stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Frank Sheridan on July 29, 2009, 06:10:01 PM
-
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?
-
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
-
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".
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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 y1
Regards
Randy
-
I know my Ruffy is a handfull to try and fly smooth compared to my TP based Crosswinds or my own Ephesian.
-
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. HB~>
-
""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
-
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. HB~> HB~>
-
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf6jdEbxQzQ
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.
-
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf6jdEbxQzQ
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
-
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
-
""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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
"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
-
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).
-
"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
-
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
-
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 H^^
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Are you being funny. What about all those FAI Champs. I doubt Orestes would share your opinion about his choice of airplane and engine.
-
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...
-
YES!
-
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
-
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...)
-
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
-
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"
-
(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, 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
-
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
-
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"...
-
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.
-
"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
-
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
-
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
-
"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
-
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
-
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
Keith
You make some very valid points, it certainly is not easy, If I were to suggest a way to help with A and F points it maybe something like this, Bring into Classic something very much like what was used when we flew those ERA planes
0-10 points for workmanship
0-10 points for finish of the model
0-10 points for fidelity.. a model that uses period parts,and is more true to the ERA on the finish.
This could work like this
give 3 points for building the model like the older ones were, give 3 points for a period engine, give 1 to 3 points for things like old wheels,spinner,props, and use the remaining point for any other item that makes it comply with the fidelity clause.
On the same token you could take away 2 or 3 points from that total for things like improper structure or an obvious change that you know to exist
The CD or AP judge is NOT going to catch everything,and sometimes these will let planes slip thru, you just do your best . I think that is all we can ask, remember the goal is to build fly and enjoy showing the older Classic designs.
You would have 30 points with 10 points available for awarding a person whom was being more true to the original designs and hardware, it would help the ones trying to stay with a period theme and be more true to what was flown then, but it would not be punitive to the rest of the flyers.
Regards
Randy
-
"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
I bet if there was an advantage pointwise to using a classic type engine, they would be coming out of the woodwork....
-
I bet if there was an advantage pointwise to using a classic type engine, they would be coming out of the woodwork....
Scott there is an advantage to using them, however most contest do not award the points that are in the rules to give them.
Also I see theses engines all the time, unfortunate but many of them I see are in very bad shape, and new ones sell for a lot some times, Ty's , and my point is the supply would dry up in no time if everyone used them.
Regards
Randy
-
Scott there is an advantage to using them, however most contest do not award the points that are in the rules to give them.
Also I see theses engines all the time, unfortunate but many of them I see are in very bad shape, and new ones sell for a lot some times, Ty's , and my point is the supply would dry up in no time if everyone used them.
Regards
Randy
If you don't get the points, then it's a DISADVANTAGE to use them against other competitors using the modern engines.If the points were given I bet more would be used. It's kind of like when Bill Wilson mentioned once at the Ringmaster Roundup that it was strange that he was the only competitor with a McCoy 35. He figured that that should be a perfect match for a Ringmaster as it was a fairly common combo back then. Sort of like taking a model T and putting a small block Chevy in it......no fidelity....
-
Before I go any further in discussion let me say that I myself have never competed nor have I witnessed many competitions other than doing voluteer work at the Lake Charles Nats. But one thing stands out among competitors in any sport - they are all looking for that edge that will get them an advantage over the other guy (or girl). I would imagine that it has always been this way, and truth be told, you would be hard pressed to find a "box stock" airplane or engine in competition today. So step back in time with X-ray vision with me to the flight line at a stunt meet back in the 1960s for instance. Take a look at this Nobler - the builder has obviously left out some structure to save weight, while this fellow made his rudder a little taller on his Nobler. Over here we have a Chief, but it only has one cockpit to save weight and drag. There's a Fox 35 that looks normal, but our X-ray vision can see a piston skirt mod or some grinding on the crankshaft. And this guy over here built his Smoothie with a larger than normal tail. My point is that nearly everybody throughout history competed with NON STOCK equipment, so zero tolerance for modifications in Old Time or Vintage isn't indicative of what existed in that particular period. And too many rules turn fliers into spectators. All this comes from a guy (me) that can barely do a lazy eight.
-
I would imagine that it has always been this way, and truth be told, you would be hard pressed to find a "box stock" airplane or engine in competition today.
I snipped most of the OP, since I mostly of agree with it. But I think it's very important to note that I have almost always used *bone stock* engines in serious competition, presuming you ignore adjustments like venturi size and compression/head shims. On my current engine (and the one I won the NATs with in 2006*) are/were *dead stock* engines, identical RO-Jett 61 BSEs. Same with the PA61 I used from 99-2003, and the OS40VF I used from 1988-1999 (and that was ONE individual engine). Going back even further, I also used box-stock ST46s, and before I flew my first contest, a box-stock Fox 35 (including the stock spraybar/needle). I haven't even had the head button out of the current engine. If someone asks me the head clearance, I would have no idea. Same with most of my buddies*. And of course the ubiquitous 20PF that runs *absolutely perfectly* with absolutely no changes.
I have had plenty of modified and "tweaked" engines, and modified some of them myself. I flew a local contest with a Larry Foster Stage III Fox (and beat David and his PA40, although we both lost to Bill Howe), but other than that, I have never found *any* advantage to the modifications or tweaks, and in almost every case (aside from Larry's engine) it has been *detrimental*. The idea that you need tweaked or "special" engines to be competitive in stunt is a huge misunderstanding - and one of my pet peeves.
The *vast* majority of the aftermarket tweaked engines I see are effectively ruined by the process, St51's with "reverse blowdown" that put out less power than a Fox 35, and LA46 tweaked to have less power than a Fox 35, and other engines that are so hacked up and poorly modified that they ate themselves up in a few flights.
I won't completely dismiss the possibility that someone could do something useful - for example, the AeroTiger 36 is as good a stunt engine as I have seen, and Orestes made a very useful modification to the Discovery-Retro - but for the most part there's nothing you can do to a stunt motor to make it any better compared to the numerous dead-stock engines that work almost miraculously well.
Brett
*That's not to say we haven't used factory prototypes or semi-customs - Ted and David both won the NATs with 46VFs with AAC cylinder pistons assys from Randy, and the engine I used in 2006 could plausibly described as a prototype/custom (although you can call Dub Jett this evening and get an identical engine). Same argument with David's PA75s - first the 2-port version and now the 5-port "mail slot" version - could be considered prototypes or "factory works" engines. That's a little different from "modified" in my book, but I suppose it's a matter of definition.
-
Just about every "stunt" engine on the market is based on a "modified" RC engine.
Many of the European "stunt" engines are simply design throwbacks to the 1950's and 1960's era engines in modern materials.
-
Just about every "stunt" engine on the market is based on a "modified" RC engine.
Many of the European "stunt" engines are simply design throwbacks to the 1950's and 1960's era engines in modern materials.
That's mostly true, although most of them aren't very good. one of the only two really good ones actually uses a very important innovation that gets little credit or attention- the Retro "plug shield" definitely solves one of the big problems that plagued the ST60, i.e. collecting raw fuel and periodically blurping it onto the plug. Although Frank Williams seems to have been the first to correctly diagnose it and come up with at least one solution to it.
Brett
-
That's mostly true, although most of them aren't very good. one of the only two really good ones actually uses a very important innovation that gets little credit or attention- the Retro "plug shield" definitely solves one of the big problems that plagued the ST60, i.e. collecting raw fuel and periodically blurping it onto the plug. Although Frank Williams seems to have been the first to correctly diagnose it and come up with at least one solution to it.
Brett
Well, schnuerles do that worse than baffle engines... especially when run rich (hence the blocking of the boost port).
BTW, the Big Jim ST 60's don't need that "plug shield". I have never seen an engine run more symmetrically than a good Big Jim ST 60. In fact, there is no more flawlessly running "stunt run" out there than Big Jim's engines (except for the McCoy 40 I suppose). The compression numbers used by Jim are used by most if not all of the "modern" stunt engines, whether they know it or not (of course, I think he got his head design from the Merco).
One of the biggest issues is asymmetry (I believe you had similar problems?).... breaking lean inverted and rich right side up (alsmot all engines do it when mounted inverted---even the 4 strokes). The Russians finally gave up and went sidewinder.
-
Well, schnuerles do that worse than baffle engines... especially when run rich (hence the blocking of the boost port).
Not necessarily. Schnuerles with huge ports designed for R/C applications at 16,000 RPM sometimes have issues, for pretty obvious reasons. But not always. Schnuerles with relatively small ports don't necessarily have problems.
I am no particular advocate of blocking the boost ports. It worked OK in Dave's case because the lost power was more than compensated for by the fact that it was a 75 in an airplane that would have flown just dandy with an ST46. Right now, he is running a better, and more symmetrical, engine with multiple boost ports, not just one. My engines run dead steady inside and out, and it has the same 4 ports (2 regular, 1 boost, and 1 exhaust) everybody else's does.
I think the area, shape, and angles make *far* more difference than how many there are. It depends on the particular design - as always the details are what matters, not so much the gross characteristics.
Here's a conundrum not explained by your theory of boost ports - One engine with gross variation from inside to outside, the other with virtually none. Same very large ports, same number of ports, same compression, same plug, same fuel, the only difference was that one had a spigot venturi and the other did not. Oops! I misspoke, it's not just identical engines, it's *the same engine*, 10 minutes later after swapping venturis. How did the boost ports change between runs? I would conclude in this case that the problem was not caused by the presence of boost ports, nor cured by their absence.
BTW, the Big Jim ST 60's don't need that "plug shield". I have never seen an engine run more symmetrically than a good Big Jim ST 60. In fact, there is no more flawlessly running "stunt run" out there than Big Jim's engines (except for the McCoy 40 I suppose). The compression numbers used by Jim are used by most if not all of the "modern" stunt engines, whether they know it or not (of course, I think he got his head design from the Merco).
Huh? Compression of a PA61 is the same as Big Jim ST60? I was unaware of that improbable, uh, fact. And I certainly don't understand how engines ranging from 6:1 (GMA-Jett, early models) to 12:1 (40/46VF) can all match. Or are we now back to claiming the VF "isn't a stunt motor"!?
One of the things I *am* concerned with is that a lot of the 'blocked-boost-port-for-lucky-best-Stunt-Run' engines run nice and predictably, with reasonable symmetry - and absolutely no power. Same with several Iron Curtain "modern" stunt engines. I would think a currently-produced ABC 40, even a baffle-piston, should be able to out-do a Fox 35. But then I saw a bunch of them run, and they wouldn't. Stalker 40RE, run per directions, absolutely gutted out to the max lean, Top Flight 10-6, Nobler - 5.4 second laps, and absolutely nothing/sagging in the maneuvers. If I set a Fox like that, it would be going 4.6 right up to the point the crank broke. That's about 60% more power - from the Fox! Well, it's just that one engine, right? Well, no, the same guy got two more of them, pretty much identical results. So, switch to a Double Star 40 - slightly better, but still not even close power-wise. You can fly a Nobler with some success with a Veco 19 - but not a brand new "Stunt 40"? They're not all like that (the Rustler "Metamorph" is pretty strong) but a lot of them are.
A lot of the mod-jobs are even worse - 46LA "modified for stunt run" unable to get a Pathfinder ARF up to sufficient speed to attempt a wingover - even with a 10-7! At sea level and 50 degrees. A stock engine with 10-7 would fling that thing around at 80 mph, and with a 12.25-3.75 APC it makes the airplane sit up and talk. But the modified engine came up about 2000 RPM short.
If your point is that you would prefer a McCoy 40 to a super-gutless modified 46LA then I would not be inclined to argue with you.
Of course, not all of the modified engines are like that, but I have seen enough of them that it frustrates me mightily. I hate to see people continuing to live in the same mindset as 1985 when we were always desperate for more power and living with 6" of pitch because the engine isn't strong enough to do any better.
But it makes absolutely no difference to me - if you can get a McCoy 40 to run better than you can a PA75, have at it. The results will provide confirmation of your theories, or prove them wrong. I am certainly not wedded to any particular approach and will switch in a heartbeat if I think it will work better.
One of the biggest issues is asymmetry (I believe you had similar problems?).... breaking lean inverted and rich right side up (alsmot all engines do it when mounted inverted---even the 4 strokes). The Russians finally gave up and went sidewinder.
"Had" being the operative word. I have had no symmetry issues *at all* with the 40VF or the RO-Jett. Or the 5 flights I had with the 46VF (stock, I never ran the AAC version). I had a minor, but "close-enough-to-come-in-third" problem with that my Stage I PA61. It was symmetrical 95% of the time, but it was more powerful and provided better performance than almost everything else 100% of the time, so it was not a hard decision to run it. That appears to have been conclusively solved by the Stage III from 4-5 years ago, or the two-port, or 5-port PA61/65. I am pretty sure that I would be able to notice such a thing pretty easily on the 53-oz. Vector 40. Not a problem with the current PA75s that Dave runs, near as I can tell. I guarantee that if it *did* do that we would fix it or switch.
I think the mechanism is obvious - if the charge shoots through huge ports with low velocities, then the acceleration along the cylinder axis has some effect on it. In some cases, that causes different scavenging from inside to outside. In other, maybe most, cases, it doesn't seem to have any consequential effect. Note that the same problem can happen with baffle-piston engines - Fox burp being an absolutely hallmark example, the tendency of the ST60 to stumble on insides (as discovered by Frank, and diagnosed/corrected by the inboard cylinder) being another. Blocking the boost port, and thus cutting the port area by 33% clearly increases the charge velocity, and that's what changes or fixes the symmetry. Sometimes. However there is also abundant evidence that simply making the 3, or 4, or 5 ports smaller to get decent velocity will have essentially the same effect. As will running 4" of pitch instead of 6 (and thus increasing the shaft HP {far less efficient prop at normal level flight, same power into the airframe}, and increasing the flow velocity *that* way). The 4 vs. 6 part was what was missed by almost everyone during the schnuerle wars.
There are also clearly other factors that appear to have nothing to do with the port size, number, or placement - like the venturi change example above. Or the fact that it is a serious problem if you run a conventional muffler, and no issue when you run the same engine on a pipe.
Brett
-
All this engine discussion brings me to this question - Is the Fox 35 or the McCoy 40 a capable engine by today's standards? Were these engines just "lucky" examples of the evolutionary chain that is engine development? Put a muffler on either engine and you've pretty much crippled them.
-
Huh? Compression of a PA61 is the same as Big Jim ST60? I was unaware of that improbable, uh, fact.
Well, uh...then get uh...pressure gauge and uh...check them.
Nearly all of the modern 60 ish "stunt" engines that are worth a crap range measure between 95 PSI and 110 PSI. That includes the PA 61 and 65. I have measured dozens of other engines. Smaller engines have slightly lower numbers and larger engines have slightly higher numbers.
A ST 60 was originally designed for near 0% nitro and starts out at 125-135 PSI. The Big Jim Modification made the ST 60 compression right at 105 PSI. My PA 65 is right at 110 PSI when stock (with .024" of shims), and with a .010 shim added it ends up right at 105 PSI. Same as a Big Jim ST 60.
-
Here's a conundrum not explained by your theory of boost ports - One engine with gross variation from inside to outside, the other with virtually none. Same very large ports, same number of ports, same compression, same plug, same fuel, the only difference was that one had a spigot venturi and the other did not. Oops! I misspoke, it's not just identical engines, it's *the same engine*, 10 minutes later after swapping venturis. How did the boost ports change between runs? I would conclude in this case that the problem was not caused by the presence of boost ports, nor cured by their absence.
I did not find the spigot venturi did anything for asymmetry. Neither did Doug, Bob G, or Mike Scott. So, your lab experiment has not been duplicated with the same results here.
No one I know, in fact, has fixed any issue with a PA with a spigot venturi except for you and your flying buddies...
Mostly what I see is everyone running the engine so deep in the 4 cycle that symmetry becomes a non issue. If there is no break, there is no asymmetry... that is why I think everyone runs so far away from the break, to get rid of the "charging on the outsides".
I have a video of the 1996 Nats.... when everyone was running the OPS 40 and the OS VF 40 and 46. Typically round eight from that video... burrrrrrrrrrrrr (inside) neeeeeeeeeee (outside) burrrrrrrrrrrrr (inside) neeeeeeeeeee (outside).
-
Not a problem with the current PA75s that Dave runs, near as I can tell. I guarantee that if it *did* do that we would fix it or switch.
Why do you think I plugged the boost port in the first place? In the "underloaded" state, with the large #8 Eather pipe and small "green" three blade prop, I was getting stumbling in insides and leaning on the outsides. So I plugged the boost port, and it mostly went away. It certainly improved.
Where do you think David got the idea? I told Randy Smith and Brian Eather what I found and they told David...then he tried the two port sleeve that Randy never tested. The rest is history.
-
There are also clearly other factors that appear to have nothing to do with the port size, number, or placement - like the venturi change example above. Or the fact that it is a serious problem if you run a conventional muffler, and no issue when you run the same engine on a pipe.
Asymmetry is a tricky one. Very tricky. There does not seem to be a clear fix in any given case... I even know of one engine running perfectly symmetrical, and then the next one bought (being supposedly identical) runs asymmetrical.
That is why the really smart guys finally gave up and went sidewinder. Certainly works for the 4 stroke. It is a completely different engine run on its side.
-
So, switch to a Double Star 40 - slightly better, but still not even close power-wise.
We fixed that. Actually, EricV found the fix.
The DS 40 spray hole was way too small for a stunt engine. It was teeny tiny, like for a combat engine run on a bladder. Once the spray bar was replaced with a PA spraybar, it got balls galore. When before it was lean and two cycling, now it would just drone along in a deep 4 cycle. Fuel consumption went up.
Ask Fitton... It only took a year of nagging to get him to change it in his Classic plane... He he. The change was *significant* and this modification was the only modification made.
-
A lot of the mod-jobs are even worse - 46LA "modified for stunt run" unable to get a Pathfinder ARF up to sufficient speed to attempt a wingover - even with a 10-7!
I wrote an article for PAMPA back in the 1980's comparing the "cut" OS Max FP stunt engines to the Big Art style blocked boost port engines (my last technical article for PAMPA I can assure you). I think the sentence that got me in the most trouble was the one that implied that the "cut engine" would not pull my Tutor through a wingover (so that is kind of ironic). I hope no one starts a letter writing campaign for your comments.
I spent an entire year blocking boost ports and changing port sizes in my three OS 46 SF's based on the findings of the Adamisins. The results were very interesting to say the least. I think the effect of the port size is much more significant than timing (for example). I had one OS 46 that I took all three ports and reduced them by half. It would only run at about 7800 RPM, but it not 4 cycle and it needed a high pitch prop, and it would stunt at one speed... it was really kind of amazing. I was convinced by everyone at the time that I needed to be running a 4 pitch prop, so I switched back to the blocked boost engine.
PS: I hate low blow down engines... they are truly gutless.
-
In Philly we run stock fp40s and fp35s in stunt. A lot of them. Jack Weston won advanced a number of times on the East Coast, using one of these engines. Got the boot. Mike Palko ran an FP40 in Advanced, did very well, then went to electric. Modified engines have been down on power. Though we're still trying to make a few work. The stock engines are sensitive. A click or two of the needle can move you out of the sweet spot, which often means trouble. Needle them correctly, however, and you've got a strong 40 with a useful break. These engines should be adjusted according to flight performance. Ground settings may or may not correspond. Do not be ham handed on the clicker. Find a setting that flies quite rich. Than adjust one click lean at a time on the ground. Always fly the new setting. (That's how I do it.) FP35s and 40s usually need a head shim or two to soften the break.
LA46s are great. More forgiving. Can loaf in a 4stroke or run a hard 4stroke and still provide a useful break. Extra head shims often help make the break milder. The La46s can even tolerate a variety of props. I was surprised (amazed) by folks running PA65s in Vector 40s, since I've pulled that plane around with an LA46 running in a wet 4stroke, too wet to even break. Plane went up and over with no problem. Even in a decent breeze. Why use a $400 powerhouse when an LA46 will do the job. So far the difference between inside/outside has not been a big issue for us. Jack's engines often ran slightly richer outside than inside. He found that to be a useful characteristic.
-
Asymmetry is a tricky one. Very tricky. There does not seem to be a clear fix in any given case... I even know of one engine running perfectly symmetrical, and then the next one bought (being supposedly identical) runs asymmetrical.
That is why the really smart guys finally gave up and went sidewinder. Certainly works for the 4 stroke. It is a completely different engine run on its side.
Well, way back in the early 1980s or so this "not really smart guy" was scratching his head over the inside versus outside conundrum with the then popular side exhaust OS, .40 and .45 FSR schnerles that Bobby Hunt had some success with -- winning the WC a couple of years before.(plus a handful of other similar engines -- OPS, K&B, and that pretty black engine with a gold head whose name escapes me in yet another oldtimer's moment)
Using my designed by a "not so smart guy" Imitation (built exclusively as a test bed for engines and for some very interesting fact finding [for a dumb guy] about flaps and airfoil testing) I "tested" a number of engines and essentially all of the schnerle ported ones exhibited the exact same characteristic. Rich insides and two stroking outsides in maneuvers combining both postitive and negative g loadings. Had me scratching my dumb head until -- from out of the blue, I guess, since a dumb guy couldn't have come up with an idea -- it occurred to me to experiment with some variations on the standard theme.
Because some gremlin had planted in my "not really smart head" the idea of a removable RC style engine mount with "nose moment" spacers to accommodate different weight motors for testing, it was easy even for a dumb guy like myself to modify the manner in which the engine was mounted ... and then go fly them to like, you know, test what happens when I did so.
I first mounted the engine sideways as your really smart guys did (remember this was way back in 1980). Totally cured the problem ... well, not really. What happened is it totally reversed the problem. Now the engine two stroked in insides and went rich and stumbled in the second outside of the figure eights (by the way, this dumb guy noticed that the lean/stumble in insides versus outsides only happened in figure eights. There was no significant difference in the engine run in simple inside/outside loops and, further, shimming the tank to try to undue the "schnerle" thing had essentially zero effect even if done to the point that upright and inverted flight laps were dramatically different in predictable response to the tank's relative height to the engine.
Alas, my single bright idea for a dumb guy had proven a failure. Fortunately, however, the little gremlin came back and suggested that I "test" some other solutions that I, as a dumb guy, wouldn't have been able to figure out on my own. I now rearranged the engine mount so that the cylinder was mounted at 45 degrees between sidewinder and inverted. Then I went back out and, despite my relative lack of intelligence, "tested" it yet again. Oi vey. It ran essentially exactly like it ran when side mounted ... the reverse version of the identical rich/lean conundrum.
Now, a really smart guy would probably have given up and gone back to the McCoy .40 but, not being so bright, I took it one step further. I rearranged the mount to set the cylinder at 22 degrees from inverted and actually "tested" it some more. By George, despite my stupidity and the need for a gremlin to force me to "test" some ideas, the engine ran like a clock. Absolutely zero "Schnerle" effect in either direction. It was stunt engine Nirvana. My God, that Gremlin must have been a genius!
Well, again, not exactly. I foolishly thought it would be a good idea to test the redundancy of my discovery. I bolted on an apparently identical .46 FSR and reran the "tests". Double alas, "tests" on this engine at 22 degrees ran exactly like it did when fully inverted.
Well, even a dumb guy learns eventually and I shelved the project. Too much "testing" for a dumb guy ... so I decided to try something else instead. I started "test" flying four stroke engines. This was around 1983 and was successful to the point that I built an airplane for the Enya .46 4C intended for the 1985 Nats. The tests that were so successful with the Imitation were less so with the new airplane so it was re-engined a couple of times ... first with an FSR that once again failed to live up to expectations and then with a venerable old ST .46. It won the Walker Cup in 1986 with the Tigre. I guess even "not so smart" guys find an acorn from time to time, huh?
All I can say is it is really great that after all these years we finally have a "really smart guy" like yourself to make up for all the years of PFM development done by the not "really smart guys". Here I thought I was testing all that time and it turns out that I wasn't smart enough to do so. Thank heavens you've straightened me out.
Ted
-
All I can say is it is really great that after all these years we finally have a "really smart guy" like yourself to make up for all the years of PFM development done by the not "really smart guys". Here I thought I was testing all that time and it turns out that I wasn't smart enough to do so. Thank heavens you've straightened me out.
Ted
Ted, it amazes me to no end how everything that I (or it seems anyone who might have a differing view) say or write is turned around to be a personal insult to you or one of your friends.... It seems every discussion is all about you, no matter the subject.
There are literally thousands and thousands of stunt fliers worldwide out there, Ted. Many of them are doing lots of things that *you* do not do... At the same time, no one here is discounting your findings or the success of your methods, quite the contrary.
In fact, there was nothing, absolutely *nothing* insulting to you or anyone else in any of my posts...
It really is no wonder that stunt design, or particularly stunt design innovation has nearly ground to a halt in the last few decades, and most particularly in the last decade with the introduction of Internet forums. Young stunt designers are nearly non existent.
Any discussion of leaving the "norm" is quickly shot down with the obligatory "this has won XX Nats, and XX WCs blah blah", or the argument is quickly reversed to "are you saying I do not know what I am talking about?" (since one might be implying that they might not use the "proven" method).... or God forbid, someone that has not won the Nats has thought of something original that might be of use, or even profound.
I doubt the Yatsenkos could have developed the system that has dominated the Nats for the last few years (and is slowly taking over all over the world), if they had been inundated with this "follow what the elite tell you is *right* do or be beat into submission" culture, where thinking outside the box is downright discouraged (unless you are buddies with the elite of course... then it is innovative).
PS: I think your post would have been great minus the copious disdain. I did not remember your tests.... which are interesting.
-
I fixed a ST 51 that would all but quit on insides by going to 20% oil instead of 22% ;D
-
Weird, Jack Weston's inverted fp35 runs rich outside... a bit.
-
Well, despite all the stuff on engines and such, I still think that a well built Nobler, powered and trimmed well, will still compete at the highest levels, with the possible exception of Open at the Nat's.
I use the Nobler for my example, but there are many other designs who will also perform to this level.
-
Well, despite all the stuff on engines and such, I still think that a well built Nobler, powered and trimmed well, will still compete at the highest levels, with the possible exception of Open at the Nat's.
I use the Nobler for my example, but there are many other designs who will also perform to this level.
I agree John. If Ted Fancher came with a nobler and placed high at VSC with not much trimming from what I've heard. With a newer power source, I think, once again from what I've read, any good flying classic plane could place at high at the Nats. I keep saying this is from what I've read and heard because I don't have enough planes built, done enough, if any testing with planes and engines.
If I built a USA-1, I'd power it with a Shneurle ported engine (PA, RO-Jett, OPS, VF etc.) for more power, that way it could power the plane through the pattern easier than an ST 46. The guys back then built planes with the power they had available. That's all Bill Werwage, Bob Gieseke, and George Aldrich had for motors back then. Bob Gieske was competitive with a Geiseke Nobler and a Fox 35 right up into the 80s. His last Walker Cup win was 1979, when Billy W. had the USA-1, les McDonald also had his Stilletto and Bob Hunt had his Genesis 46's.
Thinking out loud here, and forgetting a couple things to say then remembering it a minute later is what this post is.
-
Now, a really smart guy would probably have given up and gone back to the McCoy .40 but, not being so bright
From Stunt Minimalism:
"I know for myself, I have been nothing less than shocked about the performance of classic era equipment in modern times. In the last year, I attended two contests. In both contests the two best running engines I saw were both McCoy 40’s. You simply could not make a better performing stunt engine, in my opinion. A manufacturer could make an engine that would last longer, or put out more power, but I do not believe that the quality of run has been improved upon since the McCoy 40. There I said it…"
In determining "quality of run" I look at run symmetry, consistent break, torque, line tension, penetration, and wind up in the wind performance.
-
As a participant and designer spanning the Classic through modern era's I have witnessed many iterations and variations in CLPA design & power approaches have been used - both successfully and unsucessfully - at different times. I'll allow that I have my favorite ideas - and unfavorite ideas, but I am hard-pressed to catagorically praise or condemn any approach.
Surprisingly few anayltical tests series - like Ted's Imitation article - have been done AND published. Very few tests have applicability beyond a narrow range of applications. Thus we are left to hack & whack and pronounce the good ones as intelligent designs and the bad wones as... crooked or underpowered!
BTW, I do not recall ever seeing Ted's experiments with engine positioning before. That is good stuff too.
For my part I designed roughly 17 birds over a 17 year span that all used the SAME power system. Most these were (for their time) relatively successful designs, a few were truly exceptional. A couple would have clearly benefited from power-ups, almost all would have bnefited from weight reductions! As a result I concentrated on airframe aerodynamics and efficiency, and I think I learned a lot along the way. I am also distrustful of the crowd who believes that more power is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS better. I mean, you can put a candle in a cow-pie but that don't make it a birthday cake!
If instead of standardizing on power I had "led" with power systems, I am sure my aerodynamic design "formulas" would have been different - and I would have learned a lot - likely dfferent - lessons. In modern times, we can buy 60's built in the same blocks as 40's, and can buy 75's that weigh the same as a 46, it is easy to be seduced by the "larger displacement". The ability to tailor that displacement to deliver the power required for the airframe is where the hard work comes in.
In 1979 Bob Gieske won the NATs with a Fox 35 (at least 10 years obsolete) in some of the WORST wind ever encoutered at a NATs final, and did it against 4 "state of the art" power systems and airframes. This strongly suggests that even "underpowered" Classics used to fly well in the wind, and that in the final analysis, PILOT skills and preparation rule.
All I suggest is that we all "chew" on this before making blanket statements about the "clear superioirity" of one design approach versus another. Sacred cows make the best burgers...
-
Ted, it amazes me to no end how everything that I (or it seems anyone who might have a differing view) say or write is turned around to be a personal insult to you or one of your friends.... It seems every discussion is all about you, no matter the subject.
Brad, I think that a large part of the problem is that for a very intelligent guy you seem to have no idea how you come across to others. You make these long statements about a subject, then when others disagree you "wrassle" with them verbally until they just get tired of going back and forth. While others still may not agree with you they simply realize that you aren't going to quit until they either agree with you or let you have the last word.
-
As I have stated before will do again. What works for one may not work for someone else and vice versas. DOC Holliday
-
Brad, I think that a large part of the problem is that for a very intelligent guy you seem to have no idea how you come across to others. You make these long statements about a subject, then when others disagree you "wrassle" with them verbally until they just get tired of going back and forth. While others still may not agree with you they simply realize that you aren't going to quit until they either agree with you or let you have the last word
I don't mind anyone "disagreeing"... but God LORD that is the problem, NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH THESE PEOPLE!!!!
I certainly have not been the one with my hackles up... no sir. I am just stating my side. I have made no derogatory remarks about anyone else (or their methods) until now, and the only reason is that I am just sick of it, frankly.
As far as what *I* say and write, I seem to do quite well. I think that my articles in Flying Models and Control Line World have been quite well received, and I have never received one single negative comment about my ability to relay my thoughts.
No, Bill I think the friction might be coming from some other people's inability to communicate effectively. The same people you are never allowed to disagree with, in fact.
-
Yes,, the McCoy .40, heck, even the .35 were,, and still are, the best engines of their time when it comes to quality of run. Because of certain problems in QC, and in the way some pilots lack of understanding on how to run, and care for them, they were often maligned.
If I was to put together a classic ship, trying for the spirit of 64 award, and wanted it to be competitive, I would build a Southwick Lark. I would indeed power it with a McCoy .40, one that had passed through the hands of Tom Lay, because he does something to the piston that allows a muffler to be used. I would use a totally modern control system, but everything on the outside, I would try to use from the day. Veco streamlined wheels, Veco or Froom spinner, Top Flight prop, Silkspan and dope.
I'm thinking such a setup would be devastating in the hands of a very good pilot, like Whitely Gordan, Byles, et all. I'd even wager that such a set up would do well in PAMPA Classes within certain conditions,agianst modern equipment.
Edit
While Ed's Lark is a beautiful design, most would say that the Sky Lark was the better flier. I agree, and admit that I mixed myself up above, and meant to say Sky Lark rather than Lark.
-
I don't mind anyone "disagreeing"... but God LORD that is the problem, NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH THESE PEOPLE!!!!
I certainly have not been the one with my hackles up... no sir. I am just stating my side. I have made no derogatory remarks about anyone else (or their methods) until now, and the only reason is that I am just sick of it, frankly.
As far as what *I* say and write, I seem to do quite well. I think that my articles in Flying Models and Control Line World have been quite well received, and I have never received one single negative comment about my ability to relay my thoughts.
No, Bill I think the friction might be coming from some other people's inability to communicate effectively. The same people you are never allowed to disagree with, in fact.
Don't mind disagreement one bit, Brad. Quite the opposite, in fact. Nobody enjoys a spirited exchange of ideas more than me. I’m more than willing to do so and, ultimately if necessary, amicably agree to disagree regarding a difference of opinion … and have done so many times in the past.
It's the name calling and sneering disdain with which you reference others and their ideas that is a turn off. To wit, I find pretty much every one of your characterizations of yourself in this post to be, frankly, laughable; an absolutely perfect example of pots calling kettles black.
Your manner is caustic to the extreme; distasteful in tone; and disrespectful to those to whom you refer. People pretty much reap what they sow in this world and you are nothing if not an adept spreader of your seed.
Ted
-
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?
Original Topic
-
Original Topic
Richard - spoilsport!!! LL~ LL~ LL~
Frank: Of course Richard is right to refocus back to your original post. The answer is that even in their prime the Chief and Smoothie were not NATs contenders, so it would be hard to put them in that position today - even with modern power.
Ask my dad what the best stunt trainer is and he will recommend the Chief in a heartbeat. According to "legend" GMA built several Chiefs as precursors to designing the Nobler. Indeed even today the Chief is a terrfic flyer and corners like crazy - but that big hershey bar wing can become a handful in the wind.
I cannot say I ever saw a Smoothie fly as well as a Chief, don't know if it can or cannot, but that is just my observation, Thus MY choice between those two would be simple.
As for Best of the old versus Best of the new I'd say ---- not a lot of difference in calm weather, but a big differnece in the way flyers contend with adverse wind - tho not necessariy the success. With the old they tended to richen up and fly the wind. With the new they tend to try to go fast and over-speed the wind. Each approach has its proponents, its rewards and its adverse consequences...
-
As predicted, this thread has become one all about "rules" , "judging", and competition issues (winning strategy).
Now, to the original question:
Some older designs are being flown in modern PAMPA events, but at a handicap. The older models actually have their own flying class: it's called "OTS". Within that category there are some good ones and some real dogs! So, it isn't fair to generally mix the older designs with the new and expect similar results.
An early response suggested that "barn door" wings are hard to handle in the wind. And another person wanted an accurate definition of "wind".
I both agree and disagree with that premise. I've flown a Coasby Taurus that was all over the sky in the wind. My "pollywog" Chief (another barn door with flaps) takes the wind in it's stride! My WILDMAN 60 (a large plane- picture enclosed) laughs at the wind and bores on regardless.
Floyd
-
Back to the engine thing. Paul Walker built a Cobra and he powered it with a Fox 35, adn brought it to a win at VSC. Engines may not make as much of a huge difference as everybody thinks, but some planes could use a larger engine.
-
As a wrote in Stunt Minimalism I do believe there are certain people that benefit from technology, but I would also argue, at the same time those people DO NOT NEED TECHNOLOGY TO WIN. They would win without it.
From Stunt Minimalism (referring to the example of disc golf minimalism---the basis of the philosophy):
1.The level of technology needed to perform well is actually very low. Avoiding faddish technology allows the player to fully evolve as a competent player.
2.The average player is constantly being inundated with alluring new technology that statistically will not improve their games. This is easily proven by taking a student into a field and throwing high tech discs next to low tech discs and marking where they land. It takes no time at all to see that the high tech discs often worsen performance despite the promise to the contrary.
3.The best players developed their skills using low tech equipment. Most of the competent players in the modern era actually developed their games using very basic, low tech equipment that changed very little for years and years (even decades in some cases).
4.The best players do not rely on technology to dominate. They do not need too, they are the best. See #3.
5.Every piece of equipment has a specific function. Learn how to use it.
From Stunt Minimalism (as it applies to stunt):
The level of technology needed to perform well is actually very low. The ugly truth is that control line flying stunt is *not* a high tech game. It simply is not. It never has been. In fact, the modern pattern, which is flown at 55 to 60 mph, has not changed in 40 years. As a result, the baseline requirements for the equipment required to successfully fly the event has not changed one single bit in that entire time. In my experience, I cannot say that the equipment/pilot paradigm has shifted radically into the modern era. Does the modern stunt ship fly “better” than the classic or Super Seventies era stunt ship? I am not so sure… in fact, I believe there might be ample evidence to show the contrary. Just watch the top pilots flying their Classic competition planes if you want to see for yourself. I could assert that Billy Werwage flew his ST 40 powered Vulcan better than any plane he ever built. In fact, Bob Geiseke accomplished more with a Nobler and Fox 35 than he did with all the other designs and equipment used since.
I know for myself, I have been nothing less than shocked about the performance of classic era equipment in modern times. In the last year, I attended two contests. In both contests the two best running engines I saw were both McCoy 40’s. You simply could not make a better performing stunt engine, in my opinion. There I said it… A manufacturer could make an engine that would last longer, or put out more power, but I do not believe that the quality of run has been improved upon since the McCoy 40 (in determining "quality of run" I look at run symmetry, consistent break, torque, line tension, penetration, and wind performance).
The average player is constantly being inundated with alluring new technology that statistically will not improve their games. I know of several people who have switched from the large 65 and 75 powered pipe planes to smaller classic era planes with a modern, slightly oversized engines and their flying improved and there consistency greatly improved. I am sure it would not be all that unusual if those same people were to meet up with a stranger from out of town that they might hear “wow, you'd be really good if you had a 75 powered pipe plane!!!” If someone tries to tell you that you *must* have XXX piece of gear to compete, you might be best served to just turn on your heels and walk away .
The best players developed their skills using low tech equipment. Many of the top modern stunt flyers had decades of “Stunt Minimalism”. Many of the top flyers competing today spent years and years flying simple to build, inexpensive airplanes with very basic finishes and low tech power plants. Many flew kit planes or modified kit planes with simple dope finishes, had one kind of fuel, a 1950’s era designed engine, and flipped their wood propeller with a naked finger. Yet, many of those same flyers will tell up and coming pilots that they need a 750 square inch 19 point airplane, a $400 engine, a $50 prop, etc to “move up”. Today, we are very fortunate that there are many good ARF and ARC alternatives to get people flying a lot of aggressive practice. If you are at that stage where you feel you are ready to really improve, or if you are afraid to fly in bad conditions or low to the ground, I really suggest that you build yourself three identical ARF's this winter and fly them until they are worn out or until you crash them all while flying in 30 MPH winds. The lack of effort in the building of an ARC or ARF can greatly offset the fear factor in practice. Nothing will make a pilot more “gunshy” about flying aggressively than a new, perfectly finished, $1500 airplane. Although it might go against conventional wisdom or tradition, I think many pilots go to “pretty” planes too soon in their stunt careers (I know I did). As a result, they learn to fly “timid” or even “afraid” (certainly not relaxed) because their main focus becomes protecting their 18 point beauty rather than being able to practice with four foot bottoms in 20 MPH winds.
The best players do not rely on technology to dominate. The idea that “so and so hot shot flyer” won XX number of contests with this YY technology speaks more to the ability of flyer than it does to the technology. Most of the top flyers have won with many different kinds of technologies. In fact, some of the best flyers use unproven equipment just to say they “did it first”, not because it is the best equipment available.
Every piece of equipment has a specific function. It is extremely important to clearly define the goals of the equipment and *understand* how it works. Truly understand it (read that again). I can relay a story about myself that might demonstrate what I mean. The last few years in my stunt career (I am actually in competitive hiatus) have largely been exploratory in very specific ways. I have been trying to understand more clearly “why” some stunt equipment combinations work, and others do not. As a result, I certainly found many combinations that worked very marginally, most all of my own design (ha ha). None have been the “magic bullet” that I was looking for that would catapult me to world domination.
I think many of the opinions bantered about as technical discussions are really just self promotion. Effective self promotion may be the most powerful piece of equipment there is... If someone can effectively plant the idea in a judge's head that it is "impossible* for XX to compete with YY in "serious competition", it will effect the outcome. There are people who do this... in front of judges. I have stood right there and heard with my own ears... at every level. I hear it at local contests, I heard it at the Nats, and I heard it at the WC's.
Competitive stunt flying is a sport, and certainly has no immunity from this “you *must* have a certain level of technology to be competitive” idea. This sentiment is bantered around a lot in stunt circles (many times within ear shot of current judges or future judges). I am not a big fan of this practice. Admittedly, this is a pet peeve of mine, as I have never been much of a fan of the “elitist” aspects of stunt. The idea that a contestant must conform to the “in thing” to be accepted or have the judges “buy” a performance by meeting some ancillary pre-requisite requirements has always been the thing that I disliked about stunt the most. I feel that this type of elitism is poison to all judged sports and should be purged at every opportunity…but that is another discussion altogether.
-
Quote from Brad's Minimalism article: "Competitive stunt flying is a sport, and certainly has no immunity from this “you *must* have a certain level of technology to be competitive” idea. This sentiment is bantered around a lot in stunt circles (many times within ear shot of current judges or future judges). I am not a big fan of this practice. Admittedly, this is a pet peeve of mine, as I have never been much of a fan of the “elitist” aspects of stunt. The idea that a contestant must conform to the “in thing” to be accepted or have the judges “buy” a performance by meeting some ancillary pre-requisite requirements has always been the thing that I disliked about stunt the most. I feel that this type of elitism is poison to all judged sports and should be purged at every opportunity…but that is another discussion altogether."
Brad,
I very much agree with a great deal of your minimalism article. I think my only serious disagreement is with your belief that fliers that won't necessarily profit from whatever is "high tech" at a given time feel compelled to buy the stuff because they have been talked into doing so by self aggrandizing elites. Quite the opposite, in fact. I believe that efforts (by Brett, for instance) advocating lo tech approaches with the FP .20 and the Sig Skyray (which has been very effective, by the way) fall neatly into the envelope you're trying to fill with the minimalist approach.
In addition, if you'll go back in this forum a ways you'll read where I unequivocally state that some of the best patterns I've ever flown have been with very good designs from even the earliest parts of the classic era. Noblers, Chiefs, Chizlers, etc. I then go on to make a case for why I feel we have made progress in design and power (though specifically not including bigger size) which allows good air equivalent performance under more adverse conditions than was possible with the earlier good designs. I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that you don't agree with that belief thought and we'll just have to agree to disagree as to whether there has been any progress in stunt design since the '50s.
I just don't think I've seen any significant attempt by anyone who might remotely be considered "elite" to force feed modern technology to those who aren't ready to utilize their benefits. This is America, however, and such admonishments have little bearing on whether those same people will or will not avail themselves of the opportunity to buy beautiful, nearly custom made pieces of modeling jewelry whether or not they stand to benefit from it from a competitive or self-improvement standpoint.
I go back to your comments about golf, etc. and the apparent rush to "buy a game" by using (ostensibly) what the pros use. In my opinion you misinterpret the reason both golfers and stunt fliers rush to the "holy grail" of the day.
I would prefer a comparison to automobiles and their fans. There is a panache associated with possessing something that is state of the art, aesthetically pleasing, has the capability for great performance and, yes, turns heads when it passes by. Possessing such a thing (or wishing one could afford to) doesn't for a minute presuppose that that person expects to suddenly win road races simply by virtue of owning the thing. I love to drive Shareen's 650I but don't for a minute even pretend to take advantage of the performance of which it is capable. Sure, I drive it with a bit more verve than I do the Town and Country but I've no pretension of being capable of using it to its capacity. And I'm perfectly happy with it that way. In addition, I love to simply look at it; wash it; wax it and generally take delight in its mechanically breathtaking beauty.
I'm of the opinion that the popularity of "state of the art" stunt equipment is 95% related to the automobile analogy. I believe easily 95% of the people that love stunt do so not because they think they're going to beat Paul or Bubba or Windy on a given day but because the tools of the event have the same panache and thrill of ownership as the Ferrari or BMW of their dreams. The differences are twofold: First, with a little budgeting they can afford it; Second; the barb on the end of the hook that holds "also ran" competitive adherents to the event for a lifetime is that, with their own two hands, they personally add more than half of the appeal of the object themselves. They make something beautiful that ... even if not a likely Walker Cup or WC winner in their hands ... has the potential for being that good. They love to look at it. They love to fly it. They love to wipe the oil off after a flying session. And they love to think that if Dougie was flying their little piece of perfection, it could win the Nats.
That is a special relationship to a "thing" that few other endeavors allow at a price the majority of us can afford.
Bottom line for me: I don't think 10% of the people that buy the stuff you're talking about do so for the reasons you suggest... i.e., because some hot shot said they're nobobdy unless they use it. I think they do it because they want to be associated with something special and this is where they chose to do so.
Ted
-
I very much agree with a great deal of your minimalism article. I think my only serious disagreement is with your belief that fliers that won't necessarily profit from whatever is "high tech" at a given time feel compelled to buy the stuff because they have been talked into doing so by self aggrandizing elites. Quite the opposite, in fact. I believe that efforts (by Brett, for instance) advocating lo tech approaches with the FP .20 and the Sig Skyray (which has been very effective, by the way) fall neatly into the envelope you're trying to fill with the minimalist approach.
In addition, if you'll go back in this forum a ways you'll read where I unequivocally state that some of the best patterns I've ever flown have been with very good designs from even the earliest parts of the classic era. Noblers, Chiefs, Chizlers, etc. I then go on to make a case for why I feel we have made progress in design and power (though specifically not including bigger size) which allows good air equivalent performance under more adverse conditions than was possible with the earlier good designs. I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that you don't agree with that belief thought and we'll just have to agree to disagree as to whether there has been any progress in stunt design since the '50s.
I am not sure that I said that we have not progressed since the 1950's... in fact, I am positive I never said that.
I believe that people can be "convinced" (yes, oftentimes by peer pressure or marketing) into "progressing" too soon into equipment in which they have invested too much time, money, love, etc, and it adversely effects there progress as serious stunt fliers. In other words, they have too much glue, contest grade balsa, inklines, 12 oz of glossy paint, hours and hours of buffing, an Al Rabe detailed canopy, and a $500 motor spinning a $50 prop in their whiz bang stunter to get really good flying it. This is why I say many of today's stunt pilots flew simple models for many years, if not decades, before they advanced into the "high tech" stunters we have today, and it made them better flyers.
Years ago, minimalism was "forced"... of course, no one knew it. It only appears that way now, looking through the prism of history.
Brett's Skyray/FP 20 is indeed minimalism, I would think that would slightly more of a trainer, but the point is the same. Get something you can build easy, build a lot of them, get going, and fly fearlessly. You will get better. You can learn to buff later.
-
I am not sure that I said that we have not progressed since the 1950's... in fact, I am positive I never said that.
I believe that people can be "convinced" (yes, oftentimes by peer pressure or marketing) into "progressing" too soon into equipment in which they have invested too much time, money, love, etc, and it adversely effects there progress as serious stunt fliers. In other words, they have too much glue, contest grade balsa, inklines, 12 oz of glossy paint, hours and hours of buffing, an Al Rabe detailed canopy, and a $500 motor spinning a $50 prop in their whiz bang stunter to get really good flying it. This is why I say many of today's stunt pilots flew simple models for many years, if not decades, before they advanced into the "high tech" stunters we have today, and it made them better flyers.
Years ago, minimalism was "forced"... of course, no one knew it. It only appears that way now, looking through the prism of history.
Brett's Skyray/FP 20 is indeed minimalism, I would think that would slightly more of a trainer, but the point is the same. Get something you can build easy, build a lot of them, get going, and fly fearlessly. You will get better. You can learn to buff later.
Once again, Brad, we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see the negative aspects you do regarding the decision by stunt fliers to pursue the use of "state of the art" equipment in their personal stunt endeavors. I think the driving force to do so is better explained by my analogy to exotic cars and the satisfaction the individual gets from having such equipment in his/her personal arsenal ... whether they are capable of utilizing the advantages therein or not.
Re the Skyray/FP20 combo. I've seen and judged 500+ point flights out of that combination with (as you so correctly point out) a good pilot on the handle. It is equally true that many of the fliers you feel are overreaching with their "all the bells and whistles" ships could very likely score better with the Skyray/FP combo because of the comparative ease of trimming it to fly to its optimum level and the almost turnkey run available from the box stock FP. Yeah, it won't win the nats or a WC but, in the right hands it can be competitive in many expert level stunt events in various parts of the country.
It is sort of the ultimate "minimalist" approach to getting about 90% as good at stunt as an individual is likely to get. The last 10% is the hardest.
I think, perhaps, where you are taking the wrong turn on this business is the assumption that the people that fly stunt all have the goal of winning the big ones. After a lifetime of spending large parts of my time with stunt fliers I don't believe that is the bottom line for most of them. I think its the Ferrari thing combined with the recognition that so much of what they value in the event is the artistry and talent they personally bring to the overall enterprise ... not just the hardware handed out at the end of the day.
Ted
-
"I think its the Ferrari thing combined with the recognition that so much of what they value in the event is the artistry and talent they personally bring to the overall enterprise ... not just the hardware handed out at the end of the day."
And appreciation for the artistry and talent of the other participants.
-
A 650i, wuzz that? Shareen's high zoot washing machine(?) and why would Ted be polishing that. I know, I know, that's a very sexist idea, but it popped into my head. Please excuse my need to confess. Googling the Net corrected my male chauvinist assumption. A 650i is a curvy, very purty $80,000 BMW automobile!
Seems to me that Ted has had a hand in Stunt Minimalism over the years. Fancherized Twister, Imitation, Doctor, to name a few minimalist birds.
Actually most of the folks I know are versed in stunt minimalism. Arfing it up with Vectors, Cardinals, Orientals and the like, using LAs, FPs, Brodaks (when one can be had.) Cheap stunt, cheap fun. Good enough for Advanced competition on the East Coast. Most builds from scratch or kit are similarly functional, fun and well within the envelope of stunt as we know it. But it's nice to be reminded that the comparatively commonplace stunt artifacts often work well. PA envy can be a profound psychological problem. No doubt though a few in our circle exceed the minimalist and achieve (and enjoy?) more. Dan Banjok's Vista, Mike Palko's new 'lectric Mustang, and Joe Adamasko's various museum quality Spits and things, come to mind.
Seems to me there's another branch of Stunt Minimalism not mentioned as yet. Electric powered profiles, ARFs and the like. A new member of our club showed up with a Brodak Super Clown electric. The retread proceeded to knock out recognizable corners and decent eights. In a few short weeks he was flying an o.k. pattern. A year later he took second in Intermediate at our Philly Flyers yearly comp fest. Not bad. His stunt instrument, a kit bashed Banshee (uglier than stock) with sort of Fancherized moments and adjustable trim. The Chinese (cheap) electric power pack was the minimalist factor that put the system over. His electric approach means repeatable, controllable, power.
As far as Brad's view of peer pressure in stunt, yeah, I agree. Philly Flyers tend to sit in fold up chairs watching bits and pieces of flights, yakking it up, volunteering barrages of advice about recent flights, male female relationships and the current political distractions. Of course much of this is irrelevant to the task at hand, whatever that might be. I count myself lucky to find friends as good as these. Sure cheers my mood. Not much pressure, however, to buy upscale components. Alas. I fear it's another example of our deficiency in intestinal fortitude.
-
Once again, Brad, we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see the negative aspects you do regarding the decision by stunt fliers to pursue the use of "state of the art" equipment in their personal stunt endeavors. I think the driving force to do so is better explained by my analogy to exotic cars and the satisfaction the individual gets from having such equipment in his/her personal arsenal ... whether they are capable of utilizing the advantages therein or not.
Re the Skyray/FP20 combo. I've seen and judged 500+ point flights out of that combination with (as you so correctly point out) a good pilot on the handle. It is equally true that many of the fliers you feel are overreaching with their "all the bells and whistles" ships could very likely score better with the Skyray/FP combo because of the comparative ease of trimming it to fly to its optimum level and the almost turnkey run available from the box stock FP. Yeah, it won't win the nats or a WC but, in the right hands it can be competitive in many expert level stunt events in various parts of the country.
It is sort of the ultimate "minimalist" approach to getting about 90% as good at stunt as an individual is likely to get. The last 10% is the hardest.
I think, perhaps, where you are taking the wrong turn on this business is the assumption that the people that fly stunt all have the goal of winning the big ones. After a lifetime of spending large parts of my time with stunt fliers I don't believe that is the bottom line for most of them. I think its the Ferrari thing combined with the recognition that so much of what they value in the event is the artistry and talent they personally bring to the overall enterprise ... not just the hardware handed out at the end of the day.
Ted
Ted, I just think we are discussing the two sides of one coin, not a disagreement just a perspective difference.
Minimalism is directed at those who truly want to get better at flying.
I understand what you are saying. I believe you are discussing the attraction for many that enjoy the idea of stunt modeling. You are saying people like owning a Ferrari. Its cool to have a Ferrari, but I am not sure I would want to take my Ferrari to the local speedway and bump it around in a road race.... at least until it was pretty old.
The truth is that I could build a car for far less money, time, etc that would out perform a Ferrari. If I were looking for track time to get better, that might be a better choice.
Minimalism oftentimes does not apply to the truly advanced modelers in our sport, although I could make the case that the best pilots could beat most everyone without all the bells and whistles.... and once again a large part of that flying talent of our most of our advanced flyers was developed using very simple systems.
-
Ted, I just think we are discussing the two sides of one coin, not a disagreement just a perspective difference.
Minimalism is directed at those who truly want to get better at flying.
I understand what you are saying. I believe you are discussing the attraction for many that enjoy the idea of stunt modeling. You are saying people like owning a Ferrari. Its cool to have a Ferrari, but I am not sure I would want to take my Ferrari to the local speedway and bump it around in a road race.... at least until it was pretty old.
The truth is that I could build a car for far less money, time, etc that would out perform a Ferrari. If I were looking for track time to get better, that might be a better choice.
Minimalism oftentimes does not apply to the truly advanced modelers in our sport, although I could make the case that the best pilots could beat most everyone without all the bells and whistles.... and once again a large part of that flying talent of our most of our advanced flyers was developed using very simple systems.
There you go, Brad. I can live with that. y1 y1
Ted
p.s. The Ferrari thing is more the combination of superlative design, aesthetics and performance plus the nearly "untouchable" nature of it ($$$$) than the desire to beat it up on the race track. Maybe a Playboy centerfold is an even more appropriate example (simply replace "Ferrari" in the above sentence with "Playboy Centerfold" and savor the thoughts that follow)
Just another example, I expect, of us approaching the subject from different points of view.
-
I think I have an analogy that may help... bear with me...
When someone tells me they want to learn photography, I tell them to get a Pentax K1000, and a 50mm stock prime lens. Nothing else. This is a fully manual camera, a great normal perspective lens, and it forces them to learn WHY things work the way they do. Learn to take pictures with it, until its second nature. Don't buy another thing until they have it down, and can grab the camera and capture a good picture, making all the needed manual adjustments without even thinking about it. Then, and only then, will I tell them it's ok to buy a flash. Same thing, learn to use it, etc. Then a tripod. Then we talk about composition, rule of 1/3rds, etc. Then I'm done with them and push them out of the nest. At this point they can purchase and add whatever they want, filters, a zoom, a wide angle, autofocus camera with a film adv motor drive, a digital camera, what ever.
The basic premise here is to force them to learn the craft, get an eye for photography, have the mechanisms and understanding of the basics of capturing light become second nature, BEFORE becoming an equipment junkie, which can sidetrack someone from really learning the basics or ever becoming truly great at it.
I think Brad was trying to make a similar parallel that could be said for stunt...
My .02
EricV
-
The other day, Shawn Cooke, age 14, made what I think is a remark relevant to this thread. He said something like that guy needs to fly Ringmasters, referring to a fellow flying a dedicated stunt bird over cautiously. For one thing, flying sport planes, encourages flying in less than ideal wind conditions. A situation that will no doubt be encountered during a given contest. Shawn has been flying all kinds of planes for years. Sport profiles, mouse racers, ARF, kit built and original stunt planes,1/2A sport planes, 1/2A and .15 combat wings. He's been flying in stunt competition the last two years. I believe that flying the wide spectrum has aided his confidence and adaptability. The results are obvious. Shawn was just booted out of Intermediate after winning three or four local meets and coming in 2nd at Brodak.
Dan Banjok and Mike Palko also put a lot of time in with fun models. I believe this has contributed to their boldness in competition when the weird (and high) winds blow.
-
As we say in England "Hear hear" !! Years ago my guitar teacher used to turn up with a 5 bob (about 50 cents? I think) nylon strung toyish guitar, and I still couldn't get my £100 guitar to sound anywhere near as good!.
P.S. I have a Tom Lay modified McCoy 40! I didn't know they were that good? I'm looking forward to putting it in a classic model. I enjoy classic models!!!!
Cheers Neville
-
Dan Banjok and Mike Palko also put a lot of time in with fun models. I believe this has contributed to their boldness in competition when the weird (and high) winds blow.
Keerect.
-
The other day, Shawn Cooke, age 14, made what I think is a remark relevant to this thread. He said something like that guy needs to fly Ringmasters, referring to a fellow flying a dedicated stunt bird over cautiously. For one thing, flying sport planes, encourages flying in less than ideal wind conditions. A situation that will no doubt be encountered during a given contest. Shawn has been flying all kinds of planes for years. Sport profiles, mouse racers, ARF, kit built and original stunt planes,1/2A sport planes, 1/2A and .15 combat wings. He's been flying in stunt competition the last two years. I believe that flying the wide spectrum has aided his confidence and adaptability. The results are obvious. Shawn was just booted out of Intermediate after winning three or four local meets and coming in 2nd at Brodak.
Dan Banjok and Mike Palko also put a lot of time in with fun models. I believe this has contributed to their boldness in competition when the weird (and high) winds blow.
Congrats Shawn, looks like I may have a someone my age to fly against now, gotta get the Ares out AP^ H^^
-
The other day, Shawn Cooke, age 14, made what I think is a remark relevant to this thread. He said something like that guy needs to fly Ringmasters, referring to a fellow flying a dedicated stunt bird over cautiously.
Dan Banjok and Mike Palko also put a lot of time in with fun models. I believe this has contributed to their boldness in competition when the weird (and high) winds blow.
Damn, some kids are just smart, aren't they. The biggest problem I've seen amongst stunt flyers is that they haven't flown enough, they haven't flown enough different planes, haven't flown through enough problems to know what to do when the slightest thing goes not quite right. Too much time flying a beautiful planes very cautiously. 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.
-
Damn, some kids are just smart, aren't they. The biggest problem I've seen amongst stunt flyers is that they haven't flown enough, they haven't flown enough different planes, haven't flown through enough problems to know what to do when the slightest thing goes not quite right. Too much time flying a beautiful planes very cautiously. 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.
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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).
-
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. LL~
-
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
-
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,
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 n1 n1
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
-
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.
-
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)
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Dave I've got a Shark45 ready for paint,and can't wait to fly it..........Skip
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
You put it very well Randy. Right on.
EddyR
-
....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
-
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.
-
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
-
IJust my opion of course. Just take a look at ice skating and what is now and what used to be. HB~> HB~>
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.
-
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!
-
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!!! H^^
-
The classic planes have something but they are limited..
When will I see another Nobler with a
61 ?? 9
-
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. HB~>
-
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.?? D>K
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
-
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).
-
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..
-
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 .
-
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.?? D>K
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
-
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