brett Buck]

Ty my opinion only is that actually nearly all competitive IC powered planes use a pipe-not a muffler- and the pipe is integral to the operation of these modern engines so would't be eliminated.  Even if they were the weight of the pipe and header is distributed further aft and wouldn't matter that much.. A couple times I've had the pipe depart the airplane in the air and didn't notice that much pitch difference at the handle.  The bigger issue might be fuel weight, requiring less.  The increased tail volume is more about being able to fly with the CG farther aft which wouldn't change. 

  After Paul Walker came along, that's true. But that is not what started the "large tail volume" situation (which started long before there was a tuned pipe system to address what may have been an accidental/incidental change introduced in the Green Box Nobler). It was originally intended to solve the "opening up" problem in the wind caused by forward CGs, bad airfoils shapes, and the associated excessive flap area. As far as I know, Paul was the first person to fully exploit the fact that you could use the larger stabilizer to *stabilize the airplane* and permit an aft CG.  Ted was working along the same lines but Paul too it to the logical conclusion.

    The original idea for the large tail (from the early 70's) was to create more torque (an unstoppable force) in order to overcome the effects of a far-forward CG (an immovable object), to permit the CG to move *forward* from what it would have been otherwise.   This was a common solution to any issue you might have - "I only got 14 appearance points, so I added an ounce of nose weight", sort of reflexive.

   Both Ted and Bob Hunt told funny stories about trading flights on airplanes from others, and someone being unable to safely fly the airplane because it was so different. Billy did it when he flew one of Hunt's airplanes, and Ted did something similar when he tried to fly one of Windy's airplanes. The latter was less funny in the long run, because it was the genesis (...) of the East Coast/West Coast feud, (actually, the "Windy's paranoia VS objective reality" feud).

    I have one of my typically verbose stream-of-conciousness "submissions" on what I see as the history, but I am going to work on my airplane instead. Or rather, clean up enough space to safely work on my airplane tomorrow.

    Brett