Author Topic: oz nats expert (Read 9091 times)

PJ Rowland · « **on:** December 30, 2013, 01:10:25 AM »

Round 1 scores.

Howard Rush · « **Reply #1 on:** December 30, 2013, 02:00:07 AM »

Hey, that's those VGs talkin'.

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #2 on:** December 30, 2013, 03:09:07 AM »

Round 1 was flown in moderate winds and we had a lot of turbulence passing through. We have a good mix of engine setups

Stalker 61 , stalker .76 retro 76, several electrics inc an igor setup, only 1piped ship pa75.

There were no major incidents today except 1 fuel management mis calculation . Round 2 tommorow.

MarcusCordeiro · « **Reply #3 on:** December 30, 2013, 06:12:10 AM »

Way to go, P.J.!!!

Marcus

john e. holliday · « **Reply #4 on:** December 30, 2013, 09:18:38 AM »

Way to go PJ and keep on cooking.

Serge_Krauss · « **Reply #5 on:** December 30, 2013, 03:07:30 PM »

Super! I don't want to "jinx" you, so I'll say no more.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #6 on:** December 30, 2013, 06:50:15 PM »

PJ PJ PJ PJ!

Tania Uzunova · « **Reply #7 on:** December 31, 2013, 01:24:01 AM »

Nice results ; )))) PJ : ))
Send greetings to Peter : )) and also to Joan : )

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #8 on:** December 31, 2013, 02:47:15 AM »

Round 2 today and conditions were ideal for scores. I didnt have any chance today for pics. Every one flew a solid flight with many scores improving. I ran overtime and lost landing points. Joe parisi now leads with 1041 russel bond 1039. Pj. Rowland 1021. Both electric. Plenty of good scores in the perfect conditions. Scoreboard pic to come.

Will do tania. Thanks everyone.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #9 on:** December 31, 2013, 08:21:25 AM »

Sounds like you had better knuckle down and try harder. But, really are you having fun?

John Boys · « **Reply #10 on:** December 31, 2013, 09:22:51 PM »

Here are a few pics taken on day one of F2B Expert.

John Boys · « **Reply #11 on:** December 31, 2013, 09:30:40 PM »

some more......

Howard Rush · « **Reply #12 on:** December 31, 2013, 09:32:41 PM »

Pretty airplanes.

John Boys · « **Reply #13 on:** December 31, 2013, 09:37:45 PM »

more......

John Boys · « **Reply #14 on:** December 31, 2013, 09:43:47 PM »

and these.....

Randy Powell · « **Reply #15 on:** December 31, 2013, 09:49:27 PM »

I like the Tiger one.

Russell Bond · « **Reply #16 on:** January 01, 2014, 08:59:50 PM »

Actually PJ is leading, Russell Bond second and Joe Parisi 3rd.

We are doing the best 3 rounds out of 4.

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #17 on:** January 01, 2014, 10:15:40 PM »

Round 3 today. Conditions were tougher due to increased winds and extra turbulence. There was a fresh draw and started on time at 9am everyone took the opportunity to get a good solid round 3 score some models performed better than others in the conditions overall good flights are being posted.

The only competitor to withdraw was brian eather. Im not sure what happened.
Forecast for round 4 is for light winds in the morning

We have many people who build their own planes and some of the latesst technology is on display. Interesting only 2 planes are using vortex generators. ( 2 of the top 3 )

Randy. I like the tiger one also.

I had some pics but id just be doubling up on whats posted.

Alan Resinger · « **Reply #18 on:** January 02, 2014, 07:39:31 PM »

I just got a note from Joe Parisi and the top three were:
1st Joe Parisi
2nd Russell Bond
3rd P.J. Rowland
Alan Resinger

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #19 on:** January 02, 2014, 07:53:06 PM »

Joe and russell were only 3 points from eachother. I was never in the hunt.

Joe derserved the win. Oz first nats electric win. With alans prop!!!

proparc · « **Reply #20 on:** January 02, 2014, 08:11:10 PM »

Quote from: PJ Rowland on January 02, 2014, 07:53:06 PM

I was never in the hunt.

Don't say that!! You darn tootin you were in the hunt. You don't place third in a contest unless you were in it to win it!

Russell Bond · « **Reply #21 on:** January 02, 2014, 09:44:21 PM »

Electric first and second!

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #22 on:** January 02, 2014, 10:25:51 PM »

Milton. I said I wasnt in the hunt because 2 out of 3 my flights that counted toward the total were absent of landing points I ran overtime twice.

Its hard to win when you give up that much ground. Im taking nothing away from 1st or 2nd. Im just frustrated, dissapointed, sad and hurt that I didnt do 3 complete rounds.

Ive accepted it. Time to move on.

Its just hard to accept that I didnt post a competitive score due to my own inability to get up and down in 7 mins. However im pleased two great guys were in front of me.

Fyi russels flight today was better than mine even if I got landing!

wwwarbird · « **Reply #23 on:** January 02, 2014, 10:38:34 PM »

Great job and congrats PJ, you were totally in the hunt. Please don't beat yourself up either, you didn't use a timer.

Derek Barry · « **Reply #24 on:** January 03, 2014, 04:24:34 AM »

Good job PJ and thanks for keeping us in the loop. Congrats to Joe, even if he was flying electric.

Derek

Bob Hunt · « **Reply #25 on:** January 03, 2014, 06:29:32 AM »

Quote from: wwwarbird on January 02, 2014, 10:38:34 PM

Great job and congrats PJ, you were totally in the hunt. Please don't beat yourself up either, you didn't use a timer.

But he could have used a timer! If I'm not mistaken (and I often am...), the Australian Nats was run under FAI rules. Those rules now allow a glow engined model to use a timer to shut the engine off. Yes, I know that it is far easier to do this in a closed-loop electric system where no mechanical bits are required to effect the shutdown, but the fact remains that it is legal and is not that hard to do. Those who fly glow and choose to take advantage of that rule eliminate just one more variable.

To those who still feel the need to continually snipe at those who choose to use electric power, please consider just how pitifully sad you are starting to appear. Electric is here; it's staying; those who choose to use this mode of power will win some contests and lose some contests. Thankfully neither electric power or glow power actually moves the handle up and down to control the path of flight. Glow will also stay. The name of the event is Precision Aerobatics here in the states. It's F2B elsewhere. Nowhere does it state that it is Glow Powered Precision Aerobatics or Glow powered F2B. The goal is to fly the most precision pattern of geometric maneuvers. Do that using glow power, electric power, steam power, nuclear power, or with two chipmunks on a turntable spinning the prop.

It's interesting to note here that virtually no one but PJ and Derek has congratulated the winner of the contest. PJ has also taken ownership of his performance. I highly congratulate PJ for his aerobatic performance and for his exemplary sportsmanship. I also want to congratulate Joe Parisi and Russell Bond for their fine aerobatic performances.

To try to mitigate PJ's unfortunate error, and intimate that he was at some disadvantage because he chose to fly glow, takes away from Joe's outstanding accomplishment. I'm sure that PJ will take a long, hard look at electric power for his next project. He's a true competitor and will evaluate thoroughly his performance and what he could have done better. If you've read any of the articles that PJ has written in Stunt News of late, then you know just how analytically he thinks about everything concerning this event.

For those who will not take delivery of this message, please consider that electric powered models captured the top four spots at the last World Championships, won the last US Nats, won the last two European F2B Championships, captured all three places on the 2014 USA F2B FAI team, and now the top two places at the Australian Nats. All the fliers in those contests had the choice of what power system to use. If they failed to achieve the top performances, then perhaps it's time for them to re-evaluate their equipment. I'll bet none of them are trying to find an excuse for the shortcomings of their current systems however... That's how true competitors think.

Again, congrats to Joe Parisi, Russell Bond and PJ Rowland for their fine AEROBATIC performances!

Bob Hunt

proparc · « **Reply #26 on:** January 03, 2014, 07:37:19 AM »

Quote from: PJ Rowland on January 02, 2014, 10:25:51 PM

Milton. I said I wasnt in the hunt because 2 out of 3 my flights that counted toward the total were absent of landing points I ran overtime twice.

If you can run overtime twice in Expert and STILL place third, that means your a force to be reckoned with!! Brother, you need to come over here and put Paul Walker, Brett Buck, and Dave Fitzgerald under pressure with that level of skill.

Bob Hunt · « **Reply #27 on:** January 03, 2014, 07:59:34 AM »

Sigh... again, taking nothing away from PJ's fine performance, even he noted that he would not have won even if he did receive landing points. Note also that he lost only landing points; there are no pattern points in FAI F2B competition. So, landings are a K1 maneuver. The most points he could have gained with even a perfect landing was 10 per flight.

Note also that he overran two out of three flights; that is hardly the stuff required to put any pressure at all on the fliers you mentioned, Milt. If he overran on two flights in the Top-20 here, he'd lose pattern points and landing points. He'd put no pressure on Paul, Brett, David, or any of the other pilots who completed their patterns in sequence and on time. That number, by the way, at the last US Nats would have been, eh, ah, um, 20! Think that he could overun in the semi's and still make the Top-Five show? Keep thinking.

Again, none of this is aimed at demeaning PJ's fine performance; it's just a dose of reality that PJ made a mistake and the others didn't. Nice to see that you congratulated Joe and Russell on their performances... Oh, wait, you didn't.

Bob

Derek Barry · « **Reply #28 on:** January 03, 2014, 08:40:54 AM »

Quote from: PJ Rowland on January 02, 2014, 10:25:51 PM

Milton. I said I wasnt in the hunt because 2 out of 3 my flights that counted toward the total were absent of landing points I ran overtime twice.

Its hard to win when you give up that much ground. Im taking nothing away from 1st or 2nd. Im just frustrated, dissapointed, sad and hurt that I didnt do 3 complete rounds.

Ive accepted it. Time to move on.

Its just hard to accept that I didnt post a competitive score due to my own inability to get up and down in 7 mins. However im pleased two great guys were in front of me.

Fyi russels flight today was better than mine even if I got landing!

I feel your pain PJ, I always seem to shoot myself in the foot when it really matters too. I do know what obstacles you had to overcome just a few weeks before the competition. In light of that I think you did an outstanding job and you should be proud of your accomplishments.

Also, Congratulations to Russell, well done sir.

Derek

john e. holliday · « **Reply #29 on:** January 03, 2014, 09:02:45 AM »

Well, from the old DOC, even tho I have not met PJ yet, I feel I know him a little from the forum here and in Stunt News. He made the podium and that is more than some do. Also congrats to the top two placers in the event. Seems they had their act together. It doesn't matter the type power the plane uses as Bobby says, it is who is on the handle. Congrats to all three.

Dave_Trible · « **Reply #30 on:** January 03, 2014, 09:11:37 AM »

Congrats PJ! Also Joe and Russell. I see a timed shut off device for us in the near future........I had the same issue at the team trials.

Dave

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #31 on:** January 03, 2014, 04:13:42 PM »

Thanks everyone for the kind words. Im driving home at the moment and will post more info when I get home. I had a chuckle over thr putting pressure on the daves, bretts and pauls of the world because I did well but I know for a fact none of them are feeling anything along the lines of fear!!!

Thanks for the great comments bob it means a lot.

However landings are a k5... maneauver as a mental exercise I worked out I needed a minimum of 5.8 for both failed landings to win....

But saying that it was just as helpful to work out what I would say to noah as he parked the ark.... hey nice boat.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #32 on:** January 03, 2014, 04:40:36 PM »

Quote from: Dave_Trible on January 03, 2014, 09:11:37 AM

Congrats PJ! Also Joe and Russell. I see a timed shut off device for us in the near future........I had the same issue at the team trials.

Servo, small battery, properly programmed timer. Done. You just need to get a Hubin or a Renicle to do some programming, or you need to find someone who's trying to make a truly universal timer.

Howard Rush · « **Reply #33 on:** January 03, 2014, 05:09:44 PM »

We'd have given him an extra minute to get his landing in.

Dave_Trible · « **Reply #34 on:** January 03, 2014, 05:12:54 PM »

Already working on it. I'm going to be mechanical this year and then maybe work on electrical multi-function. To be feasible I'm going to have to front a small production run but what the heck?

Dave

wwwarbird · « **Reply #35 on:** January 03, 2014, 09:45:52 PM »

Quote from: Bob Hunt on January 03, 2014, 06:29:32 AM

But he could have used a timer!

Just had to toss the jab out there.

I did forget, congrats to the 'lectric dudes Joe and Russell too.

Bob Hunt · « **Reply #36 on:** January 04, 2014, 05:32:28 AM »

You are a good man, Wayne!

Bob Hunt

Igor Burger · « **Reply #37 on:** January 04, 2014, 07:02:38 AM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on January 03, 2014, 04:40:36 PM

Servo, small battery, properly programmed timer. Done. You just need to get a Hubin or a Renicle to do some programming, or you need to find someone who's trying to make a truly universal timer.

why programming? almost all timers are usefull with servo (may be beside KR which is designed to act as a governor ... may be with some harware with rpm sensor will work perfectly) ... for example:

really universal:
http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/docu/itimer_en.pdf

c/l dedicated:
http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/docu/CLtimer_en.pdf

and even my iAccTimer connected to r/c carb by small micro servo will work and controll RPM like on electric motors, however I never tried it, because I think 4-2-4 or piped engines does it well also without electronic http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/docu/iAccTimer_en.pdf

Joe Parisi · « **Reply #38 on:** January 04, 2014, 08:12:11 AM »

Thanks everyone for the congratulations.

It sure was a tough and challenging Nats and I also want to congratulate both PJ and Russell on their excellent flying. Albury is always a difficult and unforgiving place to fly at. High temperatures combined with highly variable wind conditions always make it a challenge. In a short space of time the wind can go from calm, to light, to thermals with 180 degree direction shift, to moderate and strong with gusty turbulence thrown in. You have to be prepared for anything. Also there is the noise curfew at the site which limits model flying from 9am to 6pm only, regardless of the type of power system used. The limited practice circles combined with the noise curfew restriction means there's not much opportunity to sort out any problems that might arise with your model.

In the early rounds my light model wasn't handling the gusty turbulent conditions all that well whereas PJ's model and Russell's model both handled the conditions very well. By the 3rd round I felt I was starting to adapt better to the conditions and fortunately my 4th round flight was in light wind so I was able to make up some lost ground on my scores.

I need to thank my good friend and long time coach Noel Corney for his great coaching leading up to the Nats. Noel is always there for me when I need him and his coaching assistance and trimming advice is just invaluable. Noel was one of the electric pioneers here in Oz and again his help in getting my electric setup going is so greatly appreciated. Also need to thank Barry Fredrickson for transporting my batteries down to Albury for me.

Well I started on my electric journey a year ago straight after the last Nats and it has been a really steep learning curve since. Along the way, I received much great advice from many friends in the US & Canada and in particular I'd like to thank William DeMauro, Bob Hunt, Alan Resinger, Chris Cox and Larry Wong.

Here are a few details of my electric setup;
Model - Trivial Pursuit based, weighs about 59.5 oz with battery
Motor - Cobra C3520/820 kV. Front mounted using Bob Hunt hard nose mount. Motor fitted with optional rear fan.
ESC - Castle LiteIce50
Timer - Hubin FM9
Battery - Thunderpower G8 ProLite 25C 5S 2700 mAh. Average consumption 2000 - 2100 mAh per flight
Spinner - 2" TruTurn Turbo Cool
Prop - 3B 11" x 5.5" 'green' carbon pusher prop by Alan Resinger & Chris Cox.
RPM - 10,500
Lines - 0.015" 7 strand braided x 64' (eyelet to eyelet). Average lap time 5.25 sec

The 3B 'green' pusher prop is just amazing. I started using this prop just 4 weeks before leaving for the Nats and straight away I really liked the crisp, clean corners it gave. It tidied up alot of the yaw/GP trim problems I was having with the larger diameter 2B props that I was previously running. Alan and Chris have sure done a great job with production of their 3B electric props.

At the Nats many people asked me why I changed from IC to electric power. Making the change from my highly developed and successful piped PA75 setup was not an easy decision. But over recent years I have been facing an uphill battle with noise restrictions at my regular C/L club sites. The early morning noise curfews on IC engine use were severely limiting my ability to practice and prepare for contests. The club sites have no restrictions on electric power use. To continue with IC power meant driving further and further out of town to fly. Going to electric has opened up new opportunities for me. I now have found 2 nearby sporting fields that I can practice at early in the morning and within 5 - 10 minutes drive from home. I save at least an hour in travelling time now per flying session. When you're trying to juggle model flying and building requirements with family commitments and work commitments, those saved hours are significant and they all add up.

Regards,
Joe

Brian Gardner · « **Reply #39 on:** January 04, 2014, 05:25:38 PM »

Congrats Joe, Russell & PJ. It sounds like a challenging time this year.

Keith Renecle · « **Reply #40 on:** January 04, 2014, 10:47:56 PM »

Quote from: Igor Burger on January 04, 2014, 07:02:38 AM

why programming? almost all timers are usefull with servo (may be beside KR which is designed to act as a governor ... may be with some harware with rpm sensor will work perfectly) ... for example:

really universal:
http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/docu/itimer_en.pdf

c/l dedicated:
http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/docu/CLtimer_en.pdf

and even my iAccTimer connected to r/c carb by small micro servo will work and controll RPM like on electric motors, however I never tried it, because I think 4-2-4 or piped engines does it well also without electronic http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/docu/iAccTimer_en.pdf

First up....congrats to Joe, Russell and PJ. Sound like you guys had a really good battle for the podium! Well done to all of you. On the timer story, my pc board adapts perfectly to use for engines for either that shut-off or a governed IC engine.....if you can get a sensor with enough pulses! I do agree with Igor and a good 4-2-4 break system on existing engines works well enough. It's easy to make any simple timer for stopping the engine and I worked on it already. I just haven't found a simple and practical mechanism to fit into an existing model with limited space. Sure, a micro servo can work as the actuator, but stopping the fuel flow with something really simple is the challenge. Anyway, that's for a another thread........I just feel for PJ that had over runs! This was always a nightmare for me with diesels. They run so well for stunt, but get the needle a little on the lean side and they could run another 2 minutes easily! We must find a simple timer/shut off thing.

Keith R

Ted Fancher · « **Reply #41 on:** January 04, 2014, 11:38:09 PM »

Quote from: Joe Parisi on January 04, 2014, 08:12:11 AM

Thanks everyone for the congratulations.

It sure was a tough and challenging Nats and I also want to congratulate both PJ and Russell on their excellent flying. Albury is always a difficult and unforgiving place to fly at. High temperatures combined with highly variable wind conditions always make it a challenge. In a short space of time the wind can go from calm, to light, to thermals with 180 degree direction shift, to moderate and strong with gusty turbulence thrown in. You have to be prepared for anything. Also there is the noise curfew at the site which limits model flying from 9am to 6pm only, regardless of the type of power system used. The limited practice circles combined with the noise curfew restriction means there's not much opportunity to sort out any problems that might arise with your model.

In the early rounds my light model wasn't handling the gusty turbulent conditions all that well whereas PJ's model and Russell's model both handled the conditions very well. By the 3rd round I felt I was starting to adapt better to the conditions and fortunately my 4th round flight was in light wind so I was able to make up some lost ground on my scores.

I need to thank my good friend and long time coach Noel Corney for his great coaching leading up to the Nats. Noel is always there for me when I need him and his coaching assistance and trimming advice is just invaluable. Noel was one of the electric pioneers here in Oz and again his help in getting my electric setup going is so greatly appreciated. Also need to thank Barry Fredrickson for transporting my batteries down to Albury for me.

Well I started on my electric journey a year ago straight after the last Nats and it has been a really steep learning curve since. Along the way, I received much great advice from many friends in the US & Canada and in particular I'd like to thank William DeMauro, Bob Hunt, Alan Resinger, Chris Cox and Larry Wong.

Here are a few details of my electric setup;
Model - Trivial Pursuit based, weighs about 59.5 oz with battery
Motor - Cobra C3520/820 kV. Front mounted using Bob Hunt hard nose mount. Motor fitted with optional rear fan.
ESC - Castle LiteIce50
Timer - Hubin FM9
Battery - Thunderpower G8 ProLite 25C 5S 2700 mAh. Average consumption 2000 - 2100 mAh per flight
Spinner - 2" TruTurn Turbo Cool
Prop - 3B 11" x 5.5" 'green' carbon pusher prop by Alan Resinger & Chris Cox.
RPM - 10,500
Lines - 0.015" 7 strand braided x 64' (eyelet to eyelet). Average lap time 5.25 sec

The 3B 'green' pusher prop is just amazing. I started using this prop just 4 weeks before leaving for the Nats and straight away I really liked the crisp, clean corners it gave. It tidied up alot of the yaw/GP trim problems I was having with the larger diameter 2B props that I was previously running. Alan and Chris have sure done a great job with production of their 3B electric props.

At the Nats many people asked me why I changed from IC to electric power. Making the change from my highly developed and successful piped PA75 setup was not an easy decision. But over recent years I have been facing an uphill battle with noise restrictions at my regular C/L club sites. The early morning noise curfews on IC engine use were severely limiting my ability to practice and prepare for contests. The club sites have no restrictions on electric power use. To continue with IC power meant driving further and further out of town to fly. Going to electric has opened up new opportunities for me. I now have found 2 nearby sporting fields that I can practice at early in the morning and within 5 - 10 minutes drive from home. I save at least an hour in travelling time now per flying session. When you're trying to juggle model flying and building requirements with family commitments and work commitments, those saved hours are significant and they all add up.

Regards,
Joe

congratulations, Joe! Well done. I'm amazed a TP based airplane would fly on amps and volts. It was, you know, designed with nitro in mind!

Noted your comment about light weight and the turbulence at the site. What changes did you make to deal with it? What do you feel the difference was with PJ and Russel's planes? Were they much heavier? Higher wing loading? Fly faster?

I was always amazed at the ability of the original Trivial Pursuit to fly well in bad air and it has a particularly high wing loading at ~72 oz on the 650 or so square inch wing. This is one of the few things that Bob Hunt and I disagree about.

Liked your comments about the Canadians' three blade prop and it's smaller diameter improving performance. Again, my personal experience has been that props can get too big for just the reasons you suggest.

Do you have any thoughts on the difference in flying the TP style plane with the electrics vice IC? Was there a huge improvement and, if so, in what ways. I'm unlikely to build another one but if I did I'd probably have to give the electrics some thought although, at my age, that's an awful lot of new tricks to learn.

All our best to the family for a wonderful new year.

Ted and Shareen

Russell Bond · « **Reply #42 on:** January 05, 2014, 12:05:29 AM »

I'm not Joe but my plane handled the turbulence very well.

Its 690 squares and weighs 72oz. (With battery.)
It's also designed around the early Firecracker with long fuse and high tapers and blunt LE on the wings. (Along with forward HP.)
Mine's the opposite to Joe's as I was flying slow with a 12 x 6 wooden three blade on my electric.
I flew around at about 5.6 seconds a lap as it doesn't slow down up high in the maneuvers.

Now if only it was 6oz lighter.

Curare · « **Reply #43 on:** January 05, 2014, 12:13:33 AM »

Congrats Joe, Russel and PJ, a stirling effort I reckon.

Having seen Russel's Bandolero compete in the Perth Nationals a year or two ago, in some seriously nasty weather, Both Dad and I remarked at the ability of pilot and plane.

As a matter of fact, after seeing that comp, I knew that Electric CL was the way of the future.

Bob Hunt · « **Reply #44 on:** January 05, 2014, 09:34:00 AM »

Ted Fancher wrote: "I was always amazed at the ability of the original Trivial Pursuit to fly well in bad air and it has a particularly high wing loading at ~72 oz on the 650 or so square inch wing. This is one of the few things that Bob Hunt and I disagree about."

Hi Ted:

Well, we are much closer these days to being in agreement on this. Having flown a number of designs at varying weights and in varying conditions, I can now state that I'm coming over more to your way of thinking on this point. While I won't intentionally build a plane to be on the high side of the ounces/sq. ft. of wing loading, I'm not as concerned when one comes out in the middle of that equation. Having more consistent thrust from the (ahem) power systems I'm using these days, compared to the ones I used to use, I can see some wisdom in having a slightly higher wing loading. You win this round...

Gosh, that hurt! $:-\$

Bob Hunt

William DeMauro · « **Reply #45 on:** January 05, 2014, 05:24:34 PM »

Congratulations to Joe, Russell, and PJ. Joe you are very welcome and I am thrilled to see the power system that we worked on together was good enough to win a National Championship. You seem to have come up with a great choice of prop(I had nothing to do with that) I'm looking forward to seeing you at our US Nats and again congratulations to all!!!
William

Ted Fancher · « **Reply #46 on:** January 05, 2014, 11:14:20 PM »

Quote from: Bob Hunt on January 05, 2014, 09:34:00 AM

Ted Fancher wrote: "I was always amazed at the ability of the original Trivial Pursuit to fly well in bad air and it has a particularly high wing loading at ~72 oz on the 650 or so square inch wing. This is one of the few things that Bob Hunt and I disagree about."

Hi Ted:

Well, we are much closer these days to being in agreement on this. Having flown a number of designs at varying weights and in varying conditions, I can now state that I'm coming over more to your way of thinking on this point. While I won't intentionally build a plane to be on the high side of the ounces/sq. ft. of wing loading, I'm not as concerned when one comes out in the middle of that equation. Having more consistent thrust from the (ahem) power systems I'm using these days, compared to the ones I used to use, I can see some wisdom in having a slightly higher wing loading. You win this round...

Gosh, that hurt! $:-\$

Bob Hunt

Bubba,

I don't intentionally build them that way either. The difference is I don't have to try in order to make it happen.

Kidding aside, I have had a few light airplanes over the years but none of them were among my favorites. I had two that were noticeably too heavy although they flew well enough to qualify for the finals in 1974 (the first Moby Dick that Jack Sheeks--who was judging that year-assumed I'd left the triangles out of my first finals flight because he saw how bad it stalled in the triangles during the second round. That ship weighed a little over sixty oz on a Nobler winged jet style thing): The second was the little Temptation that earned a shot at the top five back east somewhere in the '80s but crashed due to a flame out just after getting vertical in the wingover during a warm up flight before the flyoff started. It was a small 610 squares and after being re-engined from an ST .46 to a piped .40 was a Porky mid 60.

Wow, I won a round. It only took, what, 39 years or so? FWIW, you're one of only a handful of guys with whom I'm very reluctant to debate the good, bad and ugly of stunt. I may be opinionated but at least I'm not stupid.

Happy New Year, Bubba. If you need aspirin for your pain just drop me a note and I'll send some out on the next pony express.

Ted

Ted Fancher · « **Reply #47 on:** January 05, 2014, 11:28:08 PM »

Quote from: Russell Bond on January 05, 2014, 12:05:29 AM

I'm not Joe but my plane handled the turbulence very well.

Its 690 squares and weighs 72oz. (With battery.)
It's also designed around the early Firecracker with long fuse and high tapers and blunt LE on the wings. (Along with forward HP.)
Mine's the opposite to Joe's as I was flying slow with a 12 x 6 wooden three blade on my electric.
I flew around at about 5.6 seconds a lap as it doesn't slow down up high in the maneuvers.

Now if only it was 6oz lighter.

Hi Russell and thanks for responding. Congratulations on a very competitive effort. I'm a big fan of Joe's (I thought he flew magnificently at the WCs in Hungary a couple years back and somehow didn't manage to get the attention I felt it deserved) so I've no doubt your ship flew wonderfully under what sounded like demanding conditions. I'm curious about the wooden three blade. Was it constructed like Bob Hunt's back in the mid '70s with the blades bolted to aluminum hubs? Also, was it a pusher configuration or tractor. I judged the US Nats last year and was interested that Paul Walker was running a tractor three blade and certainly didn't seem to give up anything for having done so. I've been told it was a prop he had used on piped ships and it didn't appear to be large diameter...which wouldn't be unusual for Paul as he's never, to my understanding, been a big disk advocate...an opinion that, if true, is one we share.

Two last questions: What would it do better six ounces lighter? and, is there a reason why six is the number?

Give my best to my down under buddies. I truly miss my layovers in Sydney and the lovely bar BQs at chez Reeves.

Ted Fancher

P.S. I loved the early Firecrackers. I first met Brian at a Massachusetts Nats flying one of those things at lap times that would put me to sleep between maneuvers. A very clever and innovative design...totally typical of one of the finest modelers I've known.

RandySmith · « **Reply #48 on:** January 06, 2014, 12:35:01 AM »

" I judged the US Nats last year and was interested that Paul Walker was running a tractor three blade and certainly didn't seem to give up anything for having done so. I've been told it was a prop he had used on piped ships and it didn't appear to be large diameter...which wouldn't be unusual for Paul as he's never, to my understanding, been a big disk advocate...an opinion that, if true, is one we share. "

Hi Ted

He got the props from me, there are 11.5 x 5 3 blades, and were made for Electric ships, but they are very strong so they work well on strong 40s thru 51 size IC engines

Randy

Russell Bond · « **Reply #49 on:** January 06, 2014, 01:25:22 AM »

Hi Ted,
By shear fluke I was talking to Brian Eather on the phone when I read your posting.
Brian said that when he sees you next he'll give you a big hug!!

I think if my plane was a bit lighter it would have a bit more authority up high.
Of course, if I flew faster I would get the same result.

HOWEVER, I love flying at a nice "Gentleman's speed".

Yeah I know, pity I'm no gentleman!!

I picked 6 oz because it's halfway between 0 and 12. (That was from Brian!!!!) Hahaha.

The prop was made by Barry Robinson in the UK out of Xoar electric 2 blades.