This article is dedicated to Tom Dixon, who has been a champion of “Stunt Minimalism” for decades. I also need to tell everyone that I was incorrect in my previous CLW article and Tom informed me that the Double Star 60 SE is still in production and that he has units available.
Stunt Minimalism
Technology in sporting events can be very inviting. In fact, the lure of technology is as old as sports itself. Whether it be the latest titanium headed golf driver that is as big as your head or the corked bat, it seems there is always some new “piece of gear” that promises to give the player that little edge that will allow him to dominate all of his opponents. Seemingly over every horizon is that miracle bullet that will fix all of the inadequacies of the player’s game.
The idea that one can somehow “buy” a better finish in a sporting event is certainly a very real concept. This is especially true here in America, where the population is constantly inundated with marketing meant to drive us to buy and consume whatever the market has to offer. Entire industries have been built around the need to influence consumers to buy this thing or that thing, and the methods that these industries use to influence consumers are very powerful. Even our government uses these same marketing techniques (sadly for our republic) to influence voters. In fact we are surrounded by people telling us what to think and do. This is no more evident than in sports. The Nike swoosh represents “winning” as much as any icon in the history of the world… and you too can borrow a little of that icon’s magic for a small fee. If nothing else, you can look cool losing.
The idea that a player *must* have a certain level of technology to be “competitive” in sporting events is also a very real idea. Not only do I feel that this technology is a pre-requisite idea to success is incorrect, I feel it is many times destructive to the success of the sport itself.
For an outside example, many people may not realize that Tiger Woods was using his old set of Titleist irons and his favorite old Titleist driver with a steel shaft when he dominated the entire golfing world from 1999 to 2001. This period of utter domination has not been duplicated since, even by Tiger. Even after Tiger abandoned the tools that worked in 2001 for new, higher tech and unproven tools in 2002, his ability to dominate did not elevate…quite the contrary. At the time, very few people talked about Tiger’s 1999-2001 technology gaps (except for the other players, including Phil Mickelson who claimed that he would narrow the gap with new technology-which he did not). Interestingly, due to a very effective marketing campaign I am sure most people know that Tiger Woods now plays Nike clubs; even those who do not play golf…you can hardly see Tiger without a big Swoosh plastered somewhere.
Competitive stunt flying is a sport, and certainly has no immunity from this “you *must* have a certain level of technology to be competitive” idea. This sentiment is bantered around a lot in stunt circles (many times within ear shot of current judges or future judges). I am not a big fan of this practice. Admittedly, this is a pet peeve of mine, as I have never been much of a fan of the “elitist” aspects of stunt. The idea that a contestant must conform to the “in thing” to be accepted or have the judges “buy” a performance by meeting some ancillary pre-requisite requirements has always been the thing that I disliked about stunt the most. I feel that this type of elitism is poison to all judged sports and should be purged at every opportunity…but that is another discussion altogether.
Now I will introduce the concept of “Minimalism”.
“Minimalism” is a term that I stole from my other sport, disc golf. Disc golf is a relatively new sport in the entire lexicon of sports, and my brother refers to these kinds of activities as “X Games” sports. Disc golf is basically about forty years old, and the technology of the sport has accelerated logarithmically. Flying disc design has progressed from basically heavy Whamo Frisbees to ultra thin flat plated, wide winged, high speed, flying missile like discs. For the first twenty years of the sport, disc design changed very little, but then disc design started to leap frog as the popularity of the sport progressed and manufacturers made more and more money. Now, new ever faster drivers are introduced every single year, in fact sometimes twice a year, and the manufacturers inundate the players with new discs promising more distance and playability. As a result people buy discs… lots of discs. There is nothing wrong with this; it is great for the sport to have lots of “gear” that can be had. People do love their consumption!
The problem is that most of these new high tech discs are beyond the abilities of the average player. As a cruel twist of aerodynamic fate, the faster a disc goes, the faster it must be thrown to get it to “go”. If a player throws a fast disc too slow and it just falls out of the sky and the disc never “glides”. In addition, the faster the disc, the more directionally sensitive the disc becomes (read that as “it is harder to throw straight”). I really do not want to get into a discussion of golf disc design, but just suffice it to say that most people are swinging a 36 oz major league bat when they should be swinging a 22 oz kiddy's bat. The average batter might get the ball to collide with the big bat on occasion for a home run, but it is infinitely inferior for getting base hits. Anyone who is a fan of baseball will know that it is consistent base hits puts points on the scoreboard.
“Disc minimalism” is a concept that was invented by my friend Blake Tukkanen at Discgolfreview.com (if you ever decide to try the great sport of disc golf I encourage you to check out his site). The term “minimalism” was invented to specifically address several equipment related issues:
1.The level of technology needed to perform well is actually very low. Avoiding faddish technology allows the player to fully evolve as a competent player.
2.The average player is constantly being inundated with alluring new technology that statistically will not improve their games. This is easily proven by taking a student into a field and throwing high tech discs next to low tech discs and marking where they land. It takes no time at all to see that the high tech discs often worsen performance despite the promise to the contrary.
3.The best players developed their skills using low tech equipment. Most of the competent players in the modern era actually developed their games using very basic, low tech equipment that changed very little for years and years (even decades in some cases).
4.The best players do not rely on technology to dominate. They do not need too, they are the best. See #3.
5.Every piece of equipment has a specific function. Learn how to use it.
Blake basically maintains that in the pragmatic sense, disc technology peaked some time ago, despite the constant onslaught of “new and improved” designs. This is especially true for the average player. Even though the new disc technology benefits the professional the most, they actually use new technology very little. In fact, most of the best modern players use discs that were designed in the 1990’s for the vast majority of their shots, even in the major championships. Many of the best players could play nearly any course in the world with a *putter* and beat 99.97% of all disc golfers on the planet. NOTE: When I played in college in the 1980’s today’s putters were drivers.
Blake’s “minimalism” philosophy also addresses the player and how he uses his tools to play the game. Many clichés can describe this other side of the philosophy. A few that come to mind are “less is more”, “more is not better…better is better”, and “play the game”. In a nut shell, Minimalism demands that the player learn to throw *all* of the shots with basic, consistent disc designs. The idea being that this is how the good players got good.
Interestingly, many of the top modern disc golf professionals grew up in the era of *forced* minimalism. Most of today’s top players did not have 30 different discs to throw in a round, each one tuned for this curve or that curve. In fact, they cut their teeth and honed their skills with very basic discs, many times only one or two discs, used for years and years at a time. They simply had no choice. As a result, they learned how to *throw* well. At the same time, they learned how to throw *hard* and *pure* with discs that are infinitely more forgiving than the modern “whiz bang” technology which added to the consistency of their games, and ultimately, their confidence. As a result, they have the best combination of “do more” (more skill) and “with less” (simpler, more forgiving equipment).
So, that is enough about Frisbees, let’s talk “Stunt Minimalism”.
The level of technology needed to perform well is actually very low. The ugly truth is that control line flying stunt is *not* a high tech game. It simply is not. It never has been. In fact, the modern pattern, which is flown at 55 to 60 mph, has not changed in 40 years. As a result, the baseline requirements for the equipment required to successfully fly the event has not changed one single bit in that entire time. In my experience, I cannot say that the equipment/pilot paradigm has shifted radically into the modern era. Does the modern stunt ship fly “better” than the classic or Super Seventies era stunt ship? I am not so sure… in fact, I believe there might be ample evidence to show the contrary. Just watch the top pilots flying their Classic competition planes if you want to see for yourself. I could assert that Billy Werwage flew his ST 40 powered Vulcan better than any plane he ever built. In fact, Bob Geiseke accomplished more with a Nobler and Fox 35 than he did with all the other designs and equipment used since.
I know for myself, I have been nothing less than shocked about the performance of classic era equipment in modern times. In the last year, I attended two contests. In both contests the two best running engines I saw were both McCoy 40’s. You simply could not make a better performing stunt engine, in my opinion. There I said it… A manufacturer could make an engine that would last longer, or put out more power, but I do not believe that the quality of run has been improved upon since the McCoy 40 (in determining "quality of run" I look at run symmetry, consistent break, torque, line tension, penetration, and wind performance).
The average player is constantly being inundated with alluring new technology that statistically will not improve their games. I know of several people who have switched from the large 65 and 75 powered pipe planes to smaller classic era planes with a modern, slightly oversized engines and their flying improved and there consistency greatly improved. I am sure it would not be all that unusual if those same people were to meet up with a stranger from out of town that they might hear “wow, you'd be really good if you had a 75 powered pipe plane!!!” If someone tries to tell you that you *must* have XXX piece of gear to compete, you might be best served to just turn on your heels and walk away .
The best players developed their skills using low tech equipment. Many of the top modern stunt flyers had decades of “Stunt Minimalism”. Many of the top flyers competing today spent years and years flying simple to build, inexpensive airplanes with very basic finishes and low tech power plants. Many flew kit planes or modified kit planes with simple dope finishes, had one kind of fuel, a 1950’s era designed engine, and flipped their wood propeller with a naked finger. Yet, many of those same flyers will tell up and coming pilots that they need a 750 square inch 19 point airplane, a $400 engine, a $50 prop, etc to “move up”. Today, we are very fortunate that there are many good ARF and ARC alternatives to get people flying a lot of aggressive practice. If you are at that stage where you feel you are ready to really improve, or if you are afraid to fly in bad conditions or low to the ground, I really suggest that you build yourself three identical ARF's this winter and fly them until they are worn out or until you crash them all while flying in 30 MPH winds. The lack of effort in the building of an ARC or ARF can greatly offset the fear factor in practice. Nothing will make a pilot more “gunshy” about flying aggressively than a new, perfectly finished, $1500 airplane. Although it might go against conventional wisdom or tradition, I think many pilots go to “pretty” planes too soon in their stunt careers (I know I did). As a result, they learn to fly “timid” or even “afraid” (certainly not relaxed) because their main focus becomes protecting their 18 point beauty rather than being able to practice with four foot bottoms in 20 MPH winds.
The best players do not rely on technology to dominate. The idea that “so and so hot shot flyer” won XX number of contests with this YY technology speaks more to the ability of flyer than it does to the technology. Most of the top flyers have won with many different kinds of technologies. In fact, some of the best flyers use unproven equipment just to say they “did it first”, not because it is the best equipment available.
Every piece of equipment has a specific function. It is extremely important to clearly define the goals of the equipment and *understand* how it works. Truly understand it (read that again). I can relay a story about myself that might demonstrate what I mean. The last few years in my stunt career (I am actually in competitive hiatus) have largely been exploratory in very specific ways. I have been trying to understand more clearly “why” some stunt equipment combinations work, and others do not. As a result, I certainly found many combinations that worked very marginally, most all of my own design (ha ha). None have been the “magic bullet” that I was looking for that would catapult me to world domination.
I will leave you with this.
One of the most enlightening things I did was take one engine (a PA 65) and move it from plane to plane to plane. You readers might not have any idea how unbelievably enlightening that exercise really is. I flew thin winged planes, fat winged planes, heavy planes, light planes, big planes, little planes, tuned pipe installed, muffler installed, large props, small props, high nitro, low nitro, high RPM, low RPM, etc, etc, etc. All the while I was using “forced minimalism” by never changing the engine. The engine was the “constant” in the laboratory experiment (a requirement of my informal scientific method). Most people have no concept of how much the airplane design and weight affect the engine and how it performs in the pattern. Historically, while I marveled at other flyer’s engine runs, I invariably could not duplicate what they were doing. I would also copy other designer’s airplane designs, all the while having no idea why their designs were so effective.
Well, those days are for the most part gone now. I can honestly say that I understand what I want to achieve and how to achieve it… or at minimum, at least I am not blindly ping pong-ing from magic bullet to magic bullet under the delusion that superiority is just a credit card charge away.
In another case, my friend Brian Eather has been doing something similar for years. He has a “mule” airplane that is very similar dimensionally to his current competition model. The weight is also very similar to his current model. Using this mule, Brian has to date, tested 22 different stunt engines in that same model! He has tested 22 engines that range from 51 to 81, from every manufacturer in the market today. In his experiments, the airplane is the constant, and by using that constant he is indeed, comparing apples to apples.
While testing every motor on the market may be a challenge for most us, a much simpler exercise is to take a heat gun and pitch gauge to the practice field. You will need these tools to re-pitch your carbon fiber propeller in between flights. No going home to change the propeller is allowed. Also, no changing to *another* propeller is allowed either. I bet I could count the number of people who have actually done this exercise on one hand, even though it is so simple (in fact I beg people to try it and there are few takers). As a result, very few people actually understand how pitch *on the SAME propeller* effects the load on the *same* engine, and how the airplane will react in the same conditions. Well, I have done this dozens of times. In the case of the PA 65 (sans tuned pipe), which is a very forgiving engine in terms of useable RPM range, the results were extremely enlightening. For the most part, changing the pitch from flight to flight did very little at all except to change the RPM at which the engine performed. With the engine set to the same break point (say slightly 4-2 breaking on the ground every few seconds) in general the greater the pitch, the greater the load, the lower the RPM. That was the only real effect. While using a 13” three blade propeller, the performance changed very little from 5 to 6.5 pitch. The lap times stayed the same, and the 4-2 break stayed the same (although wind up could be increased with sufficient pitch) but the RPM was different. The only thing that effectively changed the lap times and penetration at the same 4-2 break setting (without modifying the engine in some way) was a smaller diameter propeller. The only way go faster at the same break point was to use a smaller propeller. That was one very simple thing, but this knowledge is very valuable
Remember, having fun is the goal. Getting better is a goal, too. Minimalism is here to help.
Topic: Stunt Minimalism (final draft for CLW) (Read 4642 times)