PJ's vortex fins

[RandySmith]

Hey, you had a Fox 35 on pipe. I'm going to have to chill out. Layingdown


LOL  I have setup a lot of 4 strokes on pipes,........  Grin

many RC ships have used my CF pipes on big Enyas YS and OS   4 stokes,  not for the same reason as 2 strokes use them though

Randy

[Howard Rush]

In fact : Remi Berringer did have on his 2004 World Champs model a variation in VG technology. He used small V cut strips of mylar film all the way along 15% of the L/E...

Those would trip the boundary layer from laminar to turbulent.  VGs do something different. 

... who speak words I cannot pronounce.

Not that they know what those words mean.  Well, some of them do, but maybe not the ones who use them.  Most successful stunt designers I've seen go entirely by experimentation, and they experiment constantly. 

[Howard Rush]

Al rabe has been trying this for along time, I think most guys know the benfiit of a stiffer flap. Unless you make them TOO stiff...

The JCT is coming to town.
We're plenty stiff from the flaps on down.

[PJ Rowland]

Remi's were cut in a V shape, I agree they trip the boundary layer, but the point I was making, was sighting an example of a top guy who apparently " doesnt use stuff like that" Even a guy who placed 3rd at the Worlds and has been World Champion (2006) is experimenting with Boundary layer solutions.

That was all I meant.

VG's are different I agree.

The JCT is coming to town.
How stiff are you when the Pants are down?

[Paul Walker]

Now we get to it. Can devices like VG’s improve the performance of OUR ships. Yes, but not as long as OUR rules remain the same. Not as long as we have to operate in the same flight regime as we do now.    




Well, Milton has spoken. I guess we should give up improving our planes, as we are ALREADY optimized. What was I thinking trying to make my planes fly better? You too Howard, trying to reduce the flap hinge moment. Didn't you know the rules said that this couldn't be improved.

Milton, get your head out of ........uh, the sand.
  

[/quote]

[Howard Rush]

I think Milton was just saying that stunt planes have been refined to the point of diminishing returns.  You might find a 20-year-old design that flies as well as those rocket-ship-looking things you have been operating lately. 

[Brett Buck]

As to the issue of us not using VG’s because they are difficult to install and therefore not practical. Are you telling me that cats like Al Rabe, Paul Walker, Ted Fancher, Windy Urtnowski, David Fitzgerald, Han Ping, Frank McMillan, Jimmie Casale, Brett Buck, Gene Schaeffer, Keith Trostle, Bob Lampione, Bob Hunt, the Beringers, Randy Smith, (he’s got a Fox 35 on pipe) Kaz Minato, can’t stick a bunch of little pieces of wood on their planes!!!

Now we get to it. Can devices like VG’s improve the performance of OUR ships. Yes, but not as long as OUR rules remain the same. Not as long as we have to operate in the same flight regime as we do now.  

    Hmm, I have seen a lot of the things that "cannot work" work just dandy. Turbulators in places you wouldn't think they would do anything, in particular on what might be considered questionable airfoils (Strega/Cardinal/Patternmaster and those types, and, for example, Jim Aron's "Frankenstunt") or with high wing loadings in difficult conditions like rain. Or on the tail. .

    I know a fair bit of the theory, not as much as Howard who had formal training, but I wouldn't let the theory interfere with trying something. "Cut and Try" is a perfectly legitimate approach as long as you are careful about the experiment and remain objective.

    One of my close buddies called be about vortex generators last night. My advice to him - try it and see!

    Brett

[proparc]

Well, Milton has spoken. I guess we should give up improving our planes, as we are ALREADY optimized. What was I thinking trying to make my planes fly better? You too Howard, trying to reduce the flap hinge moment. Didn't you know the rules said that this couldn't be improved.

Milton, get your head out of ........uh, the sand.
  

READ THE POST!!!

Our planes can be improved, but the rate of improvement is slowing because, they are butting up against the fixed rules\flight regimes.

Lets see, since it’s obviously not getting through, if we were allowed to go to say 140 foot lines from 70 foot lines, it could possibly spur a major round of changes\improvements. 

Lets see, since it’s not getting through, what we are going through is the same as motorcycle G.P. racing. Major improvements early, very small incremental improvements now, because they are butting up against the rules\racing regimes i.e. limits of human handling etc.

Lets see, since it is not getting through, what allows Richard Kornmeir to win the Worlds with a fairly conventional plane and a believed to be obsolete motor is because, OUR rules\flight regimes have not altered significantly.

Lets see, since it is not getting through. There is NOTHING in our rules that prohibit the use of VG’s. To the best of my knowledge, we NEVER HAD A RULE that prohibited their use. But, WE DID NOT USE THEM in any significant way in Competition.

WHY

READ THE POST!!!

[Brett Buck]

Lets see, since it is not getting through. There is NOTHING in our rules that prohibit the use of VG’s. To the best of my knowledge, we NEVER HAD A RULE that prohibited their use. But, WE DID NOT USE THEM in any significant way in Competition.

WHY

READ THE POST!!!

   Milton-, yes, the response was less than entirely charitable - but just to be clear, you are yelling at Paul Walker, and saying he doesn't know what he is talking about?  Really?

    Brett

[proparc]

There is logic to my argument. We have among us, some of the best minds in model aviation. We have at our disposable, everyone from ex P51 Mustang pilots, to Air Force Colonels, to F4 Phantom pilots, to F22 Raptor engineers, to professional Rocket Scientist.  

The idea that VG’s were NOT KNOWN to these gentlemen AND, given that FACT that we did not have a rule prohibiting their use AND, given the INTENSE level of competitive development of our planes. What am I missing?

How in Sam Hill, can someone apply a level of energy and IMHO, downright genius, to strap a test fixture to his car, and drive it at 60 MPH through the desert, to find the precise points in our pattern, where various levels of lift are needed. And, as a result of that, develop an asymmetrical airfoil, perfectly suited to the problem at hand.  I don’t understand how someone like that, could somehow let something like VG’s “JUST SLIP BY THEM”.

You can almost look upon control line stunt as analogous to the Galapagos Islands. The Humbug\Combat configuration style plane, was selected against, and the flapped longer moment ship was selected for. We still DON’T have a rule against that style of plane but, you will hardly ever see them in high-level competition. In fact, you hardly, (not completely) ever see them in ANY level of stunt competition.

High-level competition tends to include the effective, and exclude the marginal. The argument that I am making is not that VG’s don’t work, it is that, from 1949 to the present, what we are seeing, is the current product of the effective, given our rules and flight regime, and the exclusion of the marginal, because it JUST DIDN’T CUT IT.

  

[proparc]

I very strongly feel that our planes can be improved. But, I personally have been studying a certain "foreign gentlemans" work for quite some time. As I have specfic competitive goals, I am not sure if I should state it.

The other reason is that, I have a lot of building and testing to do, incorporating this gentlemans theories and ideas, to see if I can get the results he is getting. All I should say is that, unlike something like VG's, I personally feel his work is repeatable,adjustable,(customization),controllable and consistant. And quite frankly-brilliant.

I will only know by going up against the best.

[PJ Rowland]

I think all of this really comes down to a simple solution - Try it for yourself..

There is no one solution to any problem, the last thing this event needs is a bunch of cloned impacts floating around the sky.

Richard K - Yes won the Worlds with an older design ( still modern ) with a very highly tuned ST 60.
Dave F - Yes won the worlds with a more modern design - and a highly refined Pipe setup
Paul W is working toward a more specific set of numbers to suit the electric engine and that seems very competitive.
Orestes won the Nats with a model anyone can own - with a great engine

These are 4 fairly different approaches to engine/airframe design - what seperates them is practice and to a lesser degree how they compare on the day.

Howard Rush has an incredible Top 10 Impact - and spends a fair amount of time around the designer - STILL decided to alter the flap configuration to include "boost tabs" which I also run. Now Im fairly certain that the designer of said aircraft has flown it in that new configuration - but chooses not to include the devices for personal reasons ( which we wont go into here )

Its about personal preference - and giving options.. All I have ever stated from day one is try it for yourself.. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. On TOP LEVEL comp spec aircraft they make an improvement to overall consitency.. thats all. Its about having stable airflow over the surfaces and wings which will yeld a more consistent flight geometry and pattern.

Do I think they can help everyones model? Lets look at some examples :

Its like Hingeline tape - helps some, doesnt help others..
Stab plates - Bob Gieseke loves them - as do many others - but I see alot that dont run them also..

The idea that VG’s were NOT KNOWN to these gentlemen AND, given that FACT that we did not have a rule prohibiting their use AND, given the INTENSE level of competitive development of our planes. What am I missing?

I think your missing that the configuration of VG's I've settled on after 15 years and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF FLIGHTS you wont see anywhere else that Vortex Generator technology is being employed.

The configuration I have and I suggested here for anyone with an open mind to try is unique and Stunt specific.


The really big thing your missing is : IT doesnt change how the model flies.. Initial incarnations of it did.. even as recently as my 2004 model where I had 3 pairs - changed the flight charactistics too much. It didnt "pop" the corner. With the new system in the location - distance, size and location I have tested numerous times, it works, simply as that.

Others have tried it - in my configuration and they tell me it works.  Not changing the flight charactistics too much, just allowing the model to be more predicable, less erractic, allow for a slightly deeper turn but overall be consistent with airspeed and turn rates, which will yeild a more precise abilty to control


This is the flight report from Doug Moon flying the model he placed 2nd at in the Nats..

"
I turned it up for the loops and it locked in tight.  I was able to do three loops right on top of each other without any trouble or feeling of it trying to walk around. The bottoms were right on track and right on top of each other.  When it came time to do the outside loops the wind had totally died it was calm.  I had to walk back while flying them and I found it alot easier to hit the bottoms while stepping back.  It just seemed to be tracking better where ever it went.  I was also noticing at this point I was having to use more stick pressure to get through the maneuvers.

Next the squares.  It seemed to really show up in the second square both inside and outside.  The plane just doesnt give up as much when in the second maneuver where it has lost a little of initial speed it had on the first square.  Normally if I hit it too hard on the last corner on the second maneuver it will slide or slip a little on exit.  This was not the case this time.  I was still noticing it was needing more stick pressure then normal to get through the corners.  Not alot but a tiny noticeable amount.  The flaps were definitely feeling the effect and it was talking to me through the handle.

The third corner of the triangle was great.  On exit the plane just shoots out straight.  There is no settling in or trying to finesse it in there.  Especially on the second one where many planes need a little help or need to turn out early so as to hit the correct bottom height.  On exit these little devices really show their power.  It is really quite noticeable.

I proceeded through the round 8 it tracked well.  But this plane has always tracked well there.  In the square 8 I was able to really go at it on the second one and it would stay in there tight and not give up a bit on any exit.  It was really cool.  It felt like it would be easier to keep the same corner all the way through the pattern.

It carved out the best vertical 8 this plane has ever done it was as if it had power steering.  The vertical 8 was actually very surprising.  The line tension was more positive and the ability to place the plane more precisely where you wanted it was very evident.

The hourglass was another eye opener.  If I hit third corner, top left one, of the hourglass too hard the plane will hop a little as it comes around to make the final leg.  I have noticed this little hop or wiggle in many stunt planes I have watched over the years. With these little jewels on there this was not the case.  And you can go deep into the last corner and it just exits flat with no settling.  I did several to make sure I wasnt making this up in my head and sure enough it was just cleaner in all corners and legs of that maneuver.  "



He didnt say it changed the model.. we arent even talking about airframe design.. You seem to be going on and on about aircraft design, when in actual fact Im saying aircraft design is critical. I still think we can improve and refine, all Im doing is allowing the model to perform at a more optimum level, to acheive consitency.

I really hope more of the top guys DONT use it.. Last thing I need ( or any of us ) is for Paul, Brett or Dave to be more consistent.....

Milton :
" I don’t understand how someone like that, could somehow let something like VG’s “JUST SLIP BY THEM”."

Show me someone else who has done 15 years of development work on the technology.

I tried tuned pipes in 1994 - by flying a VF 46 / pipe , and didnt like it - I didnt pursue it, and considered it a dead end didnt try any other style of engine or configuration, made my mind up then and there.. ... Now years later Im running PA75 on Pipe becasue I feel its the best package for me.

Im not shoving this down anyone's throat: I didnt even start the inital thread.. I just respond if someone wants assistance.

Moral of the story?

How can I go wrong with quoting Brett Buck the aforementioned "professional Rocket Scientist" :  try it and see!

[Brett Buck]

High-level competition tends to include the effective, and exclude the marginal. The argument that I am making is not that VG’s don’t work, it is that, from 1949 to the present, what we are seeing, is the current product of the effective, given our rules and flight regime, and the exclusion of the marginal, because it JUST DIDN’T CUT IT.

   So, again, just to be clear, you are certain that it doesn't make any difference, and Paul Walker and myself etc. are unclear about it and suggest that people try it and see,  because we don't know what it takes to compete at a high level? And that if it hasn't been invented by now, it must be worthless?

   I doesn't really bother me that you disagree, I am fine with that. I am certainly not going to get into a beef about it. But I am astonished that (no offense intended) a neophyte with no detectable contest record will categorically dismiss something they haven't tried. While the most experienced, technically competent, and successful pilot in the history of the event says he thinks it's worth an experiment. Actually, maybe that's *why* he is the most successful pilot in the history of the event.

   BTW, everybody "knows" that 0.018 wire turbulators are "useless" on a stunt wing, but the laws of physics don't care what everybody "knows", it actually works great in the right circumstances.

   I don't know if it will work or not or what the pros and cons might be, but there is one *reliable* way to find out.  My advice stands, it's worth a try and then we will know for sure.

    Brett

[proparc]

Brett Buck, easier to reference your name than punch out the quotes. There’s no question that people are going to try it. We know for sure that at least one; Doug Moon is definitely going to try them, and maybe at least, a half a dozen more. Doug Moon stated quite eloquently, as to why he felt they would work AND not only that, but had the capability to improve existing planes as well.

My statements go to the issue as to the predicted outcome. That is to say, I don’t think they will. If I am wrong it will not kill me. But as Doug endeavored to state why he thinks they will work, I think it only fair to state WHY I think we haven’t seen them prior, AND why I don’t think they will.

We know where VG’s DO work. But are they universal in full-scale aviation? The answer is no. The closest scenario I could come to, as to what we do, is full-scale aerobatics. I know-I know, planes don’t scale, Reynolds numbers etc. But that is as close as I come for my argument.

Full-scale aerobatic planes do violent maneuvers at relatively slow speed, under a comprehensive set of rules. Control line stunt ships do violent maneuvers at relatively slow speed, under a comprehensive set of rules. Both events allow for a degree of freedom in airframe design. Yet like us, they have butted up against their rules and flight regime and consequently, you see the same CAPS, Sukhoi’s, EXTRA’s etc.

In neither event do you see VG’s being used to any extent. I made a point to examine the planes at the most recent FAI World Championships, and I still didn’t see them. VG’s, or boundary layer devices appear to like certain parameters, to see effectiveness. What we do and, what they do, is analogous to air molecules doing “hard time”.  That is, from the time we go into the reverse wingover, what we are doing is “dirty deeds done dirt cheap”.  The violent nature of the maneuvers, AND the relative lack of letup, (that is important) tears the crap out of most boundary layer equation.

Consequently, what we do, and what they do is similar. That is, they try to develop wing sections that maintain lift at as high an alpha, for as long as possible before it dies. What they do past that point, is the same thing we do-brute power!! Doug Moon may be right, but I strongly believe that VG’s can’t hang in this environment. Moreover, it is not necessary for them to do so.

Like our full-scale aerobatic counterparts, we don’t need high speed. Consequently, them and us, can use relatively thick sections to get that lift. And then, use that brute power MP14, Merlin 75 on pipe, to take over when the lift decides it’s time to bounce. That is what we have ACTUALLY been doing. The issue of boundary layer and lift gets exed out with shear muscle.

Lets make the scenario worse-much worse. We have a typical stunt contest, but now we have a very windy day. The air molecules are no longer doing hard time. Now, we are talking capitol punishment. We have violent maneuvers, kicking the crap out of the air molecules, AND we have strong wind blowing all over the wing and bouncing the plane around. The Orientals with the Fox 35’s start to fall away, and the big guns start firing. Sophisticated boundary layer devices in my belief, will not help you here. We are deep into the world of heavy lift and very powerful motors. 650-700 sq’s, big muscle in the nose of one sort or another, time after time, seems to get it.

As to the personal attacks, there is ONLY one person on this forum that knows me well and that is Jose Modesto. He has known me since early childhood. Suffice to say, most if not all the people on this forum would not take the risks with their life to pursue this hobby that I have.

Mr. Buck, close your eyes and try to imagine the worst nightmare health-wise you would think of, and you wouldn’t get close. Let me put it this way, hopefully, you and I will meet face to face in competition, but, if and when we do, you will have no conception as to the sacrifice it took on my part, for us to be going head to head.        



 

[Howard Rush]

I think that our scores and our knowledge would benefit more from practicing and experimenting than from making up scientific-sounding stuff and citing online sales pitches.

[Brett Buck]

As to the personal attacks, there is ONLY one person on this forum that knows me well and that is Jose Modesto. He has known me since early childhood. Suffice to say, most if not all the people on this forum would not take the risks with their life to pursue this hobby that I have.

   What personal attack?  I have no idea what you are talking about.

     Brett

[PJ Rowland]

Doug Moon stated quite eloquently, as to why he felt they would work AND not only that, but had the capability to improve existing planes as well.

Yep, Doug is the only one who can do that......

Milton, this is going no-where..... If you don't want to try it, dont..

[John Sunderland]

Havent been around for awhile. Nice to see we are still capable of generating a pointless argument here in CLPA!

[john e. holliday]

It has already  stated here in one way or another.  But, I remember when I was playing with F2C.   We, my pilot and myself, were neophytes when it came to F2C.   We were getting all kinds of advice on this and that.   But, mentors were Bill Wright and Jim Dunkin.   They were on several world teams in F2C.   But, Bill told me one day, "John, if you want to try something new, do it.   If it works, you can stay with it.   If it doesn't work file it away some where as it might work on another plane".   

As they have said, "TRY  IT  YOU MIGHT LIKE IT.

[proparc]

At no point did I EVER tell anybody NOT TO DO IT. At no point did I ever tell anybody NOT TO TRY IT. I made it as clear as I could, that I DID NOT THINK IT WOULD WORK-I STILL DON’T.

Now lets get something clear. I don’t need Paul Walker’s or Brett Buck’s or ANYBODY ELSES PERMISSION to have a dissenting opinion.

Mr. Buck, I DO NOT HAVE to be Orestes Hernandez to have the right to disagree with Paul Walker! Mr. Walker puts his pants on the same as I do!  He is deserving of the same respect and courtesy as anybody else on this forum!  

My understanding when I joined this forum years ago was that, all you had to do was stay away from politics, and treat your fellow stunt flyers with courtesy and respect EVERY TIME you post.

Until Robert Storick informs me otherwise, I’m going to assume those same rules are still in effect.

[Igor Burger]

Richard K - Yes won the Worlds with an older design ...

what is new and what is old in your eyes? 

[RandySmith]

I think that our scores and our knowledge would benefit more from practicing and experimenting than from making up scientific-sounding stuff and citing online sales pitches.

Strange that , the above is exactly what some very talented and successful stunt flyers have done :-O   !!!

dead on Howard

not to say there is anything wrong with looking at the scientific stuff..although it would help if you understood it first...   Looking under all the rocks  sometime pays off

Randy

[Ted Fancher]

snip

We know where VG’s DO work. But are they universal in full-scale aviation? The answer is no. The closest scenario I could come to, as to what we do, is full-scale aerobatics. I know-I know, planes don’t scale, Reynolds numbers etc. But that is as close as I come for my argument.

Full-scale aerobatic planes do violent maneuvers at relatively slow speed, under a comprehensive set of rules. Control line stunt ships do violent maneuvers at relatively slow speed, under a comprehensive set of rules. Both events allow for a degree of freedom in airframe design. Yet like us, they have butted up against their rules and flight regime and consequently, you see the same CAPS, Sukhoi’s, EXTRA’s etc.

In neither event do you see VG’s being used to any extent. I made a point to examine the planes at the most recent FAI World Championships, and I still didn’t see them. VG’s, or boundary layer devices appear to like certain parameters, to see effectiveness. What we do and, what they do, is analogous to air molecules doing “hard time”.  That is, from the time we go into the reverse wingover, what we are doing is “dirty deeds done dirt cheap”.  The violent nature of the maneuvers, AND the relative lack of letup, (that is important) tears the crap out of most boundary layer equation.

snip

Milton,

I'm certainly no expert on full scale aero stuff but I think it is fair to say that the current state of full scale aerobatics probably demands that the wing not continue to provide lift at high angles of attack.  It is important for a lot of todays "whacky maneuvers" the wing be fully and completely stalled to do the snaps, tumbles, lomcevaks (sp), spins and other assorted "non-flying" tricks they do requiring horsepower more than extreme amounts of lift...if any at all.

My opinion is that they likely are able to access all the lift necessary for their "lifting maneuvers...loops, rolls, split S's, etc...with their ubiquitous blunt high forward points airfoils and are thankful that there is a point beyond which all that lift predictably disappears so they can do all the flashy stuff that turns on the spectators but has no much to do with high lift.

If what PJ suggest is, in fact, real it could be of value to an aerobatic plane of any type that is challenged either in wing loading or power to keep airspeed (and thus lift) commensurate with what is necessary.  I continue to be of the opinion that the "lift required" to perform a certain maneuver is all the "lift that is necessary".  Given that lift increases as the square of airspeed the single most important factor in any increase in aerodynamic performance in modern stunt design is the availability of powerplants that  are able to keep the airspeed of the ship at a level where the "lift required" can be obtained without stalling.  We are, as a result, flying airplanes competitively at wing loading, fully 60-80% greater than the same size airplane in the Fox .35 era.

[proparc]

snip

Milton,

My opinion is that they likely are able to access all the lift necessary for their "lifting maneuvers...loops, rolls, split S's, etc...with their ubiquitous blunt high forward points airfoils and are thankful that there is a point beyond which all that lift predictably disappears so they can do all the flashy stuff that turns on the spectators but has no much to do with high lift.

Ted, you’ve raised an excellent point. That is, they actually want a “lift-dump-lift” scenario in order to be able to rock and roll. 

[Chris Wilson]

what is new and what is old in your eyes? 

Old is what I see in the mirror each morning, new is wondering how I can change that! 

[PJ Rowland]

Ted :

" could be of value to an aerobatic plane of any type that is challenged either in wing loading or power to keep airspeed (and thus lift) commensurate with what is necessary. "

This is one by product of running it.. However its far from my primary concern. I don't think a TP style wing at a weight of 62 oz is challenged in wing loading or power with a modern day .81.

I stopped many years ago, trying to get models that were heavier than normal to compete by simply learning to build lighter.  As a result of this the configuration I suggest allows for current designs, with modern numbers and comp spec weights to be able to be flown with more consistency.

Thats all I advocate. Yes lift ability has increased but this was never a concern - I think Milton is missing this point - I can fly a heavy ( 53 ) oz Nobler with a high powered 61 in the nose without VG technology and still do well, it has the power and the required lift to compete - Ted is correct in that assessment.

The purpose of running VG's in MY confirguration of 1 pair near the root chord ( see my previous postings on installation ) Is to allow the model to be more consistent overall.

I think if you have a heavier model, 1 pair isnt enough to allow it to create the required lift.

I can sight 2 examples of this :
John Miller with h is 2 bits bipe and big engine had problems with its lift and wing loading, 1 pair as I suggested did nothing, but 2 pairs ( Root and Tip ) made it a new animal. This is a different idea to what Im advocating. If you have a heavy model you probably shouldnt be trying to compete with it in Top field CLPA. ( 73 + oz )

My second example was the 4 engined Lancaster which weighted in at 120 oz - sure it had a decent wing size but still the wing loading was a little on the low side for competition. I ran 2 pairs on that, and managed to win and place compeditively with it in Contests.  ( A 1st and a 3rd )  Sure Pauls B17 did well also - but his was much lighter than mine - souley due to Paul being a brilliant builder.


So - if you have a heavy model, sure use it ..  but thats not what I have intended it being used for.

Consistency throughtout the pattern from Control inputs to stability in tracking. Letting a great model, and a great design just perform that little bit more consistently.

Thats they KEY WORD..

CONSISTENCY.

Im not saying " put them on and you may or may not see a difference " far from it, tracking improves.

I still love this quote from Doug Moon flying his 2nd Place Nats ship...

" It carved out the best vertical 8 this plane has ever done it was as if it had power steering.  The vertical 8 was actually very surprising.  The line tension was more positive and the ability to place the plane more precisely where you wanted it was very evident. "


Milton :
" [Walker] is deserving of the same respect and courtesy as anybody else on this forum!   "

I think some people require more respect due to their contributions to the sport and acknowledgement of their expertise in the field - thats just the way it is. You opinion is a valid as anyone elses however some opinions carry more weight.

[PJ Rowland]

Igor : Comeone everyone knows the Max is atleast 12 months old. Thats old in my eyes.   

Perhaps that was a poor example - What I was referring to was ,there is nothing exceptionally radical about the way in which Richard went about winning the Worlds. Solid performing well designed plane that has been well thought out, well trimmed but doesnt stray too far from convention - with a BRILLIANT engine run.

I understand the airfoils, numbers and control systems are all very cutting edge - what I meant was - it didnt look radcially different - in comparision to say the Berringer models of a few years ago. - Practice paid off for Richard. - It was obvious adn has been obvious for years he would win a worlds.

No-one puts in more technical theory than you Igor.. poor choice of words on my part.

[Igor Burger]

Igor : Comeone everyone knows the Max is atleast 12 months old. Thats old in my eyes.   

Scheißeeeee ... so it means my new model is already old ? ? ? ?

:- ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

I thought I am 50 yers young ... now I see I am 49 years old ... hmm ok, my wife says I am 50 years old, at least I can argue with her 

[Howard Rush]

If what PJ suggest is, in fact, real it could be of value to an aerobatic plane of any type that is challenged either in wing loading or power to keep airspeed (and thus lift) commensurate with what is necessary.  I continue to be of the opinion that the "lift required" to perform a certain maneuver is all the "lift that is necessary".  Given that lift increases as the square of airspeed the single most important factor in any increase in aerodynamic performance in modern stunt design is the availability of powerplants that  are able to keep the airspeed of the ship at a level where the "lift required" can be obtained without stalling.  We are, as a result, flying airplanes competitively at wing loading, fully 60-80% greater than the same size airplane in the Fox .35 era.

Ted continues to write about "lift required" and "lift necessary".  Ted knows a lot about stunt, which he learned by experience.  I am sure he is describing a real phenomenon, but I still haven't figured out what it is, because rather than describing his observations, he gives a "theoretical" explanation.

[Howard Rush]

No-one puts in more technical theory than you Igor.. poor choice of words on my part.

Igor is one of the few who benefit from theorizing. 

 

[Igor Burger]

Igor is one of the few who benefit from theorizing. 

yes ... because my best working position is horizontal ... laying in hot tub :- )))))))))))))))))))