Author Topic: Report from Tucson (Read 15428 times)

Derek Barry · « **Reply #50 on:** March 17, 2011, 04:42:05 AM »

Thanks for all the pictures and the reports. Congratulations Joe!

Zuriel Armstrong · « **Reply #51 on:** March 17, 2011, 10:54:16 AM »

Congratulations Joe.

Mike_Ostella · « **Reply #52 on:** March 17, 2011, 02:13:15 PM »

My photos of the first day of classic
Mike Ostella

http://cid-6bfe1cba2c7f745c.photos.live.com/browse.aspx/Classic%20day%20one

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #53 on:** March 17, 2011, 03:30:22 PM »

Looks like Bobby is doing it again.

FLOYD CARTER · « **Reply #54 on:** March 18, 2011, 11:26:46 AM »

Terrence. That is exactly what I've been preaching. But there are still some who do not observe the obvious.

Of course, availability of quality kits of these planes makes it easy to decide on a build.

F.C.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #55 on:** March 18, 2011, 02:29:43 PM »

Wait til it's over and see how many are in the top ten.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #56 on:** March 18, 2011, 07:02:54 PM »

I noticed this plane (that looks like a Jamison but isn't), and wondered if anybody could give more info on it? It appears to have a sparker in it. I like it! Also really like Warren T.'s "Blackbird" a whole lot...saw it up close at Clovis. Really a great looking design from Gene Shaffer.

Ditto on the congratulations to Joe Gilbert. I noticed his excellent flying in '07, again in '09, and thought then he was a contender. The best thing I noticed is that Joe always seems to be having fun. That's the way it oughta be.

Steve

Elwyn Aud · « **Reply #57 on:** March 18, 2011, 08:21:58 PM »

That might be Bob Lipscomb's ship.

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #58 on:** March 18, 2011, 09:09:11 PM »

You guessed it Elwyn. That is Bobs Bandit. It was a Johnny Casburn kit back in the late 40's early 50's. Bob did an excellent job on it as he always does. It flew very well with and Anderson Spitfire 65. I learned a few things from Bob on Andersons this year. He is a great guy, and a great modeler.

Terrence Durrill · « **Reply #59 on:** March 22, 2011, 02:54:22 PM »

Quote from: Terrence Durrill on March 16, 2011, 01:31:43 PM

Floyd,

I think the "field full of Jamisons and Humongi" indicates the changing nature of OTS at VSC. Instead of coming to Tuscon to demonstrate a little kown or obscure design regardless of performance potential, modelers are now focused on WINNING THE EVENT AT ALL COSTS. This a natural development in competitive environments, but it makes for a much less interesting event. Had I attended VSC this year, I would be flying my Barnstormer/Fox .35 as I believe it to be competititve with both of the afore mentiones aircraft. Maybe the pendulum swings both ways.........we shall see.

It looks like Floyd had a point which I suspected was correct. In OTS, EIGHT OUT OF THE FIRST TEN PLACES WERE EITHER, YES, JAMISON OR HUMONGOUS DESIGNS. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BARNSTORMERS?

Joe Gilbert Humongous Anderson 65 316.00 325.00 641.00 1
Bob Whitely Humongous [/u] DS-60 307.00 324.00 631.00 2
Bart Klapinski Madman Tower 40 306.00 322.50 628.50 3
Keith Trostle Big Job DS-60 307.75 319.00 626.75 4
Gaylord Elling Humongous ST-60 294.00 314.75 608.75 5
Robin Sizemore Jamison OS 46LA 295.50 309.00 604.50 6
Lou Wolgast Jamison Brodak 40 290.75 311.00 601.75 7
Charlie Reeves Big Job FOX 59 F.I. 295.00 306.25 601.25 8
LeRoy Black Jamison DS-54 307.00 290.75 597.75 9
Dale Barry n or Humongous Aero Tiger 36 / PA-40SE 305.50 288.75 594.25 10

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #60 on:** March 22, 2011, 03:28:41 PM »

To add to Terrence's comments:

The top 10 in OTS had only ONE airplane that was on the original OTS eligibility list: The "Madman".

Almost 1/2 of the OTS entries comprised of "Humongous", "Jamison" and "Big Job".

There were 9 flying entries in OTS Ignition. 5 of the 9 were "Humongous". Only 4 were on the original eligibility list

Here's hoping that next year there is a larger variety in the true spirit of OTS. There are many good flying OTS airplanes!

BillLee · « **Reply #61 on:** March 22, 2011, 03:56:43 PM »

Quote from: Tom Niebuhr on March 22, 2011, 03:28:41 PM

To add to Terrence's comments:

The top 10 in OTS had only ONE airplane that was on the original OTS eligibility list: The "Madman".

Almost 1/2 of the OTS entries comprised of "Humongous", "Jamison" and "Big Job".

There were 9 flying entries in OTS Ignition. 5 of the 9 were "Humongous". Only 4 were on the original eligibility list

Here's hoping that next year there is a larger variety in the true spirit of OTS. There are many good flying OTS airplanes!

Perhaps, Tom, next year YOU will be there with some new-to-VSC model.

Bill

Bill Little · « **Reply #62 on:** March 22, 2011, 04:02:22 PM »

Hi Tom,

I can't blame the guys for flying a model that is obviously very competitive as the Jameson and Humongous evidently are. But I would love to see more OTS models flown, too.

The Big Job (if I ever get a long shaft Fox .59 from a good friend of mine! LOL!!) and the Cheek Cowl Barnstormer have become my favorite OTS designs lately.

Of course, I plan on first building a Stuntwagon 30 from laser cut ribs I got from "someone" here.

Just have to decide on which engine to use. I have a great little Veco .29, or possibly a "wrong side"exhaust stack Veco .35.. Maybe a '51 sandcast Fox .35 or an "old" McCoy .29SS...... probably the Veco .29 (or how about a '54 Fox .25?)

Take care, my friend
Bill

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #63 on:** March 22, 2011, 04:19:15 PM »

Bill Lee,

I plan on being at VSC next year.

I will have an OTS airplane that has only been seen once or twice at VSC. It will have an engine that, according to Uncle Mikey, has never been seen at VSC. It is almost finished. I am currently detailing it and then it will get the clear dope top coat to complete it. I should have it trimmed out in a couple months. I am building this particular airplane in honor of my long time friend, John Miske.

For Classic I am in the finishing stage of an airplane that, to my knowlege, has never been at VSC.

dale gleason · « **Reply #64 on:** March 22, 2011, 06:36:24 PM »

Here's to Floyd.....
You may recognise this machine from 1950, sort of a Yates "Dragon" on steroids.
Dick Wolsey sent me this as a kit after last year's VSC when he heard I liked the design,
"not one of those". All was in readiness, I thought, but Dick, as we all know, didn't make it.

The Orwick 60, with some machine work by John McCollum, was sparking nicely the day we left home, but failed
to carry through, even after two nights scratchin' my head and swearing violent oaths. So we dropped out.

Hopefully, all will be in order for the NATs OTS this year, and VSC next year.

While on the subject, the VSC caters to everyone, some have mostly competitive desires, others want to bring in
the little known Old Timers. There's a mixture, and the proportions change, but there is a constant in this equation....
everyone is happy. Thanks to Robin, Lou, Jim, and all those who put this fine event on for all of us to enjoy.
dale g

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #65 on:** March 22, 2011, 06:40:03 PM »

There are a couple of reasons for larger planes in ignition. Most of us run 60 size engines as they are not quite as fussy as the smaller sparkers. Also easier to get the right amount of fuel in them for the right run time. The other thing is the weight of the batteries, coil, and ign. module. There are other old time planes that will fly well with 60 size sparkers. Viking, Go-Devil, Chief, (early version), and Bob Lipscomb's Bandit flew great. I have often wondered what it would be like to fly a Yates Dragon with a 64 Orwick on 70' lines. I just may have to try it.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #66 on:** March 25, 2011, 04:13:19 PM »

It is amazing, miss a couple of days on the forum and looks what happens. It takes several people that have never been to the VSC, the NATS or any big contest to find something to complain about. I imagine if you too the same people in the top ten and give them time with another plane you will still find them in the top ten. I know several of them have had different designs in the past. If all you are going for is the gold, then fly the equipment you think will get you there. Don't moan and groan about what design is doing what. The same airplanes in my hands would not help me one bit. That goes for any contest. The one who works the hardest is the one that is going to win. I have watched Joe Gilbert thru the years and he deserves what he won at VSC this year. Old Time Stunt may be a simple patern, but one that is hard to do correctly. As they say about the AMA pattern, it is the simple maneuvers that hurt most people. Watche a lot of double take offs and bouncing landings. A lot of maneuvers not placed on top of each other like the very simple loop. Also keeping the two full inverted laps. Some were coming up short on the full two laps and not maintaining the level portion. So the Humongous and Jamison were in the majority of the top ten, now you guys complaining take one of the planes and see if you can fly it as well as the individuals that were there.

If you had been there you would have seen a lot of different designs in Old Time as well as Classic. I too thought of building the Humongous kit I have, but do not think it would help my flying any. As some one has already stated, it takes a big plane for the big 60 ignition engines. Now I want to say I had a great time with a week of great weather and flying.

wwwarbird · « **Reply #67 on:** March 25, 2011, 05:55:32 PM »

Doc is right on, in the vast majority of cases it's the one who's holding the control handle that determines the win. Of course it can help some, but it's not so much to do with the plane or anything else.

You could give some of these guys an old fuel soaked Ringmaster with half the outboard wing missing and they'd still kick your butt.

Bill Little · « **Reply #68 on:** March 26, 2011, 10:02:40 PM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on March 25, 2011, 04:13:19 PM

It is amazing, miss a couple of days on the forum and looks what happens. It takes several people that have never been to the VSC, the NATS or any big contest to find something to complain about. So the Humongous and Jamison were in the majority of the top ten, now you guys complaining take one of the planes and see if you can fly it as well as the individuals that were there.
(snip)
If you had been there you would have seen a lot of different designs in Old Time as well as Classic. I too thought of building the Humongous kit I have, but do not think it would help my flying any. As some one has already stated, it takes a big plane for the big 60 ignition engines. Now I want to say I had a great time with a week of great weather and flying.

Hi Doc,

Both Tom N. and I have "been to the NATS", and flown there. Tom HAS been to VSC. I have also been to Brodak's a couple times (pretty BIG meet). No, I have never been to VSC. A few thousand miles travel each way, and a JOB that kept me working 18 or more hours a day, 6 to sometimes 7 days a week, for over 30 years prevented the trip to Tuscon. And the distance may well still prevent me from EVER attending even though I am now retired. So two of us that are "complaining" are NOT in your little group that YOU are "complaining" about.

Hmmmmmm...... or is just that neither of us have WON at VSC or that we don't have a Walker Trophy? If so, count yourself in that group. You seem to have cast a wide blanket, and one that is actually irrelevant to the conversation at hand about a proliferation of two designs being dominant.

I have always stated that the guy on the handle is the guy who wins, a plane is just a part of it.

But I can "complain" that The Humongous and Jameson are the two planes that seem to show up at the top all the time and that "I" would personally like to see a lot of other more obscure models, since OTS is an event that was began for the purpose of "showcasing OLD MODELS". Of course, winning is important to human beings, or else we wouldn't have competitions. I know, I never coached or participated to lose. And I did it at a level higher than 99% of the population (at least) did. But when it comes to toy airplanes, it is a different ball game to me. I would STILL like to see some planes fly that I never got a chance to see fly. And I will keep saying that even though I may never get a chance to travel to Tuscon, much less win there or at any other major contest. Guess Tom and I have no right to voice opinions.........

Bill

Ward Van Duzer · « **Reply #69 on:** March 27, 2011, 07:13:41 AM »

Bill,

Me too...

Ward-O

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #70 on:** March 27, 2011, 07:59:56 AM »

Like I said elsewhere, I have nothing against the Humongous, Jamison, or Big Job. I would just like to see more of a variety in OTS whether it is at VSC or any other event.

My VSC flying is better than the record. My last trip to VSC in Classic I left the triangles out on my secind flight. Mathematically if I had the same triangle score as my first flight I would have been top five. I don't think that that is bad considering the level and quantity of flyers at VSC.

I also laugh at myself for getting the Pachyderm Award for mixing up the maneuver order in OTS at VSC. I am in some pretty prestigious company for that.

I was a podium finisher at the very first OTS event, October 1970. I CDd the very first OTS contest outside of NJ, in St. Louis the following summer of 1971. I have won OTS and Classic and Expert events, so I don't think that I am new to these events.

And like most of us, family and job priority has cut practice time down.

At that very first GSCB OTS event we made an effort to make sure that we didn't all have the same airplanes. Again, I would just like to see more variety, and there are many more "competitive" OTS airplanes.

Jim Thomerson · « **Reply #71 on:** March 27, 2011, 08:50:32 AM »

Built a Humongous from one of Ted Snow's quarter scale drawings and flew it to 17th place in 1999, my best finish ever. It was a favorite airplane, and fairly scarce at the time. I will never make the top 10, so I compete in a different contest. I try to have a unique airplane, and fly it through two recognizable patterns in a fairly organized manner. Dmeco Sportwing for example. Who says you can't make one fly a pattern? The large majority of contestants at the VSC, by definition, will not make the top 10. So why not come to my contest and try to show up with something no one else has, and demonstrate that it will, in fact, fly a recognizable pattern.

I judged OTS this VSC and last, and in 2000. The level of OTS flying has steadily increased with time. Last year, I saw one 10 point dive. This year, I saw half a dozen, for example.

Marvin Denny · « **Reply #72 on:** March 27, 2011, 10:37:08 AM »

Lessee now--- hmmm First OT plane -- AAsr only because I wanted to get one from Lone Star as they were getting into kit biz. next- Stunt Wagon 30, then Testors Senior 29, and last a Guided Whistle. I guess I haven't built any "obscure" models.
It matters not what criteria is used for cutting off eligibility for OT stunt . There will always be one or two state-of-the-art designs that meet the applicable criteria of the moment that, in the hands of very good fliers, win some prestegeous contests. Then shortly thereafter, many fliers start showing up flying that particular design. It happens in almost EVERY event too--- not just OT stunt.
What bugs me more is the allowing of a "design" based ONLY on an old vague picture ( sometines taken at an angle). Nobody, or very few people ever having heard or seen it. I do not see how anyone can tell what the airfoil shape or thickness is from a flat on picture. Then when it is allowed, it seems strange that many "modern numbers just happen to fall into that design. I think we should go back to the original GSCB rules--- "PUBLISHED OR KITTED" that would eliminate much controversy.

Bigiron

Ward Van Duzer · « **Reply #73 on:** March 27, 2011, 11:57:09 AM »

Hear, Hear!

W.

FLOYD CARTER · « **Reply #74 on:** March 27, 2011, 12:27:34 PM »

Jim K. I can tell you just how a stock Madman with Orwick 64 on spark ignition flies! I brought exactly that to the first VSC in CA. Geo. Aldrich was one of the judges. On my second flight, the plane pancaked in at full power at the bottom of a vertical 8. Lesson here: This plane with big motor and spark ignition is too heavy! Wing loading too great for reliable pull-outs. I repaired the plane and flew it several times later on. But it did exactly the same thing; pancaked in. So I gave up. Now, I have the "extended Madman", the larger version that JC Yates built and flew. It weighs a bit less than the standard Madman and with Orwick 64 power. However, it will pull out very nicely.. not as quick as a more modern plane, but plenty good enough for OTS pattern.

Of course, a Madman, built carefully, with light wood, and powered by a strong 29 or 35 is still a winner!

Floyd

Trostle · « **Reply #75 on:** March 27, 2011, 04:03:19 PM »

Quote from: Marvin Denny on March 27, 2011, 10:37:08 AM

(Clip)

What bugs me more is the allowing of a "design" based ONLY on an old vague picture ( sometines taken at an angle). Nobody, or very few people ever having heard or seen it.

(Clip)

Bigiron

Well now, lessee: Marvin, do you have any specifics? I am sure you do. So, if you have a problem with any particular design or designs that are being flown in OTS, why don't you come out and say what you really intend to say. In a way, you are casting doubt on any nmber of unpublished and unkitted designs that are probabaly as legitimate as many of the so called designs being flown now from the "original list".

Keith

Marvin Denny · « **Reply #76 on:** March 27, 2011, 04:16:45 PM »

Keith, you are not going to bait me into attacking ANY individual. There are more than one, two, or three examples out there that could be cited.

Bigiron