Simple question.....no doubt difficult answer!

[katana]

From discussion here and elsewhere the way that CL aerobatics / stunt is flown - mainly in competition - is, to an outsider relatively boring! Sort of along the lines (no pun intended) you've seen one, you've seen them all! So my question to you all is Why does everyone fly the individual elements in the same sequence - is a mandated ruling?

It just seems, if a bit of artistic flair and alternative sequencing could be introduced it may a) improve watchability b) produce nicer flights c) add maneuvers not seen / out of the box that others could aspire to? Obviously if you are doing something new there has to be a way of scoring or just add an out of 25 (say) for just it, in isolation. Even how the set patterns are strung together could be made tighter or more flowing ie. no more than 1 lap in level flight, for instance?

I do try and watch stunt flights on youtube etc. but they are just so dull so I 'channel hop' to find some combat - no set sequences there but full on entertainment cos you can't predict what will happen.

Discuss!

[Tim Wescott]

Please do a search for the last dozen times that a newbie came on and asked this question.  Here's the summary:

• Why do we do it?  Because no one has attained perfection at it yet.  The typical winning Nats score (for as long as I've been watching) is just shy of 600 points, out of a possible 645 -- and no one is intentionally leaving 40-55 points on the table
• If you're serious about it, it's exciting to do and watch.  Because you never know how well someone is going to do, or where they're going to screw up.  It is a bit inaccessible to the non-competitor, because you have to know what a screw-up is, and it's not as obvious as unauthorized contact between two planes or a plane and the ground
• Sure, go ahead -- join the group, learn the pattern, organize an event with the maneuvers mixed up.  I suggest doing it as a fun-fly to start out.  It's how full-scale and RC aerobatics are done.

So far, to my knowledge (and I won't get bent out of shape if I'm corrected), no one's put on a "mix-em-up" stunt contest, at least recently.  It certainly hasn't turned into a popular event.

[Will Hinton]

The pattern is mandated as far as sequence is concerned, in fact there is a bonus for doing it in proper sequence.  (Pattern points in the amount of 25.)  You say that's a piece of cake so why have it?  Hmmmm, how many triangles have I left out for one reason or another?
As far as one lap between manuevors, two are mandated to give the judges time to write down the score for the last one.  And believe me, those two laps/time barely do it if you want to think a manuevor through before scoring it.  One lap would make it nearly impossible.
Once you have learned the pattern and can do all of the manuevors, watching someone else can be a lot of fun, especially if you are trying to learn the finer points of each manuevor in order to help yourself score higher.

[Dan McEntee]

  You might ask the same question of any of the model airplane disciplines. I have participated in C/L stunt, R/C soaring, R/C helicopters ( for a very short time)and several classes of outdoor and indoor free flight. I have done them all because they are are very cool, take varying skill sets, Have their own specific challenges and are just plain fun (no pun intended.!) Stunt and maybe control line in general is as much like flying a full scale airplane as you can do with your feet still on the ground. I love the feel of it. I love getting an airplane finished and taking the pride in having a good flying model with a good running engine. I also restore, ride and occasionally race vintage dirt bikes. I get the same kind of rush taking a pile of scrap metal and turning it back into something that resembles what it looked like when it was new, then riding it to the fullest extent of my and it's capabilities. Sometimes this takes me as much a 50 miles or more away from my truck and tools, so my welfare depends on the quality and competency of my work, if I want to get back to where the food and drinks are! It's the same with the models. Not everyone can or wants to build a flying machine, but sometimes I fail to understand why some don't get it. Like the old saying goes," If you understand, no explanation is necessary. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible."  Watching flights on video, just for entertainment purposes isn't something I do very much of. Watching them in person is a very different thing, and much more desirable in my opinion. You can see, hear and in  a sense feel so much more in real life.
  HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!!
  Dan McEntee

[Larry Renger]

For a more exciting version, do a search for Quickie Stunt.

For lots more excitement, fly combat ... if you can! 

Try an outside, inverted triangle. Pointy bit at the bottom. Never seen one done, has anyone done it?

Square four leaf clovers are fun to do, and it is actually easier to get the intersections right.

I fly the standard pattern in practice for two reasons. First, it helps me remember the correct sequence for contests, second, I am less likely to make a bad decision on which way to pull out of a maneuver. (upright or inverted pullout next? SPLAT) 

[dennis lipsett]

Try an outside, inverted triangle. Pointy bit at the bottom. Never seen one done, has anyone done it?

I did.but not at a contest. Back in the day when I was a lot more adventurous. I will say that I did a really loose example of the maneuver but it was recognizable. Further practice could have been more exciting than the pattern.
As I remember the old Plymouth meets has you do a lot of maneuvers both inside as in a wing over with loops in it both ways as an example.

[Tim Wescott]

... how many triangles have I left out for one reason or another? ...

So it's triangles for you too?  For a while I'd recite the pattern to myself, on the fingers of one hand.  If I couldn't start on my thumb and end up at my pinky finger on the 3rd iteration, I'd try again until I got it right.

Try an outside, inverted triangle. Pointy bit at the bottom. Never seen one done, has anyone done it?

I've done it, and seen Dave Fitzgerald do it in contests, to unwind the lines (Ty told most of the story: depending on your footwork in the overheads, you leave one to three inside loops' worth of twist in the line.  If you want your lines totally unwound for landing you need to do that many outside loops to unwind them.  If you're flying a slimer with a typical tank, then doing three round loops will cut the engine off -- but squares or triangles won't.)

[Steve Helmick]

Another benefit of "doing the pattern" in practice is that when you're done, you'll know that your fuel is about gone, and you won't be jerking around doing stuff that is likely to cost you some airplanes when things go silent...this is CRUCIAL!

I have heard that Paul Walker once ran a contest at Boeing's Kent Space Center rear parking lot (before my time of flying stunt contests) where the pattern was the same, but to be flown "backwards". I have not gotten a clarification on exactly what "backwards" means...landing first and takeoff last? WTF? I'm going to guess that the maneuvers would be flown in reverse order...starting with the takeoff, but then the Clover and lastly the RWO and landing. I don't know where the level flight would be. The inverted laps would probably be ugly, due to CG shift. The word I got was that there were a fair number of crashes due to indecision/brain farts, and Paul won. Probably, he practiced more than everybody else combined?

Since then, I have heard Paul suggest (with IC power) trying the Clover with a full fuel load and see how that goes. Point being that the sequence of maneuvers is a factor in the trim of the plane, as the fuel load is burned. Frankly, I'm skeered to try that. I merely have hopes of changing the way I plant my feet when doing the OH8's, and haven't been able to get that right, but have scared myself silly. Circa 1971, I was doing some sport stunt flying, and didn't learn the correct pattern (some of the rulebook diagrams weren't real clear to me), but I used to do vertical Square 8's and horizontal hourglasses. I thought they were awesome, of course. If you want to do those at the end of an official flight, I'll be very impressed! But they won't get you extra points.

I've been doing some judging over the years. Last year, at one of the NW Skyraider's contests, I gave Paul Walker three or four 40's on one flight. Flawless tricks, no reasonable justification for a downgraded score. He still lost, because he keeps doing some of the same mistakes he's done for quite awhile. But I have hopes that he'll stick with it and fix those, and maybe win the NATS again (12?). Same for Chris Cox...makes the same mistake in one trick, plus a few small mistakes here and there. Howard makes little mistakes, but more of them, and not on any particular maneuvers. A little hop, or a little angle on the bottom of a square or triangle, stuff like that. I consider myself lucky to just watch these guys fly. I still remember how Chris flew his Saturn/.40VF and how smooth and effortless it looked. Jack Pitcher flew like that, too. Just wonderful to watch, almost like slow motion. Awesome!   

When I actually learned to do the pattern semi-competently (no crashes), I finally realized just how VERY difficult it is, and that is ASSUMING that the model is PERFECTLY trimmed and COMPLETELY capable of doing every maneuver EXACTLY as the rulebook calls for. Give it a try, and you'll find out what I did...an OMG moment!  Steve

[Trostle]

For a more exciting version, do a search for Quickie Stunt.

Try an outside, inverted triangle. Pointy bit at the bottom. Never seen one done, has anyone done it?

Square four leaf clovers are fun to do, and it is actually easier to get the intersections right.

Ted Fancher had the habit of unwinding his lines at the end of a pattern, including contest flights, by doing consecutive outside inverted triangles.  Fun to watch.

Regarding square four leaf clovers, I did one when I first flew one of your 1/2a ships.

Keith

[Brett Buck]

Try an outside, inverted triangle. Pointy bit at the bottom. Never seen one done, has anyone done it?

     Ted started out doing that to free up the lines for landing. Point up, point down, both have been done many times. I do round loops, triangular loops (either way depending on my mood at the time), or outside pentagonal loops. There is a reason I do one or the other that remains a investigation for the reader.

    Brett

[Randy Cuberly]

Just to be a show off, I nearly always do two outside triangular loops (pointy end down) to unwind my lines.  I saw Ted Fancher do it many years ago and figured "if he can do I can do it"...Well maybe not quite as well as him but it just became habit.  I've also seen several guys do it with the flat side down and in my opinion that's a little harder to do well!

Actually I started doing it hoping that it would become fashion and the outside triangles would be added to the pattern, then it wouldn't be necessary to unwind the lines!  I guess the majority of fliers were not interested, because every time I brought it up everybody just gave me a stare and walked away!  Go figure...Crazy Cuberly is at it again!!  So I just stopped bringing it up!  Still like to do it at the end of flight however!  Not really any harder to do than any other maneuver!

Randy Cuberly

[Trostle]

As has been already mentioned, the idea of changing the pattern has come up many time on this forum over the years.  These suggestion include many alternatives from a completely free style event, to adding various "new" maneuvers to the existing pattern, to totally revising the existing pattern.

I have several comments regarding these ideas.  There have been multiple different maneuvers suggested over the years and there are many shown in diagrams as far back as in a 1954 Air Trails for Young Men suggested by several of the top stunt fliers from that period, including George Aldrich.  Some of those ideas ended up in the pattern that George established in what is our current pattern.  That pattern has remained intact since before 1960 with only refinements in the descriptions.  It is interesting to note that the FAI adopted our AMA pattern in 1960 which remains in the FAI F2B rules with only slight variations in individual maneuver descriptions.

Regarding new maneuvers, almost all that I have seen proposed are nothing more than some variation of loops, turns, corners or what have you, at different positions on our hemisphere that essentially offer little difference than what we already do with our airplanes.  Yes, there are some maneuvers that could be defined that place extreme requirements on the model and pilot, but some of these border on being dangerous unless the desire is to turn the event into a destruction derby.  (We already have that with some of the versions dreamed up for the balloon bust event.)  I can define for you a maneuver that could be done by a lightly loaded 1/2A stunt ship or a combat type model but would be virtually impossible for a "typical" full size stunt ship.  Or you could change our current pattern where the various elevations are essentially defined by 45^o and 90^o, to a pattern that is flown with those elevations at 30^o and 60^o.  (Combat ships can do this.) This has been suggested before and there has not been a landslide of support for it.

My other response to those suggesting to run contests using some kind of different pattern.  This could be a great idea.  All that needs to happen is for someone to organize something.  It seems that those making such suggestions are not too keen on organizing something.

One more thing about the idea of some form of a free style event.  When Stunt first started being flown at the Nats after the War, the event was a free style event where the top flier was selected by crowd response.  The event essentially morphed into what we now have with fairly rigid standards for a judge to use to asses an individual maneuver.  While a free style thing might be fun to watch, particularly if something new is done that is not some variation or sequence of loops and turns that we already have, what is the standard to judge individual maneuvers being flown or to judge the sequence.  Joe Blowhard may perform his individual triple whifferdill to his idea of perfection, but how does a judge assess it if he has never seen it before.

Keith

[Steve Helmick]

Even a regular single whifferdill always makes my lines go slack, and I almost crash. Can't score well when you almost crash!  Steve

[Ken Culbertson]

 Not really any harder to do than any other maneuver!

Randy Cuberly

Actually they are easier than uprights.  I have a cat figure flying my plane and he tells me that the last turn of the triangles is the reason he made me put in an ejection seat.
I will be for changing the pattern when I post my first 645.

Ken

[Ken Culbertson]

Even a regular single whifferdill always makes my lines go slack, and I almost crash. Can't score well when you almost crash!  Steve

Try to get the second stall just into the wind then yank hard on the lines when it turns in and you will get a perfect whiffer.

[Steve Helmick]

Yeah, Ken, that's what I was thinking would work best, with an extra 2 oz of tipweight and 4' shorter lines.  Steve

[Dave_Trible]

Someday I'll find out what a whifferdill is......Sounds like something my grandmother grew.  Anyway how are we to judge one against another when nobody is doing the same thing?  That's where 'precision ' comes in instead of free-for-all.  We'd have to retire the Walker Cup because the game would have changed.  To me it's like changing major league baseball to softball.  The record books end and Cooperstown closes.

Dave

[afml]

The whifferdill is a basic aerial warfare maneuver that is used to reverse course in a dogfight with very little loss of energy/airspeed.
It is also a fundamental maneuver used in air shows.

https://www.rc-airplane-world.com/image-files/416x350xrc-stall-turn.gif.pagespeed.ic.C4mhmAsaze.png

Well.....You did wanna know......
Cya soon Dave!
"Tight lines!" 
Wes

[Ken Culbertson]

The whifferdill is a basic aerial warfare maneuver that is used to reverse course in a dogfight with very little loss of energy/airspeed.
It is also a fundamental maneuver used in air shows.

https://www.rc-airplane-world.com/image-files/416x350xrc-stall-turn.gif.pagespeed.ic.C4mhmAsaze.png

Well.....You did wanna know......
Cya soon Dave!
"Tight lines!" 
Wes

You mean it is a fancy name for a wingover?  Bit like a chandell(sp).  I am not shortening my lines and adding tip weight for a wingover!

Ken

[Randy Cuberly]

The whifferdill is a basic aerial warfare maneuver that is used to reverse course in a dogfight with very little loss of energy/airspeed.
It is also a fundamental maneuver used in air shows.

https://www.rc-airplane-world.com/image-files/416x350xrc-stall-turn.gif.pagespeed.ic.C4mhmAsaze.png

Well.....You did wanna know......
Cya soon Dave!
"Tight lines!" 
Wes

Hmmmmm......Looks suspiciously like a simple stall turn...No?  Lots of those in the "turn around pattern"!

Randy Cuberly

[Dennis Moritz]

An obsession due to a weakness of character. Save yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Randy Cuberly]

An obsession due to a weakness of character. Save yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OH, I did!  I quit that nasty stuff many years ago when it became obvious that money was more important than skill!

Randy Cuberly

[Trostle]

The way I understand Joe Blowhard's Triple Whifferdill is that it is supposed to be some sort of a triple derivative of something like a Lomcovak adapted to control line.

Keith

[Randy Cuberly]

The way I understand Joe Blowhard's Triple Whifferdill is that it is supposed to be some sort of a triple derivative of something like a Lomcovak adapted to control line.

Keith

HUH, is that really possible???

Sounds "fishy" to me!   


Randy Cuberly

[Trostle]

HUH, is that really possible???

Sounds "fishy" to me!   

Randy Cuberly

That is why only Joe Blowhard knows what perfection is for that maneuver and only he can do it and he is the only one that understands it.  Then, the question is how is a judge to know how well it was really performed?  That is the problem with any proposed "freestyle" CL Stunt event.

Keith

[Ken Culbertson]

The way I understand Joe Blowhard's Triple Whifferdill is that it is supposed to be some sort of a triple derivative of something like a Lomcovak adapted to control line.

Keith

You mean we can get points for a badly warped wing?

[Randy Cuberly]

You mean we can get points for a badly warped wing?

No!  If you could I might have finished higher than 11th at VSC this past year!       

Randy Cuberly

[katana]

  Anyway how are we to judge one against another when nobody is doing the same thing?  That's where 'precision ' comes in instead of free-for-all.  We'd have to retire the Walker Cup because the game would have changed.  To me it's like changing major league baseball to softball.  The record books end and Cooperstown closes.

Dave

But you would be flying the same individual elements just in different order / sequence! Aerobatics has always been about precision yes but also artistic flair - stringing the elements together that is pleasing and to generate an artistic interpretation score.
Jeez - some of you guys bitch loud and hard about building your own planes to fly in competition and how they look from 4 feet away when half the time it hard to work out if they are right way up or inverted from 100 feet away - only direction of flight giving it away!
It was a question, no need to get stressed out about it but most of you realise CL flying isn't in the ascendency and those that do it are not in the 1st flush of youth - but the ones that are, are of the 'playstation generation' where life isn't so rigidly fixed - adaptation and variation is not only possible but encouraged ............. ignore it at your peril!

[Dan Berry]

ignore it

Indeed.

[Dave_Trible]

But you would be flying the same individual elements just in different order / sequence! Aerobatics has always been about precision yes but also artistic flair - stringing the elements together that is pleasing and to generate an artistic interpretation score.
Jeez - some of you guys bitch loud and hard about building your own planes to fly in competition and how they look from 4 feet away when half the time it hard to work out if they are right way up or inverted from 100 feet away - only direction of flight giving it away!
It was a question, no need to get stressed out about it but most of you realise CL flying isn't in the ascendency and those that do it are not in the 1st flush of youth - but the ones that are, are of the 'playstation generation' where life isn't so rigidly fixed - adaptation and variation is not only possible but encouraged ............. ignore it at your peril!

This comes up every now and again-usually from the newer-comers (and dang glad you are here!!).  I think it may take some seasoning to fully appreciate the technical discipline and effort involved to excel at the high end of this game.  That includes judging.  It's difficult enough to assign a fair score in the 5-8 seconds when you KNOW what's coming next.  I think many of us might think about changing it when we are all regularly flying 600+ scores.  For a crowd event we wouldn't need judges-just judge it based on crowd applause should there be any.  This is about outstanding personal performance and achievement, not crowd entertainment.  Sure it's not for everyone but I must say changing a few maneuvers around won't help that-it will still all look the same to those not familiar.  This younger generation simply has other varied (VERY VARIED) interests and DON'T have a good hobby shop in their neighborhoods.  My experience is also that you might be able to drown youngsters in our hobby culture but if they don't have the 'gene', they just don't.  Hope you do!

Dave

[Steve Helmick]

This comes up every now and again-usually from the newer-comers (and dang glad you are here!!).  I think it may take some seasoning to fully appreciate the technical discipline and effort involved to excel at the high end of this game.  That includes judging.  It's difficult enough to assign a fair score in the 5-8 seconds when you KNOW what's coming next.  I think many of us might think about changing it when we are all regularly flying 600+ scores.  For a crowd event we wouldn't need judges-just judge it based on crowd applause should there be any.  This is about outstanding personal performance and achievement, not crowd entertainment.  Sure it's not for everyone but I must say changing a few maneuvers around won't help that-it will still all look the same to those not familiar.  This younger generation simply has other varied (VERY VARIED) interests and DON'T have a good hobby shop in their neighborhoods.  My experience is also that you might be able to drown youngsters in our hobby culture but if they don't have the 'gene', they just don't.  Hope you do!

Dave

Well said, Dave. All too true. No way the judging crew could apply a score when they don't know what the maneuver being attempted is. Plus, how would they give a score for an intended maneuver that was aborted or incomplete?

Especially in the lower skill classes, that stuff happens, and sometimes it's tough enough just to figure out what the heck that was supposed to be, when we have the list and name of the standard maneuvers. "Was that a Triangle? Did he skip the squares? Was that supposed to be a square 8?"...etc. These are things most judges have heard or asked of the other judge. What fun we have!  Steve   

[Trostle]

HUH, is that really possible???

Sounds "fishy" to me!   


Randy Cuberly

Well, part of the maneuver has been solved with the control line design called the Flapjack, Model airplane News, August 1950, where the entire model could roll on it longitudinal axis.

Keith

[John Rist]

We could all convert to Bi Slobs for stunt contests.  Then we could add the tail bump maneuver and a plop landing.  The whole pattern could be flown in the "box" like RC.  The crowds would love us!          

PS Don't knock the present way of doing things until you try and learn the pattern.  I learned to fly in 1954 and still haven't learned the pattern..  I am in the process of working on the beginners pattern.  No mater how long you have been flying it fun to learn and improve.  So quit analyzing go go FLY!   

[Chris Wilson]

What is wrong with something like figure skating?

Just do recognised items in an artistic random order.

[Ken Culbertson]

What is wrong with something like figure skating?

Just do recognized items in an artistic random order.

Judging - Ice Skating (at the higher levels) uses video replay and computers.  It also takes about 10 years of intense "apprenticeship"/training to be a national Skating judge.

Ken

[Dan Berry]

Judging - Ice Skating (at the higher levels) uses video replay and computers.  It also takes about 10 years of intense "apprenticeship"/training to be a national Skating judge.

Ken

And bribery money.

[Ken Culbertson]

And bribery money.

You've been there too I see!